4 ms·

They didn't just pass on the story, they put out negative commentary about it by calling it a distraction without even bothering to explain how they arrived at

They didn't just pass on the story, they put out negative commentary about it by calling it a distraction without even bothering to explain how they arrived at that.

fortuna86 4y ago
There's a reason for that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-bi... > The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
- frumper 4y ago
  It’s weird to give a reason why NPR didn’t do something by citing an article from February of the following year.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    The story was suspicious for many reasons, is the point.
- 0xdeadfa65 4y ago
  And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - 0xdeadfa65 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - fortuna86 4y ago
        [flagged]
        0xdeadfa65 4y ago
        [flagged]
        fortuna86 4y ago
        [flagged]
        0xdeadfa65 4y ago
        >I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible. You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble. >I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart. Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though. >See my first point. Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation. >I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye. Not bored. Defeated. Just take the L friend.
        dang 4y ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.

They didn't just pass on the story, they put out negative commentary about it by calling it a distraction without even bothering to explain how they arrived at that.

fortuna86 4y ago

There's a reason for that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-bi... > The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

frumper 4y ago
It’s weird to give a reason why NPR didn’t do something by citing an article from February of the following year.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  The story was suspicious for many reasons, is the point.
0xdeadfa65 4y ago
And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - 0xdeadfa65 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - 0xdeadfa65 4y ago
        [flagged]
        fortuna86 4y ago
        [flagged]
        0xdeadfa65 4y ago
        >I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible. You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble. >I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart. Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though. >See my first point. Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation. >I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye. Not bored. Defeated. Just take the L friend.
        dang 4y ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.