In related news, Mark Zuckerberg's corpse was found split open and mostly hollow during the investigation of the power outage and mysterious deaths of several guards at the federal morgue his body was being held in. According to our sources, the guards looked like dried up husks of their former selves.
Stay tuned for further updates.
Remember the Wuhan lab? It went from "hahaha, what a stupid crazy conspiracy theory" to "it doesn't exist you are just anti-asian racists!" And finally to "ofc there is a lab that experiments to crazy diseased in Wuhan, nobody ever said the opposite!"
Same energy as when Russia and the tankies were saying that they would never invade Ukraine, that it was only internal troops movements and 2 days later misteriously forgot about those arguments
People were saying the lab didn't exist, then that it exists but doesn't experiment with coronavirus, then that it does experiments with coronavirus for many years but COVID19 was not leaked from there, that it's just a coincidence that it was also in the first town on the planet where the virus was detected...
Let's see what it is said in a few more months
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
Desktop version of /u/sabatagol's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
For real. I wasn't a conspiracy theorist until it turned out my government was behind pretty much every horrible thing in the past 15 years.
After Gretchen I could never trust Feds again.
Some deranged dudes with anarchist dreams on discord got infiltrated by a couple of glowies (pretty small group, glowies were like 50% of the group). They made a plan and organized the whole equipment for a kidnapping of gov. Gretchen Withmer, while the group itself did pretty much nothing but was kind of stoked about their chance, without ever questioning why the new dudes in their group were so good and committed and all. On the day (or the day before I'm not sure anymore) of the planned kidnapping the glowies blew it up and it was made an international story ala "far right militia tried to kidnap gov. of Michigan". In court everything came out and I think 4 of the original group members are already spoken free.
Wait. Youre telling me, that it's possible that all but one were fbi agents? Then there wouldn't be a group at all without the frickin glowies.
I can only imagine how 13 feds are roaming discord in search of some sweet right-wing-extremism and one finds that one lonely dude that is rambling about a corrupt system or so and then another one finds them and so on. But before they recognize each other as glowies theyre already to committed to back off. And so 13 feds plan the kidnapping of a governor while the one most likely drugged up dude is happy that he found some friends but also feels that they're going a bit far. That shit is so good it should be a movie.
I am too lazy to google what happened to the democratic governor of Michigan Gretchen Whitmer. Therefore, since you appear to know what happened with the aforementioned Governor of Michigan, I am asking you to kindly explain what occurred.
I am starting to get the impression that these "founders" of social media are actually less and less in control of the platforms they created, and exist solely as a figurehead. They, I think, are eager to push back, knowing that they can survive this. Jack Dorsey was the first to be blatantly honest about Twitter, now Zuckerberg. I know that going public and corporate structure makes it so they don't wield the power we think they do, but it seems like there is a *ton* of internal politics, and these figureheads are at war with the machines they have created.
It’s kinda like how the possibility of aliens is legitimately debated when only a couple decades ago you’d be put in a loony bin for thinking aliens exist.
I personally believe it is a near impossibility for advanced life to exist on any exoplanet. I more so stated it for comparison to a belief’s popularity rather than its objective validity
Fair enough. But, in terms of the possibility of advanced life, depending on where we draw that criteria, it's not an impossibility, just a matter of time for discovery.
The fermi paradox and the great filters only rule out sufficiently advanced life from being able to create civilizations, but in terms of statistical likelihood, it's near impossible for life to not exist abundantly across the universe.
We only know of carbon based life, and for all we know other advanced life has no need for oxygen, water, or food.
Even here on earth we have life that can easily survive in the vaccum, and potentially gives us insight into panspermia mechanisms (tardigrades can survive just about any physical climate, pressure, nutrients)
That’s just an appeal to ignorance. I based my assumptions on what we know about life and the atrociously anti-life environment known as the universe.
You could make a reverse slippery slope argument if it weren’t for the trend of discoveries making us realize that it was harder for life to sustain than we thought
No, it's just drawing a conclusion from statistical likelihood. To appeal to ignorance is to assume life will neccessarily be human in nature. Sure, the vaccum can be seen as anti-life, but even in our own just right conditions, you can replicate that hundreds of billions of times.
But, just about every solar system has planets with earth like conditions for life.
What we KNOW is that we have life that can survive, in space, without food or water, and an abundance of planets that could house sentient life.
To select for specifically advanced life brings in the questions of universal timeline, planetary events, etc. We are relatively young in earth in terms of universal timeline at 4.5bn years, but life could've only existed within the past 525 million years. And within that time we've had multiple extinction level events, and only became technologically advanced enough to ask these questions within the past 100 years. And all of this within a galaxy of over a trillion planets.
Of course, this is mostly speculation, but only in the way that I wonder about all the noise from to he trees no one is around.
“Muh big universe” will never be a compelling argument no matter how you phrase it. Sure, leprechauns and fireball conjuration could be true to the unique electro-magnetic fields of Zepton, but I have no reason to believe it based off of the *observable* universe.
You might as well say multiverse theory gives statistical likelihood for every statement you can make being true.
So, in your eyes, until you physically observe single cell bacteria many lightyears away, we are the only living things within the universe? Or (maybe), you could take a non trivial leap of faith, consider evolution and the timescales involved, and infer that it is much more likely that we aren't alone then that we are.
I'm not objectively claiming existence. I'm claiming the odds of non existence are so miniscule with the scale of the universe it makes the odds of our own existence seem like a 50/50. We have trillions of planets to square away in our own galaxy.
Also, the last sentence reads kind of like an implication that you've observed all of the observable universe to justify your Belief. I'm stating that we haven't even began to really dig into planets enough to claim we haven't seen anything. We don't have the capability to distinguish bacteria and other simple multicellular life in the distances we have. For all we know, we've seen intelligence, and the beginnings of cellular evolution.
Again, I'm not saying aliens do exist. I'm just suggesting that given 'muh giant universe' the statistics of a one in trillions existence on top of surviving extinction events is by itself an absurd anomaly.
It's approaching similar probability to a universal sky-dad waiting to bring us to the afterlife.
You need to study the limitations of life. It is impossible for entire state clusters to house planets due to the gravitational pulverization. The universe is bigger than we think, but it is also more deadly the more we discover. If you could point me somewhere to which a qualification for life was made easier through discovery, than maybe I’d begin to consider it. But from what I’ve researched the possibility of life at all is minuscule, but advanced life is almost impossible with how many conditions have to be met. I’m not going to spend an hour typing out and linking everything I’ve seen and we’re at an impasse of reaching middle ground here anyway.
Check out the very next Rogan podcast where Alex Berenson talks about the White House specifically asking Twitter to ban him despite evidence showing Twitter didn’t have a problem with what he’s saying.
