Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[MDlaxfan76]

As to these emails, I understand why you're taking this bait, but do you think DOJ hasn't had access for the past 5 years? It's not as if these sorts of inquiries about Joe and Hunter weren't present throughout the Trump admin, right? Were they simply totally inept? Or do you buy into the newest stuff that Sessions and Barr were "in on it" too?

Don't they already have Hunter's emails?? Did Joe use these pseudonyms with him?? Were they referred to by him? Did his business partner who testified get emails from Joe under these pseudonyms? Nope...

This is mudslinging at its worst...at some point maybe something will stick, but the motivations are painfully clear..."retribution"

"mudslinging"...ha! This is Newsweek not Newsmax mdlax, but okay I'll continue to play along.

"at some point maybe something will stick"... more plausible deniability pour vous?

Newsweek is reporting the inquiry, not substantiating the facts, much less validating the implied allegations, behind the inquiry.

The motivations are obvious behind the inquiry...I note that you again refuse to answer direct questions...mudslinging at its worst is right.

[tech37]

I quite agree as to the slippery slope and we know that authoritarian countries harshly suppress dissent through censorship control of the media. I would expect governments, including democratic ones, to at times overreach in their efforts to promote public interest and health. And that's why we have a judicial system that the executive and legislative branches don't directly control. And why it's important that the judiciary have strong ethics and independence. And why respect for the rule of law system is so important to maintain, away from partisan biases.

I'll ask again, would you advocate for removal of the immunity big tech currently enjoys from civil suits for the harm they have promoted, accelerated? You keep ignoring that question.
We discussed this a couple years ago. I didn't have an answer then and I still don't.

I remember I referred you to Matt Stoller, someone who seemed to have credible ideas. I think this was the article:

How To Prevent the Next Social Media-Driven Attack On Democracy—and Avoid a Big Tech Censorship Regime

"We recommend three policy changes:

[1] Ban targeted advertising by communications platforms through either Federal Trade Commission agency rulemaking or legislation.
[2] Repeal or reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act so that traditional legal claims such as defamation, fraud, incitement, harassment, and so forth apply to platforms who profit from spreading dangerous and illegal content. A possible reform path would be to remove protections for firms which use algorithms to monetize data.
[3] Implement the recommendations in the House Antitrust Subcommittee’s report on digital markets to force common carriage rules on big tech firms that operate critical private infrastructure so that anyone engaged in legal behavior has access to this infrastructure on equal terms for equal service.

There’s a direct connection between increasing radicalization in society and the platforms’ profit motive. These three policy choices would break that connection, which is critical for preserving American democracy."

https://www.economicliberties.us/our-wo ... en-attack/#

Personally, I favor government providing information to big tech as to foreign sources seeking to exploit our open system with disinformation and misinformation and when it comes to clear public health matters to inform them of what the scientific evidence based on expert analysis says about emergency public health matters. I don't think government should be censoring what the tech companies publish, but I do think that providing them with the best information we can is beneficial. For instance, the NSA and CIA have access to insights that big tech can't be expected to have on their own.

Agree to disagree. In this day and age, there's many areas govt is needed but it has no place in deciding what is or isn't "misinformation." Why?... because everything is so hyper-politicized and any trust in govt (and MSM) has either expired or well on it's way. Good luck with that.

[tech37]

And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Nope, Taibbi hasn't had editorial oversight since he left Rolling Stone, and that was very light oversight. They don't have a strong record and he was one of the most 'out there' writers. He's always been more sensationalist than journalist, an attention seeker. None of that makes him " a fine, trustworthy journalist". And no, I find his writing often interesting and sometimes aligned with my own views, though nearly always overstating and exaggerating for shock value. My issue with calling him a "journalist" has nothing to do with the particular views he's putting out there at any given time, it's whether his 'reporting' is factual vs grossly over stated.

The Twitter matter is a good example of gross overstatement and twisting of selected 'facts' (and errors) to put forward conclusions that are way beyond reality. All to get attention and promote a particular narrative. I get it that you resonate with that narrative, but when a journalist gets his facts wrong, he should admit his errors and strive to do better...he doesn't. Instead he only acknowledges errors when directly challenged and dismisses them as inconsequential.

And no, I don't want any journalist threatened for not revealing sources. However, the "threat" was in regard to perjury, a crime which does carry jail time potentially. Taibbi had made material ("foundational" according to Plaskett) misstatements to Congress and Plaskett was pushing him to prove what he said was based on facts not his agenda. It was not about not revealing his sources...unless you think asking him directly whether he'd had communications with Elon Musk, now owner of Twitter, is asking him to reveal his sources...She offered him the opportunity to correct and complete the record, as she and her colleagues have no prosecutorial powers though they can refer matters to the DOJ.

