4 ms·
To be fair, I think giving 10 to the “big man”, a unverifiable email but which was vouched to by another recipient of the email (do they have a copy with a DKIM
by gregw2 4y ago
To be fair, I think giving 10 to the “big man”, a unverifiable email but which was vouched to by another recipient of the email (do they have a copy with a DKIM signature? I never saw that asked/answered), was the more relevant claim than the son with nudity.
If you mean that some(all?) the particular tweets mentioned as censored by Tabibbi were about frontal nudity and thus reasonably censored I am not arguing.
- sjwalter 4y agoThere was not a second of doubt that the emails were legitimate. Here's proof: the Biden campaign and Hunter himself never denied they were real. As well, while nobody in the mainstream bothered calling any of the people in the emails, Taibbi DID. They were obviously real the moment there was no denial. Because if they were just fabricated, denial would be the first public response.