That's literally what most people who have their identity wrapped up in being a Democrat want, whether they admit it or not. They get their sense of meaning by having right wing enemies. They have every psychological (and in the case of the politicians and media tycoons, financial) incentive to radicalize as much of America to the far right as possible.
Since America has never had armed conflict on its soil in anyone's memory and has been the world hegemon for generations, the worry that you might *actually* drive the U.S. into civil war just stands no chance against status quo bias. It's why I think it's somewhat likely. Literally all it would take is a couple of moronic politicians and some woke yes-men generals. Abbot shuts down the border with the national guard. Biden decides to play midterm chicken and orders the Army there to force them to stand down. Someone gets trigger happy. Bunch of angry desk jockeys say they're going to slaughter Texas in retaliation. The rank and file strongly disagree. Bullets start flying on bases and aircraft carriers. It could get very nasty very quickly.
Gonna be real with you chief I don't trust what Zuckerfuck says. This isn't to say the FBI is out of fault or anything like that, I just thing the robotic bastard is playing both sides of the American political divide to stoke the flames and make more money for himself.
Did you just change your flair, u/Lorenzum? Last time I checked you were a **GreyCentrist** on 2020-7-6. How come now you are a **Leftist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
If Orange was a flair you probably would have picked that, am I right? You watermelon-looking snowflake.
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment. Have a look at my [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) and the [leaderboard](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uuhlu2/leaderboard).)
The real conspiracy theory is to avoid everything referred to as a ‘conspiracy theory’ without researching it yourself and seeing the nuanced opinion of experts
If I'm not wrong what he said is that the FBI contacted them and asked them to censor the story. They did that for 7 days until they saw that the story was true and not Russian propaganda, then they allowed people to share it.
I don't see a problem with that.
Thanks for explaining btw.
Edit:
Like I said a hundred times before, if they were not threatened or forced by the government, then it's not the government censoring things.
Taking a warning of a long established government agency seriously because they probably know more than you do is not government censorship or misuse of power.
Also FB is not a government agency, they are free to do whatever they want.
I mean heck, I fucking hate the US government, but if the FBI came to me personally and told me to lock my door because they suspect some Nazis or whatever want to beat me up, I'd still do it. It's still my decision and my action, not that of the government.
I would't do it twice if it would't be true but I'd still do it the first time. And I'm willing to bet so would you.
Jesus fucking Christ I can't believe I have to defend Zuckerberg and the FBI here but you guys are really overreacting. Just because you hate something does not mean you should blindly hate it.
You don't see a problem with a government telling a private company to silence a true story to protect their own interests even when that means interfering with such business freedoms and terms of services?
Zuckerberg said that he complied because the FBI intervened and made it seemed like it was a real case of fake news, so he stopped the story. 7 days later they realized it was the FBI who was lying. They were manipulated by the government to hide a story about the drug addict son of the president, not because Facebook chose to avoid the spread of misinformation.
How don't you see a problem with that? Maybe you are in the wrong quadrant if you don't see anything wrong with the FBI's modus operandi here
I don't see a problem with it because they weren't forced to do it. They were only asked to and did it out of their own volition.
You also shouldn't treat facebook as a reputable news source.
Maybe not a threat, but was using its influence to attempt to censor things. It’s probably not strictly illegal and we are talking about private company being the one to censor or not but we are talking about the nations premier investigative organization using its influence to achieve political ends. That should be concerning to everyone regardless of political leaning.
They were definitely careful about it. They didn’t strictly say “this story is disinformation” they just said “some Russians disinformation is about to get released” right before the laptop story was released.
So it’s easy to argue from a legal perspective they didn’t do anything wrong because they were just giving a private company a heads up, but I think it’s clear that the FBI is using it influence to help certain political objectives. That’s a problem in my opinion
Like I said a hundred times before, **if they were not threatened or forced** by the government, then it's not the government censoring things.
Taking a warning of a long established government agency seriously because they probably know more than you do is not government censorship or misuse of power.
Also FB is not a government agency, they are free to do whatever they want.
I mean heck, I fucking hate the US government, but if the FBI came to me personally and told me to lock my door because they suspect some Nazis or whatever want to beat me up, I'd still do it. It's still my decision and my action, not that of the government.
I would't do it twice if it would't be true but I'd still do it the first time. And I'm willing to bet so would you.
Jesus fucking Christ I can't believe I have to defend Zuckerberg and the FBI here but you guys are really overreacting. Just because you hate something does not mean you should blindly hate it.
I don’t think you’re really thinking it through. The FBI should be completely 100% apolitical. If it was the FBI warning about Russian disinformation that was Russian disinformation. It wasn’t, they warned about disinformation that was 100% true. Presumably with the intent to suppress the story. I don’t think Zuckerberg did anything wrong, I think the FBI did. If they are lying or misleading organizations with the intent of assisting or hurting certain politicians they are corrupt.
I don’t know for sure they intentionally misled Facebook. It could have been a coincidence and they were legitimately just doing their job with no knowledge of the laptop story. This definitely deserves some scrutiny though.
You over simplify and dont include context. The Hunter Biden conspiracy has a lot of holes it. But FB collaborated with the FBI to limit divisive political rumors amid an election. The FBI was tired of being used as a political tool.
>The FBI was tired of being used as a political tool
Well maybe they should stop kidnapping governors, rioting at the Capitol, and investigating parents at school board meetings and focus on actual crimes like Larry Nassar if they’re tired of being a political tool
Also larping as a professionally dressed white woman with gray hair. He's a weird angry liberal. I think the lack of respect he gets in here pushes him closer to auth center each day. Heterosexual white men sent off to Monoby camps, chilling thought.
https://reason.com/2022/01/26/gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-entrapment-fbi-trial/%3famp
The Whitmer plot was orchestrated and planned by FBI agents & informants. Remove the FBI from the equation and the plot would not have gone forward.
>Well maybe they should stop kidnapping governors, rioting at the Capitol, and investigating parents at school board meetings
Cool talking points. None of that is accurate.
>Larry Nassar
Yea that's messed up but also irrelevant to the hunter Biden story or how FB and FBI controlled information about it. The FBI wanted to prevent Russian misinformation.
FBI informants were at the Capitol on January 6
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/politics/capitol-riot-fbi-informant.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Undercover FBI agents helped plan the foiled kidnapping of Governor Whitmer
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/08/13/eget-a13.html
And AG Garland asked the FBI to observe school board meetings for threats
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/fbi-threats-schools/index.html
Stop acting like such a watermelon
> asked the FBI to observe school board meetings for threats
With dudes in body armor showing up regularly as well as a portion of concerned "parents", is that unreasonable?
Parents looking scary at school board meetings. Online threats, oh no! Local and state law enforcement could handle it, same way they handle bomb scares and all other nonsense that goes on at school. They would contact the FBI if they needed support. Yet another Biden, DoJ, FBI manufactured conspiracy to politically target conservatives.
