4 ms·

> Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that? The fact that 50 "retired intelligence officers" said it had "all the hallmar

> Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that? The fact that 50 "retired intelligence officers" said it had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation" when none of them had examined it -- do you want a citation for that? How about that Zuckerberg said, and the FBI admitted, that they warned him about a "Russian document dump"? How if you give us citations? Show us all the NYT and WaPo stories about the laptop before the election, and what page they ran on. Especially highlight the ones that talked about its content, or showed the pictures of Hunter?

wpietri 4y ago
I'm not the one making the claim of a coverup. You are, and so the burden of proof is on you. As to the first point, assuming for the moment that whatever you're quoting is a good source, the easy explanation is that what was disclosed at the time did indeed have the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. That being something that is well studied by intelligence officers, and something that Russia produces quite a lot of.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  I did prove it, and all you can manage is to question (and not even question it, really) the source. Weak, weak. And if you assert it's not a coverup, then show us how they covered it. That isn't too much to ask. You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. No, you need to show how it was NOT covered up. That only takes a reference or two. As is your second paragraph: to only say "other disinformation looks like this, so we're just going to go with that and ignore it, instead of digging deeper into it" is what a press outlet that's in the tank does. It's not what an objective outlet does.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    > You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. That is actually a positive. You're saying people did particular things. That's a positive assertion. Asking me to show that there was no conspiracy is the request to prove a negative. Which you are correct to think impossible.
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      Sophistry. As I said elsewhere: you need to prove that it wasn't covered up, by pointing out the actual coverage. I believe it should all be on the Internet.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        I think both of you need to go find something more productive to do.
        wpietri 4y ago
        I definitely have a case of "someone is wrong on the internet" syndrome, and this is the reminder I needed. Thanks, and that's exactly what I'll do.
        jjulius 4y ago
        I've needed it myself lately. :) Enjoy your weekend!
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  "Burden of proof?" Here you go. In some small way, the FBI itself is admitting fault and cleaning house ([1], [2]) [1] https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-officials-told-agents-not-124942196.html https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-officials-told-agents-not-1249421... [2] https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/25/hunter-biden-laptop-fbi-2020-election/ https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/25/hunter-biden-laptop-fbi-2... Mark Zuckerberg says they downplayed the story at FBI direction: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 So what's your next line of retreat? OK, I'll give you FBI and Facebook. But you still haven't proven the other media! Those are all questionable sites

wpietri 4y ago

I'm not the one making the claim of a coverup. You are, and so the burden of proof is on you. As to the first point, assuming for the moment that whatever you're quoting is a good source, the easy explanation is that what was disclosed at the time did indeed have the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. That being something that is well studied by intelligence officers, and something that Russia produces quite a lot of.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
I did prove it, and all you can manage is to question (and not even question it, really) the source. Weak, weak. And if you assert it's not a coverup, then show us how they covered it. That isn't too much to ask. You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. No, you need to show how it was NOT covered up. That only takes a reference or two. As is your second paragraph: to only say "other disinformation looks like this, so we're just going to go with that and ignore it, instead of digging deeper into it" is what a press outlet that's in the tank does. It's not what an objective outlet does.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. That is actually a positive. You're saying people did particular things. That's a positive assertion. Asking me to show that there was no conspiracy is the request to prove a negative. Which you are correct to think impossible.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    Sophistry. As I said elsewhere: you need to prove that it wasn't covered up, by pointing out the actual coverage. I believe it should all be on the Internet.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      I think both of you need to go find something more productive to do.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        I definitely have a case of "someone is wrong on the internet" syndrome, and this is the reminder I needed. Thanks, and that's exactly what I'll do.
        jjulius 4y ago
        I've needed it myself lately. :) Enjoy your weekend!
Cupertino95014 4y ago
"Burden of proof?" Here you go. In some small way, the FBI itself is admitting fault and cleaning house ([1], [2]) [1] https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-officials-told-agents-not-124942196.html https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-officials-told-agents-not-1249421... [2] https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/25/hunter-biden-laptop-fbi-2020-election/ https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/25/hunter-biden-laptop-fbi-2... Mark Zuckerberg says they downplayed the story at FBI direction: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 So what's your next line of retreat? OK, I'll give you FBI and Facebook. But you still haven't proven the other media! Those are all questionable sites