3 ms·

> To be clear, giuliani has refused to give the contents to anyone in the press. I can't speak for Giuliani, and I agree that his involvement in this is strang

> To be clear, giuliani has refused to give the contents to anyone in the press. I can't speak for Giuliani, and I agree that his involvement in this is strange, but NYP, Daily Caller, and National Pulse have all offered to share the contents of the drive with other journalists. I don't know to what extent they have been taken up on it. > The Daily Caller (an extension of the Trump campaign) isn't to be trusted. No rational person would expect this to prove anything. To assume that the news agencies that ran with the Steele dossier or the "Fine People" hoax have some fundamentally higher standard of journalistic standards than smaller right-wing publications is a bit rich. But I fully realize you wouldn't trust them directly. The point is that it's not just the reputation of these outlets now, but people without a partisan axe to grind like Robert Graham[1] and Tony Bobulinski who are providing evidence for the authenticity of the emails recovered. > Also, Hunter's emails and photos were circulated in Ukraine last year to the highest bidder. Irrelevant. All evidence so far points to the laptop (which is genuinely Hunter Biden's) being the source of these emails. The DOJ has already acknowledged that it received (what I believe is the original) laptop drive, and they have been pursuing an active criminal investigation against Hunter since last year. The DOJ, State Department, and DNI all have said there is no evidence of foreign involvement, and even a Washington Post journalist has acknowledged that this likely isn't the result of foreign interference. > And no one is buying it. Wishful thinking. [1]https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim

seppin 6y ago
> I can't speak for Giuliani, and I agree that his involvement in this is strange, but NYP, Daily Caller, and National Pulse have all offered to share the contents of the drive with other journalists. I don't know to what extent they have been taken up on it. They are offering to share the cherry-picked communications meant to smear someone, are you actually surprised real journalists aren't taking the bait? If you actually care, ask yourself why Giuliani hasn't shared the entire drive with anyone besides far-right media dedicated to helping Trump get reelected. > To assume that 1. Nothing from the dossier has been disproven. Many things have been corroborated. https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective 2. Buzzfeed isn't the NYT. You confuse the two, I dont know why. > Irrelevant Lol. The origins of the data was a hack of Hunter Biden's iCloud (photos) and a GRU hack of Burisma (emails), the laptop cover story is laughable, and the best you can muster is "Irrelevant". What a joke.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > 1. Nothing from the dossier has been disproven. Many things have been corroborated. Yes, Russia engaged in a hacking operation, and seemed to favor Trump over Hillary. That's hardly sensational. None of the sensational claims alleging conspiracy or blackmail have been supported despite years of investigation, and at least one claim was ruled innacurate/misleading in court[1]. One of the main sources was also identified as a potential national security risk [2] > 2. Buzzfeed isn't the NYT. You confuse the two, I don't know why. All mainstream news outlets, including the NYT, considered the dossier worth reporting even without verification. Let's not forget that this fundamentally started as a political opposition research document. That the "lack of verification" with regard to Hunter's laptop would somehow be a justification for not reporting on it at all is a completely hypocritical stance, especially as additional news has come up (Hunter Biden former business partner Devin Archer agreeing to work with FBI, Tony Bobulinski working with the FBI, the verification of at least one email by a 3rd party security firm, etc.). > Lol. The origins of the data was a hack of Hunter Biden's iCloud (photos) and a GRU hack of Burisma (emails), the laptop cover story is laughable, and the best you can muster is "Irrelevant". I explained why it was irrelevant. If you have evidence that links that hack to the laptop hard drive contents, then I suggest you share them with the FBI. Otherwise, your reading comprehension needs some serious improvement. [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-08/billionaire-allegation-in-steele-dossier-misleading-judge-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-08/billionai... [2]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-news-media-s-steele-dossier-scandal-is-even-worse-than-you-thought/ar-BB19qX4m https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-news-media-s-ste...
  - seppin 6y ago
    > and at least one claim was ruled innacurate/misleading in court As said, not disproven. > One of the main sources was also identified as a potential national security risk The self-id'd source (Steele never confirmed) of mafia and spy secrets has a shady past. I'm shocked. > considered the dossier worth reporting even without verification The author was/is known as the single best source of Russian intelligence ops in the western world (the ex-head of MI6 in Russia). It was a raw intel doc never meant to be 100% accurate, but according to him "at least 90%". > Let's not forget that this fundamentally started as a political opposition research document. Yes, by Republicans terrified of a compromised criminal taking over their party. > If you have evidence that links that hack to the laptop hard drive contents, then I suggest you share them with the FBI. Otherwise, your reading comprehension needs some serious improvement. I can only assume you are trolling now. There is 0 evidence any of the leaked emails are from a laptop. It was reported a year ago that Burisma's emails were hacked and in circulation. The mental gymnastics you need to perform to not only think they aren't the same set of emails, but this paper-thin laughable cover story about a laptop in Delaware from a blind-shopkeep with 0 independent verification is just stunning to me. The only answer is that you are smart enough to know this is all ridiculous, but are holding on to it anyways. Dissonance is a hell of a drug.