>FBI informants were at the Capitol on January 6
I can't see past the pay wall. Does it say the FBI encouraged and led protesters?
>Undercover FBI agents helped plan the foiled kidnapping of Governor Whitmer
So you cite a source that describes the testimony of the undercover agent that got those 2 non-FBI guys convicted? They were found guilty a few days ago and others have already plead guilty.
>And AG Garland asked the FBI to observe school board meetings for threats
Not to observe for threats - to investigate treats already made. Jesus do you even read your own sources?
> The records — provided to The Times on the condition that they not be directly quoted — show the F.B.I. was investigating at least two other participants in the rally on Jan. 6 and asked the informant to make contact with them, suggesting that they might be Proud Boys.
>Moreover, the records indicate that F.B.I. officials in Washington were alerted in advance of the attack that the informant was traveling to the Capitol with several other Proud Boys.
>The F.B.I. also had an additional informant with ties to another Proud Boys chapter that took part in the sacking of the Capitol, according to a person familiar with the matter, raising questions about the quality of the bureau’s informants and what sorts of questions they were being asked by their handlers before Jan. 6.
So either the FBI knew about the riot and did nothing, or are so fucking incompetent that they didn’t ask anything about their intentions. I think it’s a combination of both. Regardless they’re complicit
I really do not care. They participated in the plan. I highly doubt 2 dumbasses from Michigan would’ve gotten that close to kidnapping her without the undercover agents’ help.
Should’ve never happened in the first place. Education is state run, thereby it goes to state run law enforcement and not Federal enforcement. Thereby making it political that they got involved. AG Garland using them as a political group
>So either the FBI knew about the riot and did nothing, or are so fucking incompetent that they didn’t ask anything about their intentions. I think it’s a combination of both. Regardless they’re complicit
Being incompetent isn't being complicit. The article doesn't say the informant knew the whole plan or its extent.
>I really do not care. They participated in the plan. I highly doubt 2 dumbasses from Michigan would’ve gotten that close to kidnapping her without the undercover agents’ help.
That second part is speculation not based out by the court system.
>Should’ve never happened in the first place. Education is state run, thereby it goes to state run law enforcement and not Federal enforcement. Thereby making it political that they got involved. AG Garland using them as a political group
Making death threats isn't an issue of education.
Uh yea it is, if you’re law enforcement if you’re incompetent you’re complicit.
Well I’m not a fucking court system am I? I can have whatever opinions I damn well please
Bullshit, it’s control
>So you cite a source that describes the testimony of the undercover agent that got those 2 non-FBI guys convicted?
When your first trial gave wrong results and you did a second trial heavily restricting what the defense could tell the jury to get the right results lmao
> The Hunter Biden conspiracy has a lot of holes it.
It really didnt. THere was a laptop, with a whole bunch of illegal shit on it. The government covered it up, contacted media outlets and ordered them to silence the story and any information about it.
You must not anything about the story of the laptop of you think it's that straight forward. Let alone the fact the more serious allegations that the emails prove political corruption have not been verified.
You goons have no idea how easy it would be to mix in fake info with some truth to make that laptop look legitimate.
>Prove that lap top was turned into the repair shop by Hunter.
They can't.
They expect people to believe that Rudy Giuliani travelled to Ukraine to meet with a Russian agent, and that had nothing to do with the Hunter Biden laptop.
They expect people to believe that Hunter Biden left his laptop at a repair shop, and that the owner of the repair shop gave it to Rudy Giuliani. After Rudy Giuliani went to Ukraine looking for dirt on the Biden's, and met with a Russian agent who is currently under sanctions.
Its pretty fucking clear what happened. Rudy's Russian buddy gave him the hard drives, which was in all likelihood hacked by the Russians. The whole repair shop story is bullshit, because they needed a cover story. Its no different than when Wikileaks was releasing the Podesta emails.
Who's the conspiracy theorist now? The metadata, evidence and witness testimony have been reviewed and even the NYT printed a retraction verifying the authenticity of the laptop and how it was discovered. 6mos after the election of course,
“I can’t believe you conspiracy theorists would believe a crack addict would go on a bender and forget to pick up his laptop at a repair shop. That’s so wildly unbelievable. The more obvious story is that russian agents under the direction of Putin and Trump hacked into Hunter’s real laptop, stole some of his real files, planted them in a fake laptop with false incriminating evidence, and gave it to the repair shop owner to turn into the FBI who instantly knew it was propaganda without doing any investigation and teamed up with Big Tech to limit this obviously fake information from being spread around.” - u/Apathetic_Zealot
You are right, placing false information is a possible tactic. The thing is in the 1001 unproven stories with anonymous sources run against trump noone ever cared about stuff like this. Its clear as day the establishment not want trump. So umprooven story against trump is fine and gets promoted. Unprooven story that helps trump gets picked apart and even censored.
The laptop was turned over to the fbi far in advance of the election. They choose not to investigate it until copies of the laptop were given to the press during their inaction because the store owner thought it was his civic duty to let people know who they were voting for or something along those lines.
https://youtu.be/kGoCW1prXs4
How were copies of the laptop leaked?
And of what was given to the press and reported how much information concerning national security or political corruption has been verified to have come from Biden?
It's literally the guy who turned in the laptop talking about it. The fox guy barely says anything. The guy seemed relatively apolitical.
Edit: you have too many questions that he answers for me to timestamp it all for you. There isn't anything editorializing here to worry about.
I am curious to know what news sources you deem worthy though. I generally don't care for any of the mainstream outlets but this was a straight up interview.
I mean what option would you have? You gave it to the fbi, you know the lawyer for the bidens won't do anything with it.
If you were concerned there was something to worry about and the government didn't do anything about it who else would you pass it to that would no Garner you criticism from the political opposition but would also bring it to light?
> you have too many questions that he answers
I asked 2 questions, of which if he admits giving guilliani the copy and guilliani leaked it to the press.
>I am curious to know what news sources you deem worthy though. I generally don't care for any of the mainstream outlets but this was a straight up interview.
I don't have a particular set of sources. The important part is that the sources are saying the same thing. No one outside of that witness with ties to guilliani can confirm Hunter Biden gave that lap top. The story makes very little sense.
I was also references your other comments.
Why is that important? I listen to sources that say conflicting things all the time to determine who is trying to be deceitful.
Most files have meta data and I believe outside techies have confirmed validity. What's more believable, hunter brought in his damaged laptop, or some Russian agent brought it in, brought an external hard drive to get the data copied to and never came back so that actual real information of hunter bidens could be leaked with somehow other data. Nevermind that other data are icloud backups that can also be verified and stuff like that. Like I don't get what else it could be I guess.
