4 ms·

> * The allegations of corruption on Hunter Biden’s part are still considered a conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspirac

> * The allegations of corruption on Hunter Biden’s part are still considered a conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira... Breaking down Wikipedia's claims: > [...] containing purported emails of unknown authorship which suggested [...] > [...] but their authenticity and origin have not been determined [...] You can use the DKIM signature to verify that the "smoking gun" email is real - including contents, sender, and roughly when it was sent (before October 2015, when gmail changed signing key). > A reporter for The Wall Street Journal observed the PDFs' metadata showed they had been created in the fall of 2019, though the emails were supposedly from 2014 and 2015 Because a PDF compilation of emails (probably created by Mac Isaac, or NYP for their article) is not the original email file. > but once this was completed, the shop had no contact information for its owner, and nobody ever paid for it or came to pick it up [49] There are images of the quote with Hunter Biden's contact details on them, and story they cite only claims "he tried repeatedly to contact the client". > Criticism has been focused on Mac Isaac over inconsistencies in his accounts of how the laptop came into his possession and how he passed it on to Giuliani and the FBI.[49][46] The citations are Business Insider articles which both quote the same The Daily Beast article. The TDB article tries to imply contradictions with juxtaposition (like with "At one point, Mac Isaac claimed a special agent from the Baltimore office had contacted him after he alerted the FBI to the device’s existence. At another he claimed that he was emailing someone from the FBI about the laptop.") but doesn't actually present anything mutually exclusive or inconsistent with Mac Isaac's timeline of events.

strenholme 6y ago
Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? If so, feel free to edit the Wikipedia article to correct any errors of fact (or statements not backed up by the sources they are citing) in the article. Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. So far, no editors have come forward and been able to assert that Hunter Biden got a high paying job because of his father pulling strings using reliable (ideally, secondary) sources. Until such sources are found, the allegation remains a conspiracy theory.
- treesprite82 6y ago
  > Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? For my first claim: The "smoking gun email" and its DKIM signature are publicly available, and can be verified regardless of their original sources. I can guide you through the process if you wish. For my second claim: The fact that a PDF compilation of emails is not an original email file: http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html For my third claim: Given Wikpedia's claim is already contradicted (or at the very least, not supported) by their cited article, I don't see why it's included in the first place. As far as I can tell it's just been made up by some editor. The original NYP article includes: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/ComputerRepair-Invoice-Hunter-Biden-2.jpg https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Comput... For my fourth claim: Again I feel it's a matter of the original source not supporting the claims made. I have no source for, and can't claim with certainty, that Mac Isaac has never said anything contradictory in any interviews (since that's akin to proving a negative) but I can point out that the original source presents no inconsistencies. > Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. My IP range (and VPNs) are blocked, and the article is protected. If you have an existing account that meets the requirements then I'd appreciate if you could correct the article, at least on the matter of the third claim.
  - strenholme 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#DKIM_email_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_con... The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Edit: If the Wikipedia article is making an assertion not backed up by the reliable source it cites, this is something which needs to be corrected. I don’t have time to look at it right now, but maybe I’ll have some time tonight to look at it and bring up the potential issue as needed.
    - treesprite82 6y ago
      > The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Not even mentioning DKIM because of the unsupported possibility that Google's private key could be compromised (by hacker or rogue employee) is a weak excuse when opposing claims ("the shop had no contact information for its owner") just seem to be pulled out of thin air. Even if they don't want to state that it's verified (again I think the email has met a far higher standard than opposing claims already being stated definitively), at least a mention of the DKIM verification and its limitations (like how it doesn't say anything about context) is surely warranted. Also my main claim is that Wikipedia is wrong/misleading here. Something false being included in the article is still false even if they have policy reasons (like RS requirements) for doing so. I'd say that claim three does already violate their policy, but I'm not defending their policy as a perfect diviner of truth.

strenholme 6y ago

Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? If so, feel free to edit the Wikipedia article to correct any errors of fact (or statements not backed up by the sources they are citing) in the article. Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. So far, no editors have come forward and been able to assert that Hunter Biden got a high paying job because of his father pulling strings using reliable (ideally, secondary) sources. Until such sources are found, the allegation remains a conspiracy theory.

treesprite82 6y ago
> Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? For my first claim: The "smoking gun email" and its DKIM signature are publicly available, and can be verified regardless of their original sources. I can guide you through the process if you wish. For my second claim: The fact that a PDF compilation of emails is not an original email file: http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html For my third claim: Given Wikpedia's claim is already contradicted (or at the very least, not supported) by their cited article, I don't see why it's included in the first place. As far as I can tell it's just been made up by some editor. The original NYP article includes: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/ComputerRepair-Invoice-Hunter-Biden-2.jpg https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Comput... For my fourth claim: Again I feel it's a matter of the original source not supporting the claims made. I have no source for, and can't claim with certainty, that Mac Isaac has never said anything contradictory in any interviews (since that's akin to proving a negative) but I can point out that the original source presents no inconsistencies. > Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. My IP range (and VPNs) are blocked, and the article is protected. If you have an existing account that meets the requirements then I'd appreciate if you could correct the article, at least on the matter of the third claim.
- strenholme 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#DKIM_email_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_con... The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Edit: If the Wikipedia article is making an assertion not backed up by the reliable source it cites, this is something which needs to be corrected. I don’t have time to look at it right now, but maybe I’ll have some time tonight to look at it and bring up the potential issue as needed.
  - treesprite82 6y ago
    > The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Not even mentioning DKIM because of the unsupported possibility that Google's private key could be compromised (by hacker or rogue employee) is a weak excuse when opposing claims ("the shop had no contact information for its owner") just seem to be pulled out of thin air. Even if they don't want to state that it's verified (again I think the email has met a far higher standard than opposing claims already being stated definitively), at least a mention of the DKIM verification and its limitations (like how it doesn't say anything about context) is surely warranted. Also my main claim is that Wikipedia is wrong/misleading here. Something false being included in the article is still false even if they have policy reasons (like RS requirements) for doing so. I'd say that claim three does already violate their policy, but I'm not defending their policy as a perfect diviner of truth.