She certainly would have no capacity to send the IRS after him. And no, I don't think the IRS became more aggressive because they didn't like his testimony...and no, I don't think there's a global cabal of blood drinking pedophiles running the world either.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... i_redacted

Gotta love Plaskett

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges."

The Democratic Party’s Crucifixion of Matt Taibbi

"In March, Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger were called to testify before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government. While Taibbi was testifying on March 9, an IRS agent visited his house in New Jersey.

Taibbi discovered that the IRS opened a case against him on the day he published his Christmas Eve Twitter thread from a letter House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel inquiring about Taibbi’s case. It was a Saturday. It was Christmas Eve. Taibbi did not owe taxes. The case was four years old. All this suggests that the IRS case was politically motivated and the FBI was monitoring Taibbi."

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the- ... um=reader2

House Democrat Threatens Twitter Files Journalist with Prosecution and Imprisonment

Rep. Plaskett, citing MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, floats prison time for Matt Taibbi

https://www.leefang.com/p/house-democra ... ns-twitter?

yeah, keep citing Substack and Twitter writers' opinions...obviously, I mean obviously, these are entirely factual...

Remain stuck in your myopic bubble Did you even bother to read?

[tech37]

As to these emails, I understand why you're taking this bait, but do you think DOJ hasn't had access for the past 5 years? It's not as if these sorts of inquiries about Joe and Hunter weren't present throughout the Trump admin, right? Were they simply totally inept? Or do you buy into the newest stuff that Sessions and Barr were "in on it" too?

Don't they already have Hunter's emails?? Did Joe use these pseudonyms with him?? Were they referred to by him? Did his business partner who testified get emails from Joe under these pseudonyms? Nope...

This is mudslinging at its worst...at some point maybe something will stick, but the motivations are painfully clear..."retribution"

"mudslinging"...ha! This is Newsweek not Newsmax mdlax, but okay I'll continue to play along.

"at some point maybe something will stick"... more plausible deniability pour vous?

Newsweek is reporting the inquiry, not substantiating the facts, much less validating the implied allegations, behind the inquiry.

The motivations are obvious behind the inquiry...I note that you again refuse to answer direct questions...mudslinging at its worst is right.

Obviously someone at Newsweek thinks "reporting the inquiry" is relevant.

[MDlaxfan76]

I quite agree as to the slippery slope and we know that authoritarian countries harshly suppress dissent through censorship control of the media. I would expect governments, including democratic ones, to at times overreach in their efforts to promote public interest and health. And that's why we have a judicial system that the executive and legislative branches don't directly control. And why it's important that the judiciary have strong ethics and independence. And why respect for the rule of law system is so important to maintain, away from partisan biases.

I'll ask again, would you advocate for removal of the immunity big tech currently enjoys from civil suits for the harm they have promoted, accelerated? You keep ignoring that question.
We discussed this a couple years ago. I didn't have an answer then and I still don't.

I remember I referred you to Matt Stoller, someone who seemed to have credible ideas. I think this was the article:

How To Prevent the Next Social Media-Driven Attack On Democracy—and Avoid a Big Tech Censorship Regime

"We recommend three policy changes:

[1] Ban targeted advertising by communications platforms through either Federal Trade Commission agency rulemaking or legislation.
[2] Repeal or reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act so that traditional legal claims such as defamation, fraud, incitement, harassment, and so forth apply to platforms who profit from spreading dangerous and illegal content. A possible reform path would be to remove protections for firms which use algorithms to monetize data.
[3] Implement the recommendations in the House Antitrust Subcommittee’s report on digital markets to force common carriage rules on big tech firms that operate critical private infrastructure so that anyone engaged in legal behavior has access to this infrastructure on equal terms for equal service.

There’s a direct connection between increasing radicalization in society and the platforms’ profit motive. These three policy choices would break that connection, which is critical for preserving American democracy."

https://www.economicliberties.us/our-wo ... en-attack/#

Personally, I favor government providing information to big tech as to foreign sources seeking to exploit our open system with disinformation and misinformation and when it comes to clear public health matters to inform them of what the scientific evidence based on expert analysis says about emergency public health matters. I don't think government should be censoring what the tech companies publish, but I do think that providing them with the best information we can is beneficial. For instance, the NSA and CIA have access to insights that big tech can't be expected to have on their own.

Agree to disagree. In this day and age, there's many areas govt is needed but it has no place in deciding what is or isn't "misinformation." Why?... because everything is so hyper-politicized and any trust in govt (and MSM) has either expired or well on it's way. Good luck with that.

I do think that if the immunity protections were removed, these platforms would have a big incentive to self-police. Not that they'll be perfect, as we've seen organizations like Fox News consciously lie to the American public over and over again, but defamation suits can make a dent in those incentives. But just like any other form of pollution, sometimes it needs to be darn clear that those causing harm will be held to account.