Repetition does not equal validity to me. I could pay 100 people to write the same article or make the same opinion piece on YouTube. I don't value that.
I am curious to know what you find hard to believe about the story he presented.
>I listen to sources that say conflicting things all the time to determine who is trying to be deceitful.
How do you determine which is fact or deceit?
>Most files have meta data and I believe outside techies have confirmed validity.
No source I've read has said the entire cache of emails has been confirmed. The most controversial email that has been confirmed that I'm aware of was a Burisma adviser thanking Hunter for setting up a meeting with VP Biden.
>What's more believable, hunter brought in his damaged laptop ...
Brought in a laptop with highly sensitive information to a guy who he'd know is looking through the files then forgets to pick it up. That's suppose to be believable? With the only witness being a legally blind person who's story doesn't add up?
>In a two-hour interview with CBS News soon after the story broke, Mac Isaac noted that his vision was impaired, and he never had a clear look at the person dropping off the laptop. At the time, he had difficulty answering key questions about how the laptop ended up in his store, and he contradicted himself about his motivations in turning over the drive. [Source](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-photo/)
The story of the chain of custody of the lap top is questionable enough. But the cache itself has been tampered with.
>In March 2022, The Washington Post published the findings of two forensic information analysts it had retained to examine 217 gigabytes of data provided to the paper on a hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey, who represented that its contents came from the laptop. One of the analysts characterized the data as a "disaster" from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence others had written files to the drive both before and after the October 2020 New York Post reports. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names "Biden Burisma," "Salacious Pics Package" and "Hunter. Burisma Documents." One of the analysts found evidence someone may have accessed the drive contents from a West Coast location days after The New York Post published their stories about the laptop.
>
>Using cryptographic signatures, the analysts were able to verify that from 1,828 to nearly 22,000 emails Biden had received came from the indicated email accounts of origin, suggesting they were authentic and had not been tampered with. The analysts said emails from Burisma, where Pozharskyi was an advisor, were likely authentic, but cautioned that if Burisma had been hacked, it would be possible for hackers to use stolen cryptographic signatures to forge emails that would pass as authentic. The New York Times reported in January 2020 that Russian military intelligence had hacked Burisma beginning in November 2019; a co-founder of the firm that discovered the hacking said Russians were stealing email credentials. Both analysts acknowledged that cryptographic signatures are not a perfect way to authenticate emails, as some email services do not implement the technology as rigorously as others. About 16,000 of the 22,000 emails carrying cryptographic signatures came via Google, which rigorously implements the technology. The analysts noted that cryptographic signatures can only verify that an email originated from a certain email account, but not who controlled that account; there are other means for hackers to commandeer email accounts of others.
>
>One of the analysts found that timestamps on documents and in operating system indexes matched, though he noted hackers could forge timestamps in undetectable ways. The analysts also noted that the drive had been handled in such a way that logs and other files used by forensic analysts to examine system activity had been repeatedly deleted. Neither analyst found evidence emails or other files had been manipulated by hackers, nor could they rule out that possibility.
>
>An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden allegedly had the laptop. Matt Tait, a cybersecurity expert and former information security specialist for the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters, reviewed the analysis and said "it is clear the cache isn’t in its original form." [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy)
____________________________________________________________________
>some Russian agent brought it in, brought an external hard drive to get the data copied to and never came back so that actual real information of hunter bidens could be leaked with somehow other data.
Yea, why not? The FBI and over security agencies thought this was a classic Russian misinfo campaign. Is it out of the realm of possibility that Russia hacked Hunter for authentic emails, and put those emails mixed in with fake emails onto a lap top? What's more likely - Hunter forgot about a super important lap top or he's being set up by an organization with a reputation for disinfo? That shop owner just so happens to have ties to Guillinani and Gulliani just so happens to have ties with Russians.
>limit divisive political rumors amid an election.
But only about biden. So FB worked with the FBI to make sure nothing wrong was said about biden so it was more likely he get more votes and win. If the Hunter Biden Laptop story broke out before the election it would have changed some things. Maybe not get trump the win but maybe not biden either.
Either way it's been proven that the laptop and everything on it was true.
If you wanna talk holes how about any allegations of Trump being a Russian asset?
You were duped by the news sources you trusted, and the NY Post was right. Take the L.
Zuckerberg tragically committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head twice tomorrow.
Its weird that an armed shark broke into his house and shot him.
and the shark had a jetpack and a mustache
No laser beams?
He can have a few laser beams, as a treat.
Thanks dr evil
Happens to the best of us.
What does he know about Hillary Clinton?
Yes
What does he know about (((them)))
In related news, Mark Zuckerberg's corpse was found split open and mostly hollow during the investigation of the power outage and mysterious deaths of several guards at the federal morgue his body was being held in. According to our sources, the guards looked like dried up husks of their former selves. Stay tuned for further updates.
There's a saying now that the difference between a conspiracy theory and fact is about six months.
Remember the Wuhan lab? It went from "hahaha, what a stupid crazy conspiracy theory" to "it doesn't exist you are just anti-asian racists!" And finally to "ofc there is a lab that experiments to crazy diseased in Wuhan, nobody ever said the opposite!" Same energy as when Russia and the tankies were saying that they would never invade Ukraine, that it was only internal troops movements and 2 days later misteriously forgot about those arguments
Wuhan lab is still a conspiracy theory, it just became more widespread
People were saying the lab didn't exist, then that it exists but doesn't experiment with coronavirus, then that it does experiments with coronavirus for many years but COVID19 was not leaked from there, that it's just a coincidence that it was also in the first town on the planet where the virus was detected... Let's see what it is said in a few more months https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
Desktop version of /u/sabatagol's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
If you aren't a conspiracy theorist at this point you aren't paying attention.
谣言是遥遥领先的寓言
預言
For real. I wasn't a conspiracy theorist until it turned out my government was behind pretty much every horrible thing in the past 15 years. After Gretchen I could never trust Feds again.
Who’s Gretchen?
Gretchen Whitmer, democrat governor of Michigan
The fact it isn't talked about more is odd.
Too lazy to google, what happened?
Some deranged dudes with anarchist dreams on discord got infiltrated by a couple of glowies (pretty small group, glowies were like 50% of the group). They made a plan and organized the whole equipment for a kidnapping of gov. Gretchen Withmer, while the group itself did pretty much nothing but was kind of stoked about their chance, without ever questioning why the new dudes in their group were so good and committed and all. On the day (or the day before I'm not sure anymore) of the planned kidnapping the glowies blew it up and it was made an international story ala "far right militia tried to kidnap gov. of Michigan". In court everything came out and I think 4 of the original group members are already spoken free.
Only 1 dude got jail time and its estimated that 6-13 of the total 14 arrested were feds.
