6 ms·

Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked and

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked and there is tons of evidence to suggest it’s illegitimately sourced by agents directly directed by Trump, from sources with active incentives to try to damage Biden. It is responsible to decline to run this story. It only serves to feed conspiracy theories and drive disinformation opportunities right at the time of an election. I am really disappointed with Greenwald here.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Oh please. Let's try to keep the "post-truth" ethos on the Right, rather than adopting it ourselves, mmkay?
- kev_da_dev 6y ago
  You are far too late on this one, sir. It's been thoroughly adopted by both sides of the aisle.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Most of those adopting it on the "Democrat" side of the aisle, I wouldn't call on the Left.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  Is it your presumption that only people not "on the Right" are allowed on HN?
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    My presumption is that someone on the Right would not be making these specific misleading claims. Don't worry, I am well aware that there are quite a few right-wingers here.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Absolutely not. Your comment is absolutely not describing the world. This story has been completely debunked. I welcome real facts suggesting otherwise, but there truly aren’t any. This story is not being cut because of Evil Democrat Socialites. It’s cut because it truly, really, actually is debunked by well-regarded professional journalists at many other trusted outlets. Greenwald has spent the last four years on a bizarre war path against the Democratic establishment. This is just more of the same.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > This story has been completely debunked. The "story" (at least that I am referring to) is that Hunter Biden had these emails and they were released. Is your claim that the emails were forgeries? If not, the NYPost story had relevant, true, information of public interest. If you're discussing the broader context of the Ukraine prosecutor firing, I agree that there is strong evidence that Biden was not pushing for his firing in response to circumstantial evidence of pressure from his son or anything. Not, to me, strong enough to consider the claim "completely debunked."
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      The pushed story is that those emails implicate Joe Biden or otherwise call into question his involvement with foreign interests. It has been completely debunked - the emails do not contain any suggestion, evidence or information that in any way implicates Joe Biden in activity that even might have impropriety, let alone actual impropriety. Nobody’s saying the emails don’t exist. They appear to have been up for sale in Ukraine for at least a year, suggesting that the Giuliani “found it in Delaware” story is possibly a lie, but the emails exist nonetheless. Their content has no bearing or connection to Joe Biden. Drawing that line would be deliberate misinformation purely for election destabilization.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        > Their content has no bearing or connection to Joe Biden. Drawing that line would be deliberate misinformation purely for election destabilization. The emails mention his father, a meeting, etc. There's obviously some connection, but claiming that the emails are referencing a meeting with Joe is not "deliberate misinformation." I'm sorry, but it's just pretty clear that your threshold for what constitutes a "debunking" is much lower than mine. It's a stupid reason to not vote for Biden anyways, but I think it is better to be honest.
jMyles 6y ago
> The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Although I've been following this story, I am not familiar with this round debunking. I realize that the email headers are not available, but have the emails decisively been shown to be illegitimate? Or just difficult to verify?
- dkural 6y ago
  If I produce a random TXT file saying jMyles is doing BIG BAD THING X, is it on you to show it is illegitimate? No, it is on whomever is producing this to show it is in fact a real email, from a real source, and not just something they made up on MS Word to win an election, especially if they make up things a mile a minute.
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    > If I produce a random TXT file saying jMyles is doing BIG BAD THING X, is it on you to show it is illegitimate? It's on him to deny it, yes. He doesn't have to prove that it's illegitimate, but if he doesn't even say so, then that's reason enough to assume it's true.
    - cure 6y ago
      Seems like there would be a bit of a risk for a personal DDOS attack by that logic? This attitude doesn't seem reasonable. Anyone can make up random nonsense about someone else (no federal libel laws in the US...). Acknowledging the nonsense will only legitimize it. Why should the subject of the nonsense have to invest time and energy in debunking/denying it?
      - jMyles 6y ago
        I'm simply looking for a more thorough explanation of the claim that "the entire spectrum of claims regarding Hunter Biden has been roundly debunked". Bubolinski, a recipient on the emails recovered from the laptop, has confirmed that those sent to him are genuine. Has that claim been debunked? If you are simply saying that the evidence isn't strong enough to say one way or another, fine. But "roundly debunked" means, at least to me, that there has been an investigation and that the factual claims have in some way been shown to be false. That, to my knowledge, hasn't actually happened. And sure, "anyone can make up random nonsense", but these claims aren't being made by "anyone", but by people with closeness to the situation that not just anyone can claim. And they aren't random nonsense; they are part of a pattern of explaining how a family has become fabulously rich on a 176k salary.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Oh please. Let's try to keep the "post-truth" ethos on the Right, rather than adopting it ourselves, mmkay?

