> 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic misinformation technique. This point only applies to the the extent that the true material isn't the acti

> 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic misinformation technique. This point only applies to the the extent that the true material isn't the activities of concern. The existence and content of the email from "v.pozharskyi.ukraine@gmail.com" to "hbiden@rosemontseneca.com" was itself directly thing people were raising a concern about, and it's something which you can check for yourself and is essentially indisputable. > 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered" through the repair shop. This seems totally irrelevant. A few months back propublic published a series of articles which exposed that they received the complete tax documentation including audits and supporting documentation for a significant fraction of the Americans (potentially all Americans, they don't specify but the description of their validation of the info doesn't make sense unless it was a very large percentage). The data was unambiguously stolen, and the distribution of tax records is a felony. No social media site censored these articles because they don't censor journalists who publish articles based on illegally obtained information. ... yet they claimed to be required to do so by their policy in the case of the Hunter Biden data. Twitter even added a separate reporting category for "hacked material" -- yet when nutball rightwing heavy sites or org get hacked and people are posting private PII from the hacks on twitter (e.g. recent EPIK hack or GAB hack) twitter takes no action in response to these reports, even for tweets whos content directly contains doxing information that would be generally prohibited under twitter's rules, even absent the hacking. Moreover, hunter could easily have made a public statement that the laptop had been stolen but did not do so. Even if the information being lawfully obtained was a consideration, it's kind of absurd to act as though it was unlawfully obtained absent a claim of that by the victim.