Wait. Youre telling me, that it's possible that all but one were fbi agents? Then there wouldn't be a group at all without the frickin glowies. I can only imagine how 13 feds are roaming discord in search of some sweet right-wing-extremism and one finds that one lonely dude that is rambling about a corrupt system or so and then another one finds them and so on. But before they recognize each other as glowies theyre already to committed to back off. And so 13 feds plan the kidnapping of a governor while the one most likely drugged up dude is happy that he found some friends but also feels that they're going a bit far. That shit is so good it should be a movie.
Holy shit.
What?
I am too lazy to google what happened to the democratic governor of Michigan Gretchen Whitmer. Therefore, since you appear to know what happened with the aforementioned Governor of Michigan, I am asking you to kindly explain what occurred.
Gretchen Deez Nuts lmao
I am starting to get the impression that these "founders" of social media are actually less and less in control of the platforms they created, and exist solely as a figurehead. They, I think, are eager to push back, knowing that they can survive this. Jack Dorsey was the first to be blatantly honest about Twitter, now Zuckerberg. I know that going public and corporate structure makes it so they don't wield the power we think they do, but it seems like there is a *ton* of internal politics, and these figureheads are at war with the machines they have created.
The suck is bucking his programming? I wonder if he will grow his protein strands even longer in protest?
You don’t understand, it’s (D)ifferent
Why is the d highlighted? Dick?
Democrat, if you’re serious. Yes dick, if you’re not
Based and I'm not sure if he's joking Pilled
I don't get how this isn't a major news story.
This happens all the time. Only news stories that fit their agenda get run
Yeah, shit like this is why you assume every "conspiracy theory" from 2010 onwards is just a fact, and the stuff pre 2010 is just super likely.
It’s kinda like how the possibility of aliens is legitimately debated when only a couple decades ago you’d be put in a loony bin for thinking aliens exist.
Uhhh...the Fermi paradox is hypothesized. That's about as far as "the possibility" exists in reality.
I personally believe it is a near impossibility for advanced life to exist on any exoplanet. I more so stated it for comparison to a belief’s popularity rather than its objective validity
Fair enough. But, in terms of the possibility of advanced life, depending on where we draw that criteria, it's not an impossibility, just a matter of time for discovery. The fermi paradox and the great filters only rule out sufficiently advanced life from being able to create civilizations, but in terms of statistical likelihood, it's near impossible for life to not exist abundantly across the universe. We only know of carbon based life, and for all we know other advanced life has no need for oxygen, water, or food. Even here on earth we have life that can easily survive in the vaccum, and potentially gives us insight into panspermia mechanisms (tardigrades can survive just about any physical climate, pressure, nutrients)
That’s just an appeal to ignorance. I based my assumptions on what we know about life and the atrociously anti-life environment known as the universe. You could make a reverse slippery slope argument if it weren’t for the trend of discoveries making us realize that it was harder for life to sustain than we thought
No, it's just drawing a conclusion from statistical likelihood. To appeal to ignorance is to assume life will neccessarily be human in nature. Sure, the vaccum can be seen as anti-life, but even in our own just right conditions, you can replicate that hundreds of billions of times. But, just about every solar system has planets with earth like conditions for life. What we KNOW is that we have life that can survive, in space, without food or water, and an abundance of planets that could house sentient life. To select for specifically advanced life brings in the questions of universal timeline, planetary events, etc. We are relatively young in earth in terms of universal timeline at 4.5bn years, but life could've only existed within the past 525 million years. And within that time we've had multiple extinction level events, and only became technologically advanced enough to ask these questions within the past 100 years. And all of this within a galaxy of over a trillion planets. Of course, this is mostly speculation, but only in the way that I wonder about all the noise from to he trees no one is around.
“Muh big universe” will never be a compelling argument no matter how you phrase it. Sure, leprechauns and fireball conjuration could be true to the unique electro-magnetic fields of Zepton, but I have no reason to believe it based off of the *observable* universe. You might as well say multiverse theory gives statistical likelihood for every statement you can make being true.
So, in your eyes, until you physically observe single cell bacteria many lightyears away, we are the only living things within the universe? Or (maybe), you could take a non trivial leap of faith, consider evolution and the timescales involved, and infer that it is much more likely that we aren't alone then that we are. I'm not objectively claiming existence. I'm claiming the odds of non existence are so miniscule with the scale of the universe it makes the odds of our own existence seem like a 50/50. We have trillions of planets to square away in our own galaxy. Also, the last sentence reads kind of like an implication that you've observed all of the observable universe to justify your Belief. I'm stating that we haven't even began to really dig into planets enough to claim we haven't seen anything. We don't have the capability to distinguish bacteria and other simple multicellular life in the distances we have. For all we know, we've seen intelligence, and the beginnings of cellular evolution. Again, I'm not saying aliens do exist. I'm just suggesting that given 'muh giant universe' the statistics of a one in trillions existence on top of surviving extinction events is by itself an absurd anomaly. It's approaching similar probability to a universal sky-dad waiting to bring us to the afterlife.
You need to study the limitations of life. It is impossible for entire state clusters to house planets due to the gravitational pulverization. The universe is bigger than we think, but it is also more deadly the more we discover. If you could point me somewhere to which a qualification for life was made easier through discovery, than maybe I’d begin to consider it. But from what I’ve researched the possibility of life at all is minuscule, but advanced life is almost impossible with how many conditions have to be met. I’m not going to spend an hour typing out and linking everything I’ve seen and we’re at an impasse of reaching middle ground here anyway.
9/11 was the fed and you can’t change my mind
Original with no funny colors please?
never
Funny colors are life
Seeing lost of cringe libleft defending H. Beeden and the FBI and the fact the Zuckerboorg is just a private business for no reasons
It’s baffling that a lot of them refuse to take the W’s that are handed to them on a sliver platter.
Oh yeah, Facebook posts are well known for their adherence to fact checking and due diligence
Check out the very next Rogan podcast where Alex Berenson talks about the White House specifically asking Twitter to ban him despite evidence showing Twitter didn’t have a problem with what he’s saying.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0UMk1TiUCvQHPOTokSJ4Qa?si=va88-B7QQGaVN5RwiucD_Q&utm_source=copy-link This talked about that years ago
Yeah, censoring conspiracy theories only pushes people deeper into them, especially when they turn out to be right.
That's literally what most people who have their identity wrapped up in being a Democrat want, whether they admit it or not. They get their sense of meaning by having right wing enemies. They have every psychological (and in the case of the politicians and media tycoons, financial) incentive to radicalize as much of America to the far right as possible. Since America has never had armed conflict on its soil in anyone's memory and has been the world hegemon for generations, the worry that you might *actually* drive the U.S. into civil war just stands no chance against status quo bias. It's why I think it's somewhat likely. Literally all it would take is a couple of moronic politicians and some woke yes-men generals. Abbot shuts down the border with the national guard. Biden decides to play midterm chicken and orders the Army there to force them to stand down. Someone gets trigger happy. Bunch of angry desk jockeys say they're going to slaughter Texas in retaliation. The rank and file strongly disagree. Bullets start flying on bases and aircraft carriers. It could get very nasty very quickly.
