Ehh you are making up for lost time with all the right wing talking points we can eat eh? Did you binge on Breaking Points recently?

Do you know why the MSM verifies stories that are given to them before they publish them? Especially if they are scandalous?

I am not saying MSM does not make some mistakes in that area but the procedures are clear with regards to a high level of verification, generally before publishing a news article making claims about someone?

Do you understand why and can you explain it to me?

Democrats are smarter scammers than republicans.

Dems suffer from fancy play syndrome.

It's not a crime because it's not why Biden wanted the prosecutor fired. He wanted him fired because the Ukrainian prosecutor's office was widely known to be corrupt and needing reform, the same conclusion and same action a bipartisan group of Democratic and Republican Congressman asked for at the time.

I don't understand this post well enough to respond.

Dumb question: what is it that's on Hunter's laptop that's so incriminating?

Hillary's emails.

Corruption is no biggie in WashoeWorld.

Nope I am trying more and more to avoid the news. Its just hypocrisy after hypocrisy on both sides. THough It is entertaining

MSM verifies their stories OK you believe that Lets just see from Rachel maddow that I can think of

Folks stood in line with gunshot wounds as doctors treated Ivermectum overdoses
Trump is a Russian Spy
Trump said veterans are Losers
Russia has a pee tape on Trump

The difference between MSM and someone like Joe Rogan Joe will start his show with I fxxxced up and told you this when in fact it was not true. Rachel just moves on as do most media folks at Fox, CNN and MSNBC

I still watch Breaking Points and last week I actually watched Tucker when he did a piece on California and electric cars.


I have an issue when a branch of government (FBI) attempts to suppress a story they know is true to influence an election on either side

I get why CNN and MSNBC do it its their business model

It is of course trivial to find numerous examples of CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc. issuing retractions and even firing journalists who ****ed up. You maybe wouldn't know this because, as you say, you don't actually follow the MSM.

She has given the DOJ permission to keep using the seized materials for matters of National Interest.

She has prohibited them from using the seized material in pursuit of any criminal action against Trump.



So if the DOJ goes down the road of pursuing National Interest (closing any leaks created by Trump) but while on that road they find clear criminality which they want to use to prosecute later, could not the Trump team argue that evidence is prohibited for use against Trump in a criminal case as it was prohibited from being found or used in that period, using the seized material?

I am not talking about Opinion post nor opinion commentators on the news lozen.

Focus. Read what I say.


Are you aware or not of why when the MSM has someone show up with a story about another person that is accusing, inflammatory and dangerous, if true, that they seek out substantiation and verification for the story before they post it?


Do you know why they would typically do that?


(not asking if they are 100% and never fail so please do not ignore the point)

CNN and MSNBC whole platform is opinion Folks . Though the head of CNN is trying to get away from that

Sadly folks like Maddow, Hannity and Stelter sell themselves as news journalists .

I never specifically mentioned either but it is clear you just refuse to answer the question and won't no matter how many times I ask it.

Generally I think that is because the person is smart enough to see the answer does not serve the angle they are trying to push and as such they are just being dishonest, but in your case I think there is a possibility you may not know the answer. So I will answer it.

The reason they verify sources and data first before publishing is because they do want to be used to spread propaganda or specious allegation and they can get sued if they do not first take those steps to verify things.


So now applying this to the Hunter Biden laptop, and us knowing it is a Trump Team tactic to try and smear, true or not, anyone he is running against, what substantiation do you think the FBI had prior to the election to release anything about it.


I am not asking what we may or may not know SUBSEQUENT to the election as you cannot use hindsight to condemn actions at the time.

I want you to tell me what substantiation you feel the FBI had that they should have acted differently as I have not seen any and want you to educate me.

I am saying that it is not enough that Rudy races in to CNN and Chris Coumo's show to say 'Hunter bad' when the MSM is just about to release a very damning story about Rudy in Ukraine on behalf of the Trump campaign. I am saying that before the FBi would release ANYTHING in this regard they have a DUTY to hold it and not comment until they have verified it.

Do you have ANYTHING you can show me that the FBI verified any of the claims prior to the election and thus acted badly in not releasing info?

