So you're dropping your claim that there is some scandal about the NYT suppressing/not investigating this story? You just don't like that the NYT reporting is skeptical of the NYP story? Or you don't think they've done a very good of showing why we should be skeptical of it?

Yeah, and most of the reporting on that happened after the election.

They are not investigating it. Are the emails real? Before addressing any of the allegations, this is what should be investigated. The story is not really whether J. Biden met with someone, but rather is someone close to Biden peddling access to him. That's a newsworthy story, and that story is getting ignored.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/b...nal-trump.html

I guess I'm still waiting for you to bring up an actual scandal. You claimed suppression and a lack of investigation. When I look at the issue, I see that both papers you specifically cite have written numerous stories reporting the story. Now you say the problem is that they haven't been able to determine whether private emails on a laptop they don't have access to are authentic. That's not a scandal.

No, they did not report on the story. They indicated they could not verify whether J. Biden met with someone as alleged in the one of the emails, then spent endless amount of words trying to discredit the means NYP obtained the info, without any reporting any evidence that indicated the emails are fake.

Let's try a different tact. Do you think it's newsworthy that Hunter Biden possibly peddled access to his father, while his father was VPOTUS? If you think that is newsworthy, then I can't imagine how you can read those reports you posted and think those journalist were acting with integrity, or were searching for the truth, no matter how much significance you personally put on the allegation. There are ways to investigate the veracity of the emails. The NYT asked Hunter and Joe about the meeting, not whether or not the emails exist.

BTW, if it means anything...NYP journalist offered to allow M. Cuban and his team to review the source material, and it turns out he had the same question about FOIA I did.

Why is this thread this long

The same reason...multiple people make same argument and if you don't reply to everyone, Goofy will bring it up weeks later accusing you of dodging while delfecting during another discussion.

Ah yes, Jack Posobiec who has many notable contributions to the NY Post like Trump retweets alt-right troll following Charlottesville rally. Posobiec wishes he was part of a news organization with as much respect as the NY Post, instead he writes for a rag that is posted in his twitter bio (I'm unwilling to link to that garbage). Though perhaps Posobiec lied about the NYP affiliation, as this wouldn't be the first time he lied about affiliation with a more credible new organization (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...tter-followers).

Maybe this is a perfect encapsulation of why you are so confused about news and sources of stories since you easily mix up basic facts that force others to question credibility.

If Cuban takes him up on his offer and substantiates the emails, what then? I'm certainly not gonna vouch for Posobiec, but I don't consider the SPLC a legit source either.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/562646/

the length and breadth of this thread

FreddGoat! good to see you, mang. Post more

Again, this is just false. I don't care if you think they didn't report on the details that you thought they should report on specifically. But there is much actual reporting in the articles that I linked, about specific emails, allegations by former or prospective business partners, related activities, etc.

Also, the NYT articles don't really seem to suggest that the emails are fake to my reading.

I mean, if that was being alleged, the story would be a bigger deal. However, the allegation here is about a business meeting being set up in 2017, when Joe Biden was a private citizen. Do I think it is newsworthy that Hunter Biden tried to peddle access to Joe Biden then? Somewhat? It would be much more newsworthy if there hadn't been voluminous reporting on Hunter's trading on his family name with Burisma and related stories already. I don't think it is the kind of drop everything else major story you seem to think. Especially since the Trump campaign is full of liars. But I'm glad that a reputable paper like the WSJ is taking a close look.

I'm enjoying your chutzpah though in arguing after 2016 that liberals should spend more time focusing on stolen emails about their candidate. An achievement unlocked somewhere, no doubt.

To me, and once again, the context and substance of the story really isn't the sticking point...it's the tact to which the mainstream media approached it. You believe the skepticism of the story was warranted...that same skepticism isn't applied to many other stories they propagate between each other. We can debate the merits of the story, and each organization approach, but this skepticism they are using now was not applied to many many other stories that turned out to be fake/false, but they had narratives people wanted to believe, so they were published as close to gospel, and editorials written supporting those narratives, especially when it comes to politics. Why all of sudden are they skeptics of unverified, unsubstantiated reporting?

What's also amazing is, in one of those NYT articles, they defended Biden's propagation of the labtop and emails being from Russia. Where was the skepticism when news broke it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign, which was widely propagated, even by a candidate for POTUS, and it turned out to be bullshit.

The media created fake news to discredit the NYP story, and they propagated it amongst each other. LOL.

You just claimed specifically that Biden's claim that the laptop contents came from Russia was a lie. Not mistaken speculation or something, but specifically a lie, which would mean that Biden knows it to be false. Do you have a citation to back that up, or are you a supplier of bullshit?

Lol, the media did a bad job reporting on some random teenager, TV celebrity, and SC nominee, so they should do a bad job reporting on Joe Biden as well. This "scandal" is you reporting that based on your priors the state of the media is scandalous.

Also, when you say something false and it is pointed out, you should acknowledge it. Whether or not Biden was VP at the time of the meeting is not a minor detail.

It's a mistake to grant that the reporting on those three things was bad at all. The reporting on Ford was accurate and good, and the initial reporting on the Covington kid and Smolett was at least based on an actual video and an actual police report (as well as the coverage of Smolett's claim being appropriately dubious). The emails may or may not be genuine, but the story does not hold up to even the mildest of scrutiny when looking at their answers to obvious questions like, "How did you get these?" (the answer supplied is obviously fake and completely implausible). IHIV is living in a fantasy world with respect to the reporting on all four of these stories, as well as perhaps on their actual veracities.

I didn't say at the time of the meeting. If I was unclear, the emails, if real, are further proof Hunter peddled influence, including when his father was VPOTUS.

The ignorance defense didn't work too well for Hillary. Candidates for president get a briefed on national security issues. If it was Russian disinformation he would know, but he knew it was not from Russia since the FBI was already well aware it wasn't sourced from them.

Can you link some of the stories published by the MSM that you believe are as flimsy as the NY Post story, that you think the same level of skepticism would have rendered unpublishable?

And I mean actual links to specific stories, not general subjects like "Jussie Smollett". Link us to the stories about him that were embarrassing pieces of journalism that should never have been published, from the same sorts of outlets you think should be running more Hunter Biden stories.

This is very damning, if true, for Hunter Biden's political campaign!!!

LOL, goofy.

So, that's a no on the citation? You have shown neither that the claim is false nor that Biden knew it to be so.

@goofyballer

I'm sorry, what role does Hunter have in Joe's campaign?