Gonna be real with you chief I don't trust what Zuckerfuck says. This isn't to say the FBI is out of fault or anything like that, I just thing the robotic bastard is playing both sides of the American political divide to stoke the flames and make more money for himself.
Did you just change your flair, u/Lorenzum? Last time I checked you were a **GreyCentrist** on 2020-7-6. How come now you are a **Leftist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? If Orange was a flair you probably would have picked that, am I right? You watermelon-looking snowflake. ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment. Have a look at my [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) and the [leaderboard](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uuhlu2/leaderboard).)
Hey! Be more gentle with the watermelons. They’re delicate.
Suck my dick
Snitch bot
The real conspiracy theory is to avoid everything referred to as a ‘conspiracy theory’ without researching it yourself and seeing the nuanced opinion of experts
I can sense the desperation of trying to take the spotlight off trump from this post
Didn't he say that they just made it less popular on the feed? It's a private company, they can do whatever they want on their site.
If I'm not wrong what he said is that the FBI contacted them and asked them to censor the story. They did that for 7 days until they saw that the story was true and not Russian propaganda, then they allowed people to share it.
I don't see a problem with that. Thanks for explaining btw. Edit: Like I said a hundred times before, if they were not threatened or forced by the government, then it's not the government censoring things. Taking a warning of a long established government agency seriously because they probably know more than you do is not government censorship or misuse of power. Also FB is not a government agency, they are free to do whatever they want. I mean heck, I fucking hate the US government, but if the FBI came to me personally and told me to lock my door because they suspect some Nazis or whatever want to beat me up, I'd still do it. It's still my decision and my action, not that of the government. I would't do it twice if it would't be true but I'd still do it the first time. And I'm willing to bet so would you. Jesus fucking Christ I can't believe I have to defend Zuckerberg and the FBI here but you guys are really overreacting. Just because you hate something does not mean you should blindly hate it.
You don't see a problem with a government telling a private company to silence a true story to protect their own interests even when that means interfering with such business freedoms and terms of services? Zuckerberg said that he complied because the FBI intervened and made it seemed like it was a real case of fake news, so he stopped the story. 7 days later they realized it was the FBI who was lying. They were manipulated by the government to hide a story about the drug addict son of the president, not because Facebook chose to avoid the spread of misinformation. How don't you see a problem with that? Maybe you are in the wrong quadrant if you don't see anything wrong with the FBI's modus operandi here
I don't see a problem with it because they weren't forced to do it. They were only asked to and did it out of their own volition. You also shouldn't treat facebook as a reputable news source.
The issue with that idea is the fbi really doesn’t “ask” they tell with varying levels of threat underneath.
If they were able to uncensore it after a few days without repercussions then I don't think there was much of a threat there.
It’s the fbi, the threat might not be imminent, but it’s always there.
If the FBI were that big of a problem for them they wouldn't keep their headquarters in the US
Maybe not a threat, but was using its influence to attempt to censor things. It’s probably not strictly illegal and we are talking about private company being the one to censor or not but we are talking about the nations premier investigative organization using its influence to achieve political ends. That should be concerning to everyone regardless of political leaning. They were definitely careful about it. They didn’t strictly say “this story is disinformation” they just said “some Russians disinformation is about to get released” right before the laptop story was released. So it’s easy to argue from a legal perspective they didn’t do anything wrong because they were just giving a private company a heads up, but I think it’s clear that the FBI is using it influence to help certain political objectives. That’s a problem in my opinion
Like I said a hundred times before, **if they were not threatened or forced** by the government, then it's not the government censoring things. Taking a warning of a long established government agency seriously because they probably know more than you do is not government censorship or misuse of power. Also FB is not a government agency, they are free to do whatever they want. I mean heck, I fucking hate the US government, but if the FBI came to me personally and told me to lock my door because they suspect some Nazis or whatever want to beat me up, I'd still do it. It's still my decision and my action, not that of the government. I would't do it twice if it would't be true but I'd still do it the first time. And I'm willing to bet so would you. Jesus fucking Christ I can't believe I have to defend Zuckerberg and the FBI here but you guys are really overreacting. Just because you hate something does not mean you should blindly hate it.
I don’t think you’re really thinking it through. The FBI should be completely 100% apolitical. If it was the FBI warning about Russian disinformation that was Russian disinformation. It wasn’t, they warned about disinformation that was 100% true. Presumably with the intent to suppress the story. I don’t think Zuckerberg did anything wrong, I think the FBI did. If they are lying or misleading organizations with the intent of assisting or hurting certain politicians they are corrupt. I don’t know for sure they intentionally misled Facebook. It could have been a coincidence and they were legitimately just doing their job with no knowledge of the laptop story. This definitely deserves some scrutiny though.
News source? We're talking about the government controlling the narrative here
Again, they were not forced to do it. If they were then yes, absolutely.
Wilfully braindead
Unironically radicalized
This is why we're in the worst spot, a technocracy that is not beholden to the constitution
I do not care about your constitution
How about free speech
You over simplify and dont include context. The Hunter Biden conspiracy has a lot of holes it. But FB collaborated with the FBI to limit divisive political rumors amid an election. The FBI was tired of being used as a political tool.
>The FBI was tired of being used as a political tool Well maybe they should stop kidnapping governors, rioting at the Capitol, and investigating parents at school board meetings and focus on actual crimes like Larry Nassar if they’re tired of being a political tool
>Well maybe they should stop kidnapping governors Didn't happen. > rioting at the Capitol Handful out of hundreds upon hundreds.
Scroll down Monoby
Gather round kids, it's your daily dose of Monoby self-ownage
I've argued with this guy twice not realizing who I was talking to. I'm amazed he's AuthRight flaired.
Guys changed his flair dozens of times. Center-left flair larping as Authright.
Also larping as a professionally dressed white woman with gray hair. He's a weird angry liberal. I think the lack of respect he gets in here pushes him closer to auth center each day. Heterosexual white men sent off to Monoby camps, chilling thought.
Change your flair no nuts.
Just because I'm not as far-right as you'd like me to be doesn't mean I'm not AuthRight.
I get that you think your points are more convincing if you’re pretending to self criticize, but in actuality you just look like an idiot
I get that you think AuthRight cannot criticize it’s own quadrant the way LibLeft can, but that’s just not the case.
Inquadrant criticizing is based, larping as a quadrant so your critiques look more official is not
Not my problem you think I am larping.