I don't agree that government providing its insights, particularly about foreign actors, is remotely censorship. Likewise, I think there are emergency situations in which purposeful misinformation can be so damaging to the public health and welfare that it needs to be clear that there will be legal repercussions for spreading it, knowingly. And just as we require medical claims made by healthcare companies, Pharma etc be FDA approved, so too should there be repercussions for false advertising for any sort of remedy making health claims that are not substantiated and approved by the FDA.

[MDlaxfan76]

As to these emails, I understand why you're taking this bait, but do you think DOJ hasn't had access for the past 5 years? It's not as if these sorts of inquiries about Joe and Hunter weren't present throughout the Trump admin, right? Were they simply totally inept? Or do you buy into the newest stuff that Sessions and Barr were "in on it" too?

Don't they already have Hunter's emails?? Did Joe use these pseudonyms with him?? Were they referred to by him? Did his business partner who testified get emails from Joe under these pseudonyms? Nope...

This is mudslinging at its worst...at some point maybe something will stick, but the motivations are painfully clear..."retribution"

"mudslinging"...ha! This is Newsweek not Newsmax mdlax, but okay I'll continue to play along.

"at some point maybe something will stick"... more plausible deniability pour vous?

Newsweek is reporting the inquiry, not substantiating the facts, much less validating the implied allegations, behind the inquiry.

The motivations are obvious behind the inquiry...I note that you again refuse to answer direct questions...mudslinging at its worst is right.

Obviously someone at Newsweek thinks "reporting the inquiry" is relevant.

Of course they do.
I'm not saying that the inquiry itself doesn't deserve to be covered, just that inquiry itself is mudslinging at its worst. They have no actual basis connecting Joe to ANY of Hunter's business, no payments made to Joe, no actions taken by Joe in return for bribes.

If they DID have such evidence, they'd produce it...and the partisans who most benefit from such production had 4 years under Trump to produce it, and yet did not.

So, until proven otherwise, this is more of just asking for the 'investigation' so that they can sling mud, not because they have any probable cause to make these demands. Retribution...

[MDlaxfan76]

And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Nope, Taibbi hasn't had editorial oversight since he left Rolling Stone, and that was very light oversight. They don't have a strong record and he was one of the most 'out there' writers. He's always been more sensationalist than journalist, an attention seeker. None of that makes him " a fine, trustworthy journalist". And no, I find his writing often interesting and sometimes aligned with my own views, though nearly always overstating and exaggerating for shock value. My issue with calling him a "journalist" has nothing to do with the particular views he's putting out there at any given time, it's whether his 'reporting' is factual vs grossly over stated.

The Twitter matter is a good example of gross overstatement and twisting of selected 'facts' (and errors) to put forward conclusions that are way beyond reality. All to get attention and promote a particular narrative. I get it that you resonate with that narrative, but when a journalist gets his facts wrong, he should admit his errors and strive to do better...he doesn't. Instead he only acknowledges errors when directly challenged and dismisses them as inconsequential.

And no, I don't want any journalist threatened for not revealing sources. However, the "threat" was in regard to perjury, a crime which does carry jail time potentially. Taibbi had made material ("foundational" according to Plaskett) misstatements to Congress and Plaskett was pushing him to prove what he said was based on facts not his agenda. It was not about not revealing his sources...unless you think asking him directly whether he'd had communications with Elon Musk, now owner of Twitter, is asking him to reveal his sources...She offered him the opportunity to correct and complete the record, as she and her colleagues have no prosecutorial powers though they can refer matters to the DOJ.

She certainly would have no capacity to send the IRS after him. And no, I don't think the IRS became more aggressive because they didn't like his testimony...and no, I don't think there's a global cabal of blood drinking pedophiles running the world either.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... i_redacted

Gotta love Plaskett

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges."

The Democratic Party’s Crucifixion of Matt Taibbi

"In March, Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger were called to testify before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government. While Taibbi was testifying on March 9, an IRS agent visited his house in New Jersey.

Taibbi discovered that the IRS opened a case against him on the day he published his Christmas Eve Twitter thread from a letter House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel inquiring about Taibbi’s case. It was a Saturday. It was Christmas Eve. Taibbi did not owe taxes. The case was four years old. All this suggests that the IRS case was politically motivated and the FBI was monitoring Taibbi."

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the- ... um=reader2

House Democrat Threatens Twitter Files Journalist with Prosecution and Imprisonment

Rep. Plaskett, citing MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, floats prison time for Matt Taibbi

https://www.leefang.com/p/house-democra ... ns-twitter?

yeah, keep citing Substack and Twitter writers' opinions...obviously, I mean obviously, these are entirely factual...

Remain stuck in your myopic bubble Did you even bother to read?

I read the first paragraph, got the arch tone right away, and looked into who the author is, his track record.