I thought I did answer your question. Do I think they have fact checkers of course I do but when Trump was President those rules went out the window and when the likes of them are sued Like Tucker and Maddow have they stand by the point were not journalists were opinion hosts

I am not sure on CNN or MSNBC who is strictly news? ON fox I would say Brett Beier or Fox Sunday . Reality everything is scripted and tele prompters

As for no evidence how about Mark Zuckerberg saying the FBI came to him shortly before the Hunter Biden story dropped and telling him a story is going to drop that is Russian Disinformation

"Hate Inc." by Matt Taibbi is a good read on media bias. He has Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity on the cover. There is a chapter on why. People asked him how he could compare Maddow to Hannity. He responds something like: Maddow might actually be worse because she's intelligent and should know better.

No and you have still not answered it.

You are obsessed with CNN and MSNBC when I am not speaking of them.

I am speaking more of published news stories by official news columnists and the verification and check process. You keep saying 'but CNN and MSNBC throw the old rules out the door as it is all opinion' which is NOT what i am asking you.

Do you think if I went to the Wall Street Journal tomorrow with an exclusive story about Nancy Pelosi, 14 year old male lover, they would feel they could publish it without trying to verify first? Do you understand they would be sued and lose if they did?


And please elaborate how ZUckerberg saying that means the FBI had real PROOF of it being true, and was not just saying 'we see a lot of disinformation being pushed at this time and we have not yet verified any of it so be careful'.

I am asking you to really focus and PROVIDE me the PROOF you know the FBI had already gathered, that would allow them to release the data?

I have not seen it and it is key to any accusation that the FBI was deliberately hiding something they should have released as opposed to them not running with rumours they had not yet verified.

Surely you can understand the FBI should never run with rumours first so please provide the known PROOF they had prior to the election.

Oh your talking the historic print media. Yes I would say they have stronger ethics but a paper like the times has lost journalists they have tried to censor

As for 100 % proof that the FBI silenced Facebook . Sorry cant provide it. In no way can I provide any proof that Joe Biden benefitted from Hunter Biden

Though I can believe it to be true because US politicians will sell their souls for $$$ on both sides

Im sure Biden cares a lot about "corruption" while his crack and hooker addicted son is on the board.

lozen, common focus. My question is not hard.

I just want what you know.

You clearly know the FBi had enough to release the Hunter Biden info and that it was a cover up not to do so, as opposed to this being something that they were not going to release until it was investigated.

I want you to share what it is you know. They don't have to be 100%, they can be 5% or 20%. Just tell me what you know.

Well now I know.

I figured out where lozen (who outright refuses to answer my question above) gets his Hunter Biden info and obsession from.






The first review makes me think I maybe should watch this.

- 'This movie brings the heat and is the best exposé film since 2000 Mules.'
Dinesh D'Souza

Sadly I will be passing on that one.

Doesnt take a movie to know Hunter was pure scum . Maybe he has turned his life around??? Who knows His art really isn't that bad

Like you passed on answering this?

If you just outright refuse to answer it, will you at least tell me why you don't want to answer it?

Just gathering some of my information

Here is what I know

There were was lots of speculation on Hunter Biden and his dealings with a Ukranian gas company . We all know the only qualifications Hunter possessed is his relation to the Vice President. The question is did Joe Biden benefit from this realtionship
I know That Hunter Biden falsified a federal gun application which is a crime
I know Hunter fathered a child with a stripper but denied paying child support. I do believe after a DNA test and I assuming a positive he started paying child support
I know Hunter did tons of cocaine and is rumored to have slept with underaged woman which no one has proven
I know Hunter flew to China on his fathers plane while Joe was acting as VP to conduct business
I know a laptop was found and claimed to be Hunters
I know that Mark Zuckerberg has said on the Joe Rogan podcast that the FBI came to his people and informed them that a story was going to drop shortly that was Russian disinformation . Days later the Hunter Biden story dropped. He did say they did not say the story was the laptop but.....
I know that 50 Intelligence officers claimed the laptop was Russian disinformation
I know that Joe Biden says he had no idea about Hunter Bidens business dealings ( I consider that a lie)





I found this piece from the NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/u...en-laptop.html

So what’s on the laptop?