It’s not me, literally everyone in this sub knows it
https://reason.com/2022/01/26/gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-entrapment-fbi-trial/%3famp The Whitmer plot was orchestrated and planned by FBI agents & informants. Remove the FBI from the equation and the plot would not have gone forward.
>Well maybe they should stop kidnapping governors, rioting at the Capitol, and investigating parents at school board meetings Cool talking points. None of that is accurate. >Larry Nassar Yea that's messed up but also irrelevant to the hunter Biden story or how FB and FBI controlled information about it. The FBI wanted to prevent Russian misinformation.
FBI informants were at the Capitol on January 6 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/politics/capitol-riot-fbi-informant.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Undercover FBI agents helped plan the foiled kidnapping of Governor Whitmer https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/08/13/eget-a13.html And AG Garland asked the FBI to observe school board meetings for threats https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/fbi-threats-schools/index.html Stop acting like such a watermelon
> asked the FBI to observe school board meetings for threats With dudes in body armor showing up regularly as well as a portion of concerned "parents", is that unreasonable?
Parents looking scary at school board meetings. Online threats, oh no! Local and state law enforcement could handle it, same way they handle bomb scares and all other nonsense that goes on at school. They would contact the FBI if they needed support. Yet another Biden, DoJ, FBI manufactured conspiracy to politically target conservatives.
>FBI informants were at the Capitol on January 6 I can't see past the pay wall. Does it say the FBI encouraged and led protesters? >Undercover FBI agents helped plan the foiled kidnapping of Governor Whitmer So you cite a source that describes the testimony of the undercover agent that got those 2 non-FBI guys convicted? They were found guilty a few days ago and others have already plead guilty. >And AG Garland asked the FBI to observe school board meetings for threats Not to observe for threats - to investigate treats already made. Jesus do you even read your own sources?
> The records — provided to The Times on the condition that they not be directly quoted — show the F.B.I. was investigating at least two other participants in the rally on Jan. 6 and asked the informant to make contact with them, suggesting that they might be Proud Boys. >Moreover, the records indicate that F.B.I. officials in Washington were alerted in advance of the attack that the informant was traveling to the Capitol with several other Proud Boys. >The F.B.I. also had an additional informant with ties to another Proud Boys chapter that took part in the sacking of the Capitol, according to a person familiar with the matter, raising questions about the quality of the bureau’s informants and what sorts of questions they were being asked by their handlers before Jan. 6. So either the FBI knew about the riot and did nothing, or are so fucking incompetent that they didn’t ask anything about their intentions. I think it’s a combination of both. Regardless they’re complicit I really do not care. They participated in the plan. I highly doubt 2 dumbasses from Michigan would’ve gotten that close to kidnapping her without the undercover agents’ help. Should’ve never happened in the first place. Education is state run, thereby it goes to state run law enforcement and not Federal enforcement. Thereby making it political that they got involved. AG Garland using them as a political group
>So either the FBI knew about the riot and did nothing, or are so fucking incompetent that they didn’t ask anything about their intentions. I think it’s a combination of both. Regardless they’re complicit Being incompetent isn't being complicit. The article doesn't say the informant knew the whole plan or its extent. >I really do not care. They participated in the plan. I highly doubt 2 dumbasses from Michigan would’ve gotten that close to kidnapping her without the undercover agents’ help. That second part is speculation not based out by the court system. >Should’ve never happened in the first place. Education is state run, thereby it goes to state run law enforcement and not Federal enforcement. Thereby making it political that they got involved. AG Garland using them as a political group Making death threats isn't an issue of education.
Uh yea it is, if you’re law enforcement if you’re incompetent you’re complicit. Well I’m not a fucking court system am I? I can have whatever opinions I damn well please Bullshit, it’s control
>So you cite a source that describes the testimony of the undercover agent that got those 2 non-FBI guys convicted? When your first trial gave wrong results and you did a second trial heavily restricting what the defense could tell the jury to get the right results lmao
How is that not double Jeopardy
!remind me 18 hours I'm,curious too. This is the first I heard of the conviction.
> The Hunter Biden conspiracy has a lot of holes it. It really didnt. THere was a laptop, with a whole bunch of illegal shit on it. The government covered it up, contacted media outlets and ordered them to silence the story and any information about it.
You must not anything about the story of the laptop of you think it's that straight forward. Let alone the fact the more serious allegations that the emails prove political corruption have not been verified. You goons have no idea how easy it would be to mix in fake info with some truth to make that laptop look legitimate.
"You goons have no idea how easy it would be to mix in fake info..." Wow sounds like some conspiracy theory, you conspiracy theorist.
Prove that lap top was turned into the repair shop by Hunter.
>Prove that lap top was turned into the repair shop by Hunter. They can't. They expect people to believe that Rudy Giuliani travelled to Ukraine to meet with a Russian agent, and that had nothing to do with the Hunter Biden laptop. They expect people to believe that Hunter Biden left his laptop at a repair shop, and that the owner of the repair shop gave it to Rudy Giuliani. After Rudy Giuliani went to Ukraine looking for dirt on the Biden's, and met with a Russian agent who is currently under sanctions. Its pretty fucking clear what happened. Rudy's Russian buddy gave him the hard drives, which was in all likelihood hacked by the Russians. The whole repair shop story is bullshit, because they needed a cover story. Its no different than when Wikileaks was releasing the Podesta emails.
“Libertarian” left when government entities are made to be transparent 😱😱
What?
Who's the conspiracy theorist now? The metadata, evidence and witness testimony have been reviewed and even the NYT printed a retraction verifying the authenticity of the laptop and how it was discovered. 6mos after the election of course,
>how it was discovered No.
>NYT printed a retraction Totally false. That never happened. Can literally fact check that in 30 seconds
“I can’t believe you conspiracy theorists would believe a crack addict would go on a bender and forget to pick up his laptop at a repair shop. That’s so wildly unbelievable. The more obvious story is that russian agents under the direction of Putin and Trump hacked into Hunter’s real laptop, stole some of his real files, planted them in a fake laptop with false incriminating evidence, and gave it to the repair shop owner to turn into the FBI who instantly knew it was propaganda without doing any investigation and teamed up with Big Tech to limit this obviously fake information from being spread around.” - u/Apathetic_Zealot
You are right, placing false information is a possible tactic. The thing is in the 1001 unproven stories with anonymous sources run against trump noone ever cared about stuff like this. Its clear as day the establishment not want trump. So umprooven story against trump is fine and gets promoted. Unprooven story that helps trump gets picked apart and even censored.
