The people trying to minimise every intelligence agency working with every tech company on behalf of the Democratic Party are the same people calling this a dangerous far right conspiracy theory not long ago.
This persecution complex the Republicans have promulgated is amazing with how widely believed it is. The republicans have controlled the reigns of power repeatedly over the past few decades and for a greater number of elections than you’d anticipate looking at the popular vote. The timeline the Twitter files is talking about was explicitly during Republican control and not something like a month after the elections where bureaucratic momentum might have still been in play but years after they had taken the executive and legislature. The FBI head was 2-3 years into his job after being placed by a Republican president at this point.
How are they possibly working as an arm of the Democratic Party?
The ones who do Y instead of X are often pretty interesting. But that's partly because they're pretty rare.
If it was being revealed that they were making demands and forcing companies to do things that would be a serious issue. Instead they are asking, nicely, and even paying them for their time and work.
The government should be prohibited from making such requests.
It's also apparent that regarding the Hunter Biden story the FBI outright lied in order to make web platforms censor the story.
Really? Companies do this all of the time. For example, how many billions did Apple lose for resisting the FBI’s requests with the San Bernardino shooter?
> It's also apparent that regarding the Hunter Biden story the FBI outright lied in order to make web platforms censor the story.
Can you be specific about this? The “Twitter Files” and all extent accounts say the opposite – and that was the best the right-wing media could find – and if you’re thinking about Zuckerberg’s interview, he specifically said the FBI did not make a request in this case.
This went so far that major web platforms blocked all forms of disagreement and the public dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. It was highly effective.
I hate Trump's guts but it's important to acknowledge the enormous amount of effort that went into covering up the behavior of Biden's son.
> This went so far that major web platforms blocked all forms of disagreement and the public dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. It was highly effective
This is imaginary: I’m not even sure why you’re lying about something we all remember, especially since nothing in the laptop data was even substantial even if was all true.
It's true that the FBI didn't force companies to kill the story but the story was still killed as a result of FBI actions. Are you OK with the FBI misleading the public? Or are you going to argue that they are incompetent and genuinely believed that it was a Russian operation?
There is no proof that Joe Biden himself acted improperly but Hunter Biden did receive large consulting fees for performing no work - he spent his time on cocaine and hookers instead. This strongly indicates that he was hired for political connections.
Two years later, that’s held up well - despite a lot of attention, there hasn’t been anything of interest to come out of the dump, which is why Republicans have shifted to claiming the problem was some kind of coverup despite it not being covered up.
> Are you OK with the FBI misleading the public? Or are you going to argue that they are incompetent and genuinely believed that it was a Russian operation?
This is key to your misunderstanding: the FBI was on watch for a repeat of the election interference we saw in 2016. They didn’t mislead the public, so it’s not a question of anyone being okay with it because that never happened.
> This strongly indicates that he was hired for political connections.
Yes, and lots of rich kids fail up. The question is whether his father actually did something improper to help him. For example, did Joe Biden actually pull strings for Hunter’s clients or did he refuse to violate the ethical rules? If you want this to be a scandal that’s the kind of thing you need to show.
As far as I can tell, the first is more or less true and the second isn't.
For the second part, I'd also agree that the laptop does not contain clear evidence of wrongdoing by the president. It contains a lot more than just nude photos of Hunter, though. It's real in the sense that everything on the laptop is believed to be authentic. It offers insight of Hunter's business dealings, and I think hints that contrary to the president's claims, he was at least aware of some of the details of those dealings. As such, I think it's reasonable for people to want to inspect the contents and reach their own conclusion as to what it implies, rather than being prevented from doing so.
I don’t disagree with the desire but that doesn’t make it legal, and in this case it really runs headlong into Giuliani’s incompetent effort to turn it into an October surprise. Much of the data can’t be authenticated and the signs of tampering mean it’s hard to trust. There are some things which have been verifiable (e.g. emails whose recipients confirmed them or with valid DKIM signatures) but the way they restricted access to Republican operatives for over a year suggests that they had no interest in letting people make up their own minds instead of the carefully constructed narrative being shopped around to loyalist websites.
A democratic government is usually forbiden fron "asking nicely". So the difference is that one of those exists, the other doesn't.
They are. The first amendment forbids the government from interfering with the press. They're ignoring it and hoping people don't know this fact. The fact that other media outlets aren't pointing this out, means they're all part of the same fascist tribe as the FBI.
Remember, fascism is the union of state and corporate power according to Mussolini's ghost writer. And it's what we're seeing here. The FBI and big tech being on the same side.
Of course, the status of a Schrodinger's conspiracy is only known when the truth is revealed and the conspiracy is measured.
When the truth becomes known, it is retconned to have always been known.
Washington DC is overwhelmingly a Democrat bastion, so, regardless of the political appointee SESers, the rank and file that live around DC are likely to have a specific political leaning.
Feel free to fact check this.
https://bestneighborhood.org/conservative-vs-liberal-map-was...
DC’s residents skew Democratic for a reason: having such a large black population means that they don’t trust the party which has such a questionable racial history, and that’s important to understand because the FBI’s history means the same people who don’t vote for Republicans are not jumping to join an organization with its history.
Hmmm.
I have a hunch that you’re about to repeat the usual conservative “the Democrats were the party of slavery” claim which assumes the reader is unaware of the Southern Strategy half a century ago[1], but I’d love to be wrong in that pessimism.
Go ahead and tell me when the parties "switched": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senato...
This seems odd if you think about it in terms of long term party history, because from the founding through the New Deal the Democrats were first and foremost the party of the white Southerners bent on the most extreme de jure racial discrimination (slavery, and then Jim Crow, etc.), and from the New Deal through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 things were more complicated, but they still had that same base as a key constituency; that didn’t really change until Johnson embraced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Republicans followed up the way that had not done with previous times Democratic leadership had alienated that part of the base by actively courting them, especially starting in the 1968 Presidential election.
But you have to realize when discussing D.C. political parties, the District didn’t get to vote for President at all until 1964, didn’t get to vote for a (nonvoting) delegate to Congress (after 1874) until 1970, and didn’t get to vote for its local government until 1974. The history of electoral politics for D.C. residents is much shorter than for most of the rest of the country, and consists almost entirely of the period since the Republicans started actively courting racists as a key constituency.