3 ms·

> 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 nationa

by 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.

lliamander 6y ago
>> > and at least one claim was ruled innacurate/misleading in court > As said, not disproven. Those are some impressive gymnastics. Allow me to quote the NYT from this year: "The Steele dossier was deeply flawed. For example, it included a claim that Mr. Trump’s former lawyer Michael D. Cohen had met with a Russian intelligence officer in Prague to discuss collusion with the campaign. The report by the special counsel who took over the Russia investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, found that Mr. Cohen never traveled to Prague." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenk... You are making assertions about the dossier that are demonstrably false and defending a document which is now rightly treated cautiously at best by most mainstream media. But the reason I bring up the dossier now is that, despite it's salacious, unverified claims and (initially) unkown source, mainstream media outlets all felt it was perfectly reasonable to report on it. Yet, when it comes to Hunter Biden's laptop (which the FBI publicly stated they have in their possession) suddenly it would be improper to even acknowledge it's existence or the implications of its contents. > Yes, by Republicans terrified of a compromised criminal taking over their party. Have you always thought of Republicans as really honest and above board people, or are you only finding "a strange new respect" for them when they do something you approve of? > There is 0 evidence any of the leaked emails are from a laptop. Perhaps you are having trouble comprehending. Let me try one more time: - The FBI admits they have Hunter Biden's laptop in their possession [1] - Both the FBI and DOJ assert there is no reason to believe this is part of a Russian disinformation campaign [1] - Hunter's lawyers asked for the laptop back from the repair shop [2] - Recipients of some of the emails have already confirmed they came from Hunter (see interview with Tony Bobulinski) - This is not the first time that Hunter has left a laptop somewhere [3] - No one associated with the Bidens has ever claimed that the laptop/emails did not belong to Hunter [3] - The Washington Post has acknowledged that this likely isn't a foreign intelligence operation [4] Certainly there are reasons to be skeptical, and no crime by Joe Biden has been proven yet (though his son will probably go to jail for FARA violations at least). But your position is frankly untenable and strikes me as willful ignorance. [1] https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1318673941624426497 https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1318673941624426497 [2] https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1317319606126604288 https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1317319606126604288 [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-happened-when-nbc-news-tried-report-alleged-n1245533 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-h... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-biden-laptop-disinformation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-bid...
- seppin 6y ago
  That's because you think a raw intelligence dossier complied by a top professional is the same thing as an ABSURD laptop story created to launder Russian military-hacked emails for political purposes in order to be 2020's equivalent of Wikileaks. In your mind, it's all politics and you're just standing up for your side's dirty tricks against the other side's dirty tricks. Except you are wrong. The laptop story is an obvious cover, and the dossier was never meant to be public. It was given to the FBI as a matter of national security (Steele was genuinely worried the US was about to elect a dangerously-compromised criminal) then leaked post-election because the FBI sat on it. > Let me try one more time: Not a single point you listed is anything beyond circumstantial evidence. There is "a" laptop. The contents have been been confirmed by anyone at the FBI or by Biden himself. You are relying on wikileaks-esk "drops" from political operatives seeking a Trump re-election. You are being fooled, but you are asking to be fooled.

by seppin 6y ago

lliamander 6y ago

>> > and at least one claim was ruled innacurate/misleading in court > As said, not disproven. Those are some impressive gymnastics. Allow me to quote the NYT from this year: "The Steele dossier was deeply flawed. For example, it included a claim that Mr. Trump’s former lawyer Michael D. Cohen had met with a Russian intelligence officer in Prague to discuss collusion with the campaign. The report by the special counsel who took over the Russia investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, found that Mr. Cohen never traveled to Prague." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenk... You are making assertions about the dossier that are demonstrably false and defending a document which is now rightly treated cautiously at best by most mainstream media. But the reason I bring up the dossier now is that, despite it's salacious, unverified claims and (initially) unkown source, mainstream media outlets all felt it was perfectly reasonable to report on it. Yet, when it comes to Hunter Biden's laptop (which the FBI publicly stated they have in their possession) suddenly it would be improper to even acknowledge it's existence or the implications of its contents. > Yes, by Republicans terrified of a compromised criminal taking over their party. Have you always thought of Republicans as really honest and above board people, or are you only finding "a strange new respect" for them when they do something you approve of? > There is 0 evidence any of the leaked emails are from a laptop. Perhaps you are having trouble comprehending. Let me try one more time: - The FBI admits they have Hunter Biden's laptop in their possession [1] - Both the FBI and DOJ assert there is no reason to believe this is part of a Russian disinformation campaign [1] - Hunter's lawyers asked for the laptop back from the repair shop [2] - Recipients of some of the emails have already confirmed they came from Hunter (see interview with Tony Bobulinski) - This is not the first time that Hunter has left a laptop somewhere [3] - No one associated with the Bidens has ever claimed that the laptop/emails did not belong to Hunter [3] - The Washington Post has acknowledged that this likely isn't a foreign intelligence operation [4] Certainly there are reasons to be skeptical, and no crime by Joe Biden has been proven yet (though his son will probably go to jail for FARA violations at least). But your position is frankly untenable and strikes me as willful ignorance. [1] https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1318673941624426497 https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1318673941624426497 [2] https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1317319606126604288 https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1317319606126604288 [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-happened-when-nbc-news-tried-report-alleged-n1245533 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-h... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-biden-laptop-disinformation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-bid...

seppin 6y ago
That's because you think a raw intelligence dossier complied by a top professional is the same thing as an ABSURD laptop story created to launder Russian military-hacked emails for political purposes in order to be 2020's equivalent of Wikileaks. In your mind, it's all politics and you're just standing up for your side's dirty tricks against the other side's dirty tricks. Except you are wrong. The laptop story is an obvious cover, and the dossier was never meant to be public. It was given to the FBI as a matter of national security (Steele was genuinely worried the US was about to elect a dangerously-compromised criminal) then leaked post-election because the FBI sat on it. > Let me try one more time: Not a single point you listed is anything beyond circumstantial evidence. There is "a" laptop. The contents have been been confirmed by anyone at the FBI or by Biden himself. You are relying on wikileaks-esk "drops" from political operatives seeking a Trump re-election. You are being fooled, but you are asking to be fooled.