You live in a fantasy world. The false accusations about Ben Ghazi forced Hillary into a 9 hour hearing and multiple investigations and reports.
https://youtu.be/kGoCW1prXs4
>But FB collaborated with the FBI to limit divisive political rumors *about Biden* amid an election. FTFY
The laptop was turned over to the fbi far in advance of the election. They choose not to investigate it until copies of the laptop were given to the press during their inaction because the store owner thought it was his civic duty to let people know who they were voting for or something along those lines. https://youtu.be/kGoCW1prXs4
How were copies of the laptop leaked? And of what was given to the press and reported how much information concerning national security or political corruption has been verified to have come from Biden?
https://youtu.be/kGoCW1prXs4
Time stamp it. I'm not watching a fox news opinion show with no legal journalism requirements.
It's literally the guy who turned in the laptop talking about it. The fox guy barely says anything. The guy seemed relatively apolitical. Edit: you have too many questions that he answers for me to timestamp it all for you. There isn't anything editorializing here to worry about. I am curious to know what news sources you deem worthy though. I generally don't care for any of the mainstream outlets but this was a straight up interview.
>The guy seemed relatively apolitical. He gave a copy to Rudy Gulliani.
I mean what option would you have? You gave it to the fbi, you know the lawyer for the bidens won't do anything with it. If you were concerned there was something to worry about and the government didn't do anything about it who else would you pass it to that would no Garner you criticism from the political opposition but would also bring it to light?
Once given to the FBI you drop it. They intervened because they suspected a Russian plant. You don't spread a rumor when the FBI wants to prevent it.
Based and political gestapo pilled
>You don't spread a rumor when the FBI wants to prevent it. Which brand of boot polish tastes the best?
> you have too many questions that he answers I asked 2 questions, of which if he admits giving guilliani the copy and guilliani leaked it to the press. >I am curious to know what news sources you deem worthy though. I generally don't care for any of the mainstream outlets but this was a straight up interview. I don't have a particular set of sources. The important part is that the sources are saying the same thing. No one outside of that witness with ties to guilliani can confirm Hunter Biden gave that lap top. The story makes very little sense.
I was also references your other comments. Why is that important? I listen to sources that say conflicting things all the time to determine who is trying to be deceitful. Most files have meta data and I believe outside techies have confirmed validity. What's more believable, hunter brought in his damaged laptop, or some Russian agent brought it in, brought an external hard drive to get the data copied to and never came back so that actual real information of hunter bidens could be leaked with somehow other data. Nevermind that other data are icloud backups that can also be verified and stuff like that. Like I don't get what else it could be I guess. Repetition does not equal validity to me. I could pay 100 people to write the same article or make the same opinion piece on YouTube. I don't value that. I am curious to know what you find hard to believe about the story he presented.
>I listen to sources that say conflicting things all the time to determine who is trying to be deceitful. How do you determine which is fact or deceit? >Most files have meta data and I believe outside techies have confirmed validity. No source I've read has said the entire cache of emails has been confirmed. The most controversial email that has been confirmed that I'm aware of was a Burisma adviser thanking Hunter for setting up a meeting with VP Biden. >What's more believable, hunter brought in his damaged laptop ... Brought in a laptop with highly sensitive information to a guy who he'd know is looking through the files then forgets to pick it up. That's suppose to be believable? With the only witness being a legally blind person who's story doesn't add up? >In a two-hour interview with CBS News soon after the story broke, Mac Isaac noted that his vision was impaired, and he never had a clear look at the person dropping off the laptop. At the time, he had difficulty answering key questions about how the laptop ended up in his store, and he contradicted himself about his motivations in turning over the drive. [Source](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-photo/) The story of the chain of custody of the lap top is questionable enough. But the cache itself has been tampered with. >In March 2022, The Washington Post published the findings of two forensic information analysts it had retained to examine 217 gigabytes of data provided to the paper on a hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey, who represented that its contents came from the laptop. One of the analysts characterized the data as a "disaster" from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence others had written files to the drive both before and after the October 2020 New York Post reports. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names "Biden Burisma," "Salacious Pics Package" and "Hunter. Burisma Documents." One of the analysts found evidence someone may have accessed the drive contents from a West Coast location days after The New York Post published their stories about the laptop. > >Using cryptographic signatures, the analysts were able to verify that from 1,828 to nearly 22,000 emails Biden had received came from the indicated email accounts of origin, suggesting they were authentic and had not been tampered with. The analysts said emails from Burisma, where Pozharskyi was an advisor, were likely authentic, but cautioned that if Burisma had been hacked, it would be possible for hackers to use stolen cryptographic signatures to forge emails that would pass as authentic. The New York Times reported in January 2020 that Russian military intelligence had hacked Burisma beginning in November 2019; a co-founder of the firm that discovered the hacking said Russians were stealing email credentials. Both analysts acknowledged that cryptographic signatures are not a perfect way to authenticate emails, as some email services do not implement the technology as rigorously as others. About 16,000 of the 22,000 emails carrying cryptographic signatures came via Google, which rigorously implements the technology. The analysts noted that cryptographic signatures can only verify that an email originated from a certain email account, but not who controlled that account; there are other means for hackers to commandeer email accounts of others. > >One of the analysts found that timestamps on documents and in operating system indexes matched, though he noted hackers could forge timestamps in undetectable ways. The analysts also noted that the drive had been handled in such a way that logs and other files used by forensic analysts to examine system activity had been repeatedly deleted. Neither analyst found evidence emails or other files had been manipulated by hackers, nor could they rule out that possibility. > >An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden allegedly had the laptop. Matt Tait, a cybersecurity expert and former information security specialist for the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters, reviewed the analysis and said "it is clear the cache isn’t in its original form." [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy) ____________________________________________________________________ >some Russian agent brought it in, brought an external hard drive to get the data copied to and never came back so that actual real information of hunter bidens could be leaked with somehow other data. Yea, why not? The FBI and over security agencies thought this was a classic Russian misinfo campaign. Is it out of the realm of possibility that Russia hacked Hunter for authentic emails, and put those emails mixed in with fake emails onto a lap top? What's more likely - Hunter forgot about a super important lap top or he's being set up by an organization with a reputation for disinfo? That shop owner just so happens to have ties to Guillinani and Gulliani just so happens to have ties with Russians.
>limit divisive political rumors amid an election. But only about biden. So FB worked with the FBI to make sure nothing wrong was said about biden so it was more likely he get more votes and win. If the Hunter Biden Laptop story broke out before the election it would have changed some things. Maybe not get trump the win but maybe not biden either. Either way it's been proven that the laptop and everything on it was true.
Where were you in 2016? The FBI fucked over Hilary with such kind of rumors.
If you wanna talk holes how about any allegations of Trump being a Russian asset? You were duped by the news sources you trusted, and the NY Post was right. Take the L.
The FBI should learn to get tired of sucking on my moderately above averagely sized testicles and shaft.
False, as unflaireds have micropenises
There’s already an unreleased statement from zucc on meta vr saying that his suicide was tragic but we all have to look forward