Why delete the post about Facebook/Twitter censorship of Washington Post article?

[Anonymous]

Hi, why was the thread deleted? I also tried to post in the topic but got the forbidden message.

[jsteele]

There was no censorship of a Washington Post article.

[Anonymous]

^^NY Post

[Anonymous]

Why was the post about the NY Post article regarding Hunter Biden deleted?

[Anonymous]

Why do you think?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why was the post about the NY Post article regarding Hunter Biden deleted?

It is an obvious hoax. DCUM is not going to be used as a platform for spreading obvious misinformation.

[Anonymous]

You rock, Jeff.

[Anonymous]

What makes it so obvious?

[Anonymous]

Interesting word choice - "hoax." Many things that are called hoaxes turn out not to be, don't they?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What makes it so obvious?

The store owner doesn't know who dropped off the laptop. For some reason he appears to have searched the data -- something no ethical person would have done. The owner made a copy of the drive and gave it to Rudy Giuliani's lawyer. Guiliani and Bannon provided it to the Post. Giuliani has been working with known Russian agents and has been engaged in disinformation activities. The "smoking gun" emails were not actually emails, but PDF's of the emails that were created over a year ago. Giuliani has also had the hard drive for nearly a year, meaning that he sat on in throughout the impeachment process and everything else.

No forensics were done by the Post and the fact that the "emails" were PDFs means that there weren't even email headers to investigate. The author of the article is a former Hannity employee and this was her first article in the Post. Also, the "smoking gun" email doesn't even say what the Post claims it says and it is, in fact, not incriminating.

There is a lot more, but it was obvious to me from my first read of the article that the entire thing was hogwash (I didn't notice all of this stuff -- some of which others pointed out -- during my first read but I noticed a lot). My first suspicion was that the laptop was stolen from Hunter and laundered through the store. Now I think the entire thing was created from whole cloth.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting word choice - "hoax." Many things that are called hoaxes turn out not to be, don't they?

I think if you review my posts you will find that when I have called things hoaxes, I have been fairly accurate. In contrast, Republican investigations into Benghazi turned up nada. Barr has launched one investigation after another which conservatives have hyped in our Political Forum. They have turned up nada. One might say that Republican-led investigations are almost universally hoaxes.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes it so obvious?

The store owner doesn't know who dropped off the laptop. For some reason he appears to have searched the data -- something no ethical person would have done. The owner made a copy of the drive and gave it to Rudy Giuliani's lawyer. Guiliani and Bannon provided it to the Post. Giuliani has been working with known Russian agents and has been engaged in disinformation activities. The "smoking gun" emails were not actually emails, but PDF's of the emails that were created over a year ago. Giuliani has also had the hard drive for nearly a year, meaning that he sat on in throughout the impeachment process and everything else.

No forensics were done by the Post and the fact that the "emails" were PDFs means that there weren't even email headers to investigate. The author of the article is a former Hannity employee and this was her first article in the Post. Also, the "smoking gun" email doesn't even say what the Post claims it says and it is, in fact, not incriminating.

There is a lot more, but it was obvious to me from my first read of the article that the entire thing was hogwash (I didn't notice all of this stuff -- some of which others pointed out -- during my first read but I noticed a lot). My first suspicion was that the laptop was stolen from Hunter and laundered through the store. Now I think the entire thing was created from whole cloth.

If you are proven wrong will you allow the post? Twitter is now backtracking

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes it so obvious?

The store owner doesn't know who dropped off the laptop. For some reason he appears to have searched the data -- something no ethical person would have done. The owner made a copy of the drive and gave it to Rudy Giuliani's lawyer. Guiliani and Bannon provided it to the Post. Giuliani has been working with known Russian agents and has been engaged in disinformation activities. The "smoking gun" emails were not actually emails, but PDF's of the emails that were created over a year ago. Giuliani has also had the hard drive for nearly a year, meaning that he sat on in throughout the impeachment process and everything else.

No forensics were done by the Post and the fact that the "emails" were PDFs means that there weren't even email headers to investigate. The author of the article is a former Hannity employee and this was her first article in the Post. Also, the "smoking gun" email doesn't even say what the Post claims it says and it is, in fact, not incriminating.

There is a lot more, but it was obvious to me from my first read of the article that the entire thing was hogwash (I didn't notice all of this stuff -- some of which others pointed out -- during my first read but I noticed a lot). My first suspicion was that the laptop was stolen from Hunter and laundered through the store. Now I think the entire thing was created from whole cloth.

If you are proven wrong will you allow the post? Twitter is now backtracking

I won't be proven wrong. I started removing posts about this topic early this morning. I didn't follow Twitter. Twitter followed me.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes it so obvious?

The store owner doesn't know who dropped off the laptop. For some reason he appears to have searched the data -- something no ethical person would have done. The owner made a copy of the drive and gave it to Rudy Giuliani's lawyer. Guiliani and Bannon provided it to the Post. Giuliani has been working with known Russian agents and has been engaged in disinformation activities. The "smoking gun" emails were not actually emails, but PDF's of the emails that were created over a year ago. Giuliani has also had the hard drive for nearly a year, meaning that he sat on in throughout the impeachment process and everything else.

No forensics were done by the Post and the fact that the "emails" were PDFs means that there weren't even email headers to investigate. The author of the article is a former Hannity employee and this was her first article in the Post. Also, the "smoking gun" email doesn't even say what the Post claims it says and it is, in fact, not incriminating.

There is a lot more, but it was obvious to me from my first read of the article that the entire thing was hogwash (I didn't notice all of this stuff -- some of which others pointed out -- during my first read but I noticed a lot). My first suspicion was that the laptop was stolen from Hunter and laundered through the store. Now I think the entire thing was created from whole cloth.

If you are proven wrong will you allow the post? Twitter is now backtracking

I won't be proven wrong. I started removing posts about this topic early this morning. I didn't follow Twitter. Twitter followed me.

Well see, I hope you are objective if it's picked up by cnn

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting word choice - "hoax." Many things that are called hoaxes turn out not to be, don't they?

I think if you review my posts you will find that when I have called things hoaxes, I have been fairly accurate. In contrast, Republican investigations into Benghazi turned up nada. Barr has launched one investigation after another which conservatives have hyped in our Political Forum. They have turned up nada. One might say that Republican-led investigations are almost universally hoaxes.

The investigation by Durham has not been finished so I'm not sure how you can say it has turned up nothing.