The skepticism that the FBI was reviewing the laptop for russian interference despite their unverified and unsubstantiated statement of fact. You cited an article that does the very thing I alleged. They like the russian angle, so verifying and substantiating the purported fact they allege is irrelevant to publishing that story.

The writer put for you, right there in the article for you to quote, the very words that generated your skepticism. It looks like the writer was acting appropriately by your very standard!

.

It is just as bullshit as the first time you posted it. It is essentially a fact that an anonymous source told the USA Today reporter about the FBI investigation unless you want to accuse -- without evidence! -- the writer of journalistic malpractice. The reporter duly solicits comments from relevant parties and gets none. The reporter goes on to qualify the nature of the anonymous statement. All in all, your characterization of this story as "assert[ing] without any evidence at all that the New York Post story is Russian interference" is wildly untrue. The qualifications are there, and the actual statements made are factual and sourced, and they are not equivalent to "the New York Post story is Russian interference."

Sometimes it's hard to follow HIV's frantic posts and edits and re-edits, but am I to gather from this discussion of the USA Today article that when he wants to defend a claim like this...

...he's referring to an article like this?

Like, HIV - who does not appear to know what normal English words actually mean - thinks the above quote contains "assertions without any evidence that the New York Post story is Russian interference"?

Again, HIV, what is there to do with your posts other than use them to wipe my ass, when these are the fantastical hysterics you come up with?

Awful mighty spin there, bud. Unverified, unsubstantiated statement of fact about FBI investigating Russian disinformation. I know I don't need to spell it out for you, but whatever. The narrative/purpose of that piece is to legitimize the claim of Russian disinformation by stating as fact the FBI is investigating for that reason, when they have not established it as a fact.

Prosecutors use this type of tactic all the time to taint the jury pool. Besides, you still trying to argue the substance of the articles. The media has a problem with the NYP reporting due to it being unverified, unsubstantiated story...yet they published the FBI story. You are ignoring this, and trying to spin yourself out of the egg you have on your face.

MrWookie ignores the OP that has numerous examples, then he post's an example of the media doing the very thing he is trying to refute and in which the media supposedly has an issue with in regards to the NYP Biden story (publish unverified, unsubtainted statements of fact).


It's amazing.

If you think about it, the genesis of the any purported FBI investigation would have been derived from media reports stating it was Russian disinformation (with zero substance or evidence it was Russian disinformation), and that will be even more egregious if the FBI actually reviewed the laptop before the the NYP ran their story, as alleged by the NYP source.

Every single example you've talked about in particular, including the one from the OP, was not an example of the media doing the thing that was alleged, publishing unverified, unsubstantiated statements as fact. In order to try and make your claim true, you have resorted to distorting the statements made in the media to say something they did not say.

Right, you want to talk about the specifics of each example in order to dispute the main contention. Say for argument's sake I'm wrong about a few of the examples, there are still innumerable examples I could cite, including the one you posted yourself. It is fact the USA today published an unverified, unsubstantiated story about an FBI investigation. So, what ever point you are making about any individual example, it does nothing to dispute the main contention. The article you cited demonstrates the media publishes unsubstantiated and unverified **** all the time.

If you cannot produce a single example of what you claim is a widespread problem, no one should take you seriously.

You have failed to produce a single example. At best, you've rattled off some names where you claim this happened without actually providing any single media report that is guilty of what you claim.

It does not. The story as written was fine. Your lies about what the story said do not change the fact that the story was fine.

To add, the Hunter Biden story is not equivalent to a story from an anonymous source, and no, the standards for printing news is not the same as standards for conviction in the criminal justice system. They never have been.

Rudy's explanation for how he came across the alleged Hunter Biden material is not simply that he got it from an anonymous source. He concocted a facially implausible story about how he got the material, one that strains credibility and that doesn't hold up to the most basic of questioning. As such, that story is materially much more dubious than an anonymous source claiming the FBI is investigating something. The FBI is supposed to investigate things like Russian hacking. In contrast, it's really hard to believe that Hunter Biden, a resident of California, left his laptop at a Delaware repair shop and forgot about it for 6 months until the owner discovered damaging material on it, at which point Hunter directed the FBI to try and prevent the material from getting out.

Hey guys, grunching here, just wondering if the very smart and definite English-understander HIV has indicated where this text contains "assertions without any evidence that the New York Post story is Russian interference" yet?

Cheers!

IHIV has independently corroborated the truth of his claims by thinking about them.

He's already moved on to claiming that this story as written is emblematic of the media publishing something equivalent to the Hunter Biden story while blocking the Hunter Biden story.

The discussion is not whether the story is "fine" or not. LOL. It's not about whether it's correct, or incorrect, and it's not about whether the story is accurate, or inaccurate. It's simply a story that reported unverified, and unsubstantiated claims as fact. Saying the story is "fine" does nothing to dispute that.

What about you saying that it contains "assertions without any evidence that the New York Post story is Russian interference" when it clearly - to anyone who understands English - does not? Are we to take that into account at all?

The USA Today publishes an article with unsourced speculation about the scope of FBI investigation of the laptop, and asserts it as fact in their headline, and in preceding paragraphs. There is nothing in that article that supports the FBI is investigating it for Russian interference. The source they relied on for the headline does not know the scope of the FBI's actions. Does posting an unverified, unsubstantiated, and unsourced speculation about what the FBI is investigating and presenting it as fact support a russian interference allegation or cast doubt on it.

Why is it news? It's an attempt to corroborate the legitimacy of Russian interface speculation by stating as fact the FBI is investigating the labtop for Russian interference.

Quibbling over this still does not contend with the main contention. Further, IF the FBI actually had possession of that laptop prior the NYP story....someone is spreading disinformation about russian interference, and the media is reporting that disinformation in attempt to discredit the NYP story.

So, to be clear, it does not assert without any evidence that the New York Post story is Russian interference like you said? None of your quibbling is an example of that statement you earlier said the USA Today article was an example of.

What are you talking about? The first paragraph supports it:

What are you talking about? Literally the first paragraph of the story says the source knows the subject of the investigation. How does any of this idiotic blather you write pass muster in your own ****ing head before getting passed to your fingers to regurgitate on this forum?

LOL, goofy.


Who do you think is "The person" is? It's the source they are relying on for the first paragraph.

No, it does not.

He could not elaborate on the scope, except he did elaborate on the scope when he said what the scope was?

And the first paragraph makes clear what that person told them:

They're literally telling you in plain English that this person told them the FBI is investigating Russian involvement. USA Today then relayed that to its readers. You then began bawling all over this forum about "assertions without any evidence that the New York Post story is Russian interference" and making up insane claims that apparently the source did not tell USA Today what the source told them. What are you talking about? Are you alright???

By the way, remember all HIV's crying upthread about how he doesn't want to debate individual stories because his opponents are operating in bad faith and won't ever concede any points?

Fast forward and, shocker, HIV is still refusing to concede that a.) the USA Today story doesn't contain "assertions without any evidence that the New York Post story is Russian interference", or b.) that the sentence "Federal authorities are investigating whether a Russian influence operation was behind the disclosure of emails...a person briefed on the matter said Friday" might actually mean that a source told them federal authorities are investigating whether a Russian influence operation was behind the disclosure of the Hunter Biden emails. Is this what good faith argumentation looks like? LOL

Do you know what "scope" means, as it pertains to an investigation? There was no commentary on the scope of the investigation, only on its existence.