They did "leak" everything, from Hunter fucking prostitutes, high on crack, missing his teeth, and all his business emails,
-15 karma · joined March 16, 2021
Company name is listed. You'd have to go ask the cyber-firm they used, any outlet could verify it and write a story debunking it if they wanted. Something tells me they don't want to because they know it's true.
An email from the laptop has been DKIM validated, here's the repo: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
What are you suggesting was made up?
From Mao to Venezuela, the core idea depends upon excluding, oppressing, and murder of others in the same country based on class.
The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race not class, though Communist China is targeting Uighur and other minorities in their country.
--- to others in the thread ---
> After obtaining a copy of the hard drive, DailyMail.com commissioned top cyber forensics experts Maryman & Associates to analyze its data and determine whether the laptop's contents were real.
Company name is listed. You'd have to go ask the cyber-firm they used, any outlet could verify it and write a story debunking it if they wanted. Something tells me they don't want to because they know it's true.
An email from the laptop has been DKIM validated, here's the repo: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
What are you suggesting was made up?
You jumped to conspiracy theory. You said all. I did not. The editors simply have a bias that affects how they accept and offer contributions. These biases show especially in politically charged topics and you have to identify and check them, often they are factually wrong or misleading. I did not say all articles have this bias, but it is prevalent and makes Wikipedia unusable for any political research, unless you scrutinize all sources and do additional source finding that Wikipedia omitted on purpose because it didn't align with it's viewpoints.
There are niche wikis, but Conservapedia exists to counter Wikipedia's bias on certain topics. They have a page I linked to which lists a lot of these biases, but it's barely an exhaustive list. You can find instances like these on nearly every political page.
This is not some unfounded conspiracy theory as you suggest, Harvard has done a study on this as well as other institutions.
Studies:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikip...
https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/17-028_e7788722-...
http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/26/wikipedia-sources-metho...
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
Another example:
https://medium.com/@MainstreamWatc2/blatant-liberal-bias-on-...
When you say "for some reason" you are alluding that there is no answer and you're trying to downplay it, you are lying.
The laptop was turned in by Hunter because it was waterlogged. He signed the form. When he didn't come back in to get it and the owner noticed the illegal things on it, a copy of the hard drive was first given to the FBI, another was later given to Rudy because nothing was done by the FBI.
The emails and photos on the laptop have not been disputed. His business partner has confirmed the emails, and the DKIM of at least one of the emails have been verified.
Any somewhat political article is extremely left leaning.
God forbid you have to use it for research of any political topic, always check the references and compare to right leaning sources.
It's funny because their critique of DM can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole.
Only one superpower right now is committing GENOCIDE against it's ethnic minorities.
You can downplay that as much as you want, and spit all the whataboutism you want, but it's still the truth.
The CCP is doing this to their Uighur population. Do you not see the difference in extremes?
Bonus points if it's equivalent to GENOCIDE, which is what the ONGOING human rights violation in China is.
The data going to them helps them continue this GENOCIDE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide_of_Uyghurs
You like linking to wikipedia, which article from the list you linked is equivalent to my link?
Must meet the requirements of it being CURRENT and caused by the government DIRECTLY.
All cultures have a bad and violent history. What matters is your current morals.
You don't have to wonder what China does with it's data. They track and imprison people for their dissent and ethnic status. There is no trial by jury. You are sent off to a work camp.
That does not happen in modern democracies. If you have evidence of such, please present it.
Proof against CCP: https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/
Just to get ahead of this but some people like to say you can compare the US immigration centers to the CCP concentration camps.
This is a false equivalency and a common CCP-propaganda talking point.
People willingly migrate to the US and are relieved when they hit these camps, they turn themselves in on purpose. They are processed and either deported or released and await trial to determine their asylum claim. None are there by force, it is temporary to process them.
The CCP takes people from their population by force and keeps them in work camps. Notably they take people just for being an ethnic minority. This is all without trial by jury.
The CCP is known to commit human rights violations, especially against it's Uighurs population.
Providing data to them is furthering these human rights violations.
Yes you can say other countries spy on citizens, but what the country does with the data is an important distinction.
Furthermore, there's usually a judicial process to request this data in other countries.
A warrant is needed from a judge, and even still any action must go through the legal process. Such is not true for the CCP.
From political dissent to being a minority can be your crime, there is no jury, there is no trial.
Would you hire a locksmith if he had a record of stalking people?
I suppose you don't want to also link to the defamation lawsuit Project Veritas recently won against The New York Times.
Concerning the actual content, I don't see how you can chalk this up to selective editing, the guy goes on for quite a while describing CNN's tactics.
What context do you think was left out?
You have to wonder why did he said all of those specific things. Do you think he made them all up on the spot?
Those things he said line up with their programming (the death toll counters, etc.).