seppin 6y ago

> I can't speak for Giuliani, and I agree that his involvement in this is strange, but NYP, Daily Caller, and National Pulse have all offered to share the contents of the drive with other journalists. I don't know to what extent they have been taken up on it. They are offering to share the cherry-picked communications meant to smear someone, are you actually surprised real journalists aren't taking the bait? If you actually care, ask yourself why Giuliani hasn't shared the entire drive with anyone besides far-right media dedicated to helping Trump get reelected. > To assume that 1. Nothing from the dossier has been disproven. Many things have been corroborated. https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective 2. Buzzfeed isn't the NYT. You confuse the two, I dont know why. > Irrelevant Lol. The origins of the data was a hack of Hunter Biden's iCloud (photos) and a GRU hack of Burisma (emails), the laptop cover story is laughable, and the best you can muster is "Irrelevant". What a joke.

lliamander 6y ago
> 1. Nothing from the dossier has been disproven. Many things have been corroborated. Yes, Russia engaged in a hacking operation, and seemed to favor Trump over Hillary. That's hardly sensational. None of the sensational claims alleging conspiracy or blackmail have been supported despite years of investigation, and at least one claim was ruled innacurate/misleading in court[1]. One of the main sources was also identified as a potential national security risk [2] > 2. Buzzfeed isn't the NYT. You confuse the two, I don't know why. All mainstream news outlets, including the NYT, considered the dossier worth reporting even without verification. Let's not forget that this fundamentally started as a political opposition research document. That the "lack of verification" with regard to Hunter's laptop would somehow be a justification for not reporting on it at all is a completely hypocritical stance, especially as additional news has come up (Hunter Biden former business partner Devin Archer agreeing to work with FBI, Tony Bobulinski working with the FBI, the verification of at least one email by a 3rd party security firm, etc.). > Lol. The origins of the data was a hack of Hunter Biden's iCloud (photos) and a GRU hack of Burisma (emails), the laptop cover story is laughable, and the best you can muster is "Irrelevant". I explained why it was irrelevant. If you have evidence that links that hack to the laptop hard drive contents, then I suggest you share them with the FBI. Otherwise, your reading comprehension needs some serious improvement. [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-08/billionaire-allegation-in-steele-dossier-misleading-judge-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-08/billionai... [2]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-news-media-s-steele-dossier-scandal-is-even-worse-than-you-thought/ar-BB19qX4m https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-news-media-s-ste...
- seppin 6y ago
  > and at least one claim was ruled innacurate/misleading in court As said, not disproven. > One of the main sources was also identified as a potential national security risk The self-id'd source (Steele never confirmed) of mafia and spy secrets has a shady past. I'm shocked. > considered the dossier worth reporting even without verification The author was/is known as the single best source of Russian intelligence ops in the western world (the ex-head of MI6 in Russia). It was a raw intel doc never meant to be 100% accurate, but according to him "at least 90%". > Let's not forget that this fundamentally started as a political opposition research document. Yes, by Republicans terrified of a compromised criminal taking over their party. > If you have evidence that links that hack to the laptop hard drive contents, then I suggest you share them with the FBI. Otherwise, your reading comprehension needs some serious improvement. I can only assume you are trolling now. There is 0 evidence any of the leaked emails are from a laptop. It was reported a year ago that Burisma's emails were hacked and in circulation. The mental gymnastics you need to perform to not only think they aren't the same set of emails, but this paper-thin laughable cover story about a laptop in Delaware from a blind-shopkeep with 0 independent verification is just stunning to me. The only answer is that you are smart enough to know this is all ridiculous, but are holding on to it anyways. Dissonance is a hell of a drug.