kev_da_dev 6y ago
You are far too late on this one, sir. It's been thoroughly adopted by both sides of the aisle.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Most of those adopting it on the "Democrat" side of the aisle, I wouldn't call on the Left.
jtbayly 6y ago
Is it your presumption that only people not "on the Right" are allowed on HN?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  My presumption is that someone on the Right would not be making these specific misleading claims. Don't worry, I am well aware that there are quite a few right-wingers here.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Absolutely not. Your comment is absolutely not describing the world. This story has been completely debunked. I welcome real facts suggesting otherwise, but there truly aren’t any. This story is not being cut because of Evil Democrat Socialites. It’s cut because it truly, really, actually is debunked by well-regarded professional journalists at many other trusted outlets. Greenwald has spent the last four years on a bizarre war path against the Democratic establishment. This is just more of the same.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > This story has been completely debunked. The "story" (at least that I am referring to) is that Hunter Biden had these emails and they were released. Is your claim that the emails were forgeries? If not, the NYPost story had relevant, true, information of public interest. If you're discussing the broader context of the Ukraine prosecutor firing, I agree that there is strong evidence that Biden was not pushing for his firing in response to circumstantial evidence of pressure from his son or anything. Not, to me, strong enough to consider the claim "completely debunked."
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    The pushed story is that those emails implicate Joe Biden or otherwise call into question his involvement with foreign interests. It has been completely debunked - the emails do not contain any suggestion, evidence or information that in any way implicates Joe Biden in activity that even might have impropriety, let alone actual impropriety. Nobody’s saying the emails don’t exist. They appear to have been up for sale in Ukraine for at least a year, suggesting that the Giuliani “found it in Delaware” story is possibly a lie, but the emails exist nonetheless. Their content has no bearing or connection to Joe Biden. Drawing that line would be deliberate misinformation purely for election destabilization.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > Their content has no bearing or connection to Joe Biden. Drawing that line would be deliberate misinformation purely for election destabilization. The emails mention his father, a meeting, etc. There's obviously some connection, but claiming that the emails are referencing a meeting with Joe is not "deliberate misinformation." I'm sorry, but it's just pretty clear that your threshold for what constitutes a "debunking" is much lower than mine. It's a stupid reason to not vote for Biden anyways, but I think it is better to be honest.

jMyles 6y ago

> The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Although I've been following this story, I am not familiar with this round debunking. I realize that the email headers are not available, but have the emails decisively been shown to be illegitimate? Or just difficult to verify?

dkural 6y ago
If I produce a random TXT file saying jMyles is doing BIG BAD THING X, is it on you to show it is illegitimate? No, it is on whomever is producing this to show it is in fact a real email, from a real source, and not just something they made up on MS Word to win an election, especially if they make up things a mile a minute.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  > If I produce a random TXT file saying jMyles is doing BIG BAD THING X, is it on you to show it is illegitimate? It's on him to deny it, yes. He doesn't have to prove that it's illegitimate, but if he doesn't even say so, then that's reason enough to assume it's true.
  - cure 6y ago
    Seems like there would be a bit of a risk for a personal DDOS attack by that logic? This attitude doesn't seem reasonable. Anyone can make up random nonsense about someone else (no federal libel laws in the US...). Acknowledging the nonsense will only legitimize it. Why should the subject of the nonsense have to invest time and energy in debunking/denying it?
    - jMyles 6y ago
      I'm simply looking for a more thorough explanation of the claim that "the entire spectrum of claims regarding Hunter Biden has been roundly debunked". Bubolinski, a recipient on the emails recovered from the laptop, has confirmed that those sent to him are genuine. Has that claim been debunked? If you are simply saying that the evidence isn't strong enough to say one way or another, fine. But "roundly debunked" means, at least to me, that there has been an investigation and that the factual claims have in some way been shown to be false. That, to my knowledge, hasn't actually happened. And sure, "anyone can make up random nonsense", but these claims aren't being made by "anyone", but by people with closeness to the situation that not just anyone can claim. And they aren't random nonsense; they are part of a pattern of explaining how a family has become fabulously rich on a 176k salary.