3 ms·
The provenance of the documents is fishy. They could have easily been hacked. But, what portions of the actual story are false? The Biden campaign's refutati
by stvswn 6y ago
The provenance of the documents is fishy. They could have easily been hacked. But, what portions of the actual story are false?
The Biden campaign's refutation was not to say that the emails were doctored. They only said that they have checked the official schedule of Joe Biden from the day in question and there is no mention of a meeting with the Burisma executive (they don't say categorically that he did not meet with him, just that it is not present on the official schedule).
Other then the meeting w/ Biden, I'm not sure there's a detail that has been specfically contested.
- lanstin 6y agoYour priors are wrong - the evidence and the people presenting it have the burden of proof not the people saying this is more bullshit from a desperate group of people who have consistently lied for years.
- stvswn 6y agoWhat burden of proof are you talking about? You're saying that a burden of proof needs to be met before what, exactly? I am not saying they have met a burden of proof, I'm saying that we don't censor news articles (even sensational or thinly sourced ones) because they haven't yet met a burden of proof.
- lanstin 6y agoA group well known for lying is pushing a story with poor provenance and you are engaging it as if it has a decent probability of being true. That is a sign your prior belief of the lying people is off - with the more realistic prior belief that liars keep lying the question is why this made up story now? Or how did they execute this lie? And yes, the key to using the internet effectively is to filter things out that are garbage. I individually try not waste my time on bullshit, truth based organizations filter out a lot of crackpots: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20190201b/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2019020... and Twitter itself is free to try to do this filtering as well. I applaud them for trying to remove BS rather than trying to push addictive content but whatever. This very news site is interesting because they spend a lot of time trying to filter BS in favor of productive and informative conversations.
- mrkstu 6y agoSo basically exactly the same as the whole Russia influencing Trump theory cooked up by Hillary's campaign that the media ran with hook, line and sinker? It also had poor provenance and an unreliable source yet the media ran with it unrestrained for years.
- epakai 6y agoHuh? The Mueller Report, Deutsche Bank, Trump Tower meetings, Russian influence in the NRA, Paul Manafort's lobbying, Trump Jr's claim of Russian funding, Trump's push for G7 membership. I don't doubt some things have been exaggerated, but I feel were pretty far past a theory right now. The question is just how much their influence affected policy.
- whateveracct 6y agoThe average HNer doesn't think those things constitute proof. In fact, the mainstream thought here (always upvoted) is that Trump is unfairly hated by the Left due to their Agenda. SV is full of .. something. idk what to call these people, but reading this forum makes it clear they are all around me in my career domain.
- generj 6y agoOn the contrary, the story of Russia contacts with the Trump campaign had excellent journalistic provenance - multiple sources from within intelligence agencies as well as a former MI6 agent willing to vouch for information he had collected. The story received additional sources as it ran, and eventually grew into an investigation that yielded multiple criminal convictions.
- colordrops 6y agoAre there names of people from any of these agencies that said this in public? What was with the "All 17 agencies claimed Russia interference" line? It was clearly not true and used as propaganda.