[MDlaxfan76]

And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Nope, Taibbi hasn't had editorial oversight since he left Rolling Stone, and that was very light oversight. They don't have a strong record and he was one of the most 'out there' writers. He's always been more sensationalist than journalist, an attention seeker. None of that makes him " a fine, trustworthy journalist". And no, I find his writing often interesting and sometimes aligned with my own views, though nearly always overstating and exaggerating for shock value. My issue with calling him a "journalist" has nothing to do with the particular views he's putting out there at any given time, it's whether his 'reporting' is factual vs grossly over stated.

The Twitter matter is a good example of gross overstatement and twisting of selected 'facts' (and errors) to put forward conclusions that are way beyond reality. All to get attention and promote a particular narrative. I get it that you resonate with that narrative, but when a journalist gets his facts wrong, he should admit his errors and strive to do better...he doesn't. Instead he only acknowledges errors when directly challenged and dismisses them as inconsequential.

And no, I don't want any journalist threatened for not revealing sources. However, the "threat" was in regard to perjury, a crime which does carry jail time potentially. Taibbi had made material ("foundational" according to Plaskett) misstatements to Congress and Plaskett was pushing him to prove what he said was based on facts not his agenda. It was not about not revealing his sources...unless you think asking him directly whether he'd had communications with Elon Musk, now owner of Twitter, is asking him to reveal his sources...She offered him the opportunity to correct and complete the record, as she and her colleagues have no prosecutorial powers though they can refer matters to the DOJ.

She certainly would have no capacity to send the IRS after him. And no, I don't think the IRS became more aggressive because they didn't like his testimony...and no, I don't think there's a global cabal of blood drinking pedophiles running the world either.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... i_redacted

Gotta love Plaskett

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges."

The Democratic Party’s Crucifixion of Matt Taibbi

"In March, Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger were called to testify before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government. While Taibbi was testifying on March 9, an IRS agent visited his house in New Jersey.

Taibbi discovered that the IRS opened a case against him on the day he published his Christmas Eve Twitter thread from a letter House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel inquiring about Taibbi’s case. It was a Saturday. It was Christmas Eve. Taibbi did not owe taxes. The case was four years old. All this suggests that the IRS case was politically motivated and the FBI was monitoring Taibbi."

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the- ... um=reader2

House Democrat Threatens Twitter Files Journalist with Prosecution and Imprisonment

Rep. Plaskett, citing MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, floats prison time for Matt Taibbi

https://www.leefang.com/p/house-democra ... ns-twitter?

yeah, keep citing Substack and Twitter writers' opinions...obviously, I mean obviously, these are entirely factual...

Remain stuck in your myopic bubble Did you even bother to read?

I read the first paragraph and got the arch tone and then looked into who Hedges is/was...very left wing former journalist, now opinion writer on substance, no editorial oversight too.

I've now read it and found it interesting, but similarly hyperbolic and largely unfounded in reality. This is a guy who was fired from the NYT, accused of plagiarism, and worked for RT...now maybe he's actually a good guy and just got caught up in some extreme lefty politics but what I see is someone, like Taibbi, who are willing to skirt journalistic ethics to get attention.

[cradleandshoot]

And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Nope, Taibbi hasn't had editorial oversight since he left Rolling Stone, and that was very light oversight. They don't have a strong record and he was one of the most 'out there' writers. He's always been more sensationalist than journalist, an attention seeker. None of that makes him " a fine, trustworthy journalist". And no, I find his writing often interesting and sometimes aligned with my own views, though nearly always overstating and exaggerating for shock value. My issue with calling him a "journalist" has nothing to do with the particular views he's putting out there at any given time, it's whether his 'reporting' is factual vs grossly over stated.

The Twitter matter is a good example of gross overstatement and twisting of selected 'facts' (and errors) to put forward conclusions that are way beyond reality. All to get attention and promote a particular narrative. I get it that you resonate with that narrative, but when a journalist gets his facts wrong, he should admit his errors and strive to do better...he doesn't. Instead he only acknowledges errors when directly challenged and dismisses them as inconsequential.

And no, I don't want any journalist threatened for not revealing sources. However, the "threat" was in regard to perjury, a crime which does carry jail time potentially. Taibbi had made material ("foundational" according to Plaskett) misstatements to Congress and Plaskett was pushing him to prove what he said was based on facts not his agenda. It was not about not revealing his sources...unless you think asking him directly whether he'd had communications with Elon Musk, now owner of Twitter, is asking him to reveal his sources...She offered him the opportunity to correct and complete the record, as she and her colleagues have no prosecutorial powers though they can refer matters to the DOJ.

She certainly would have no capacity to send the IRS after him. And no, I don't think the IRS became more aggressive because they didn't like his testimony...and no, I don't think there's a global cabal of blood drinking pedophiles running the world either.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... i_redacted

Gotta love Plaskett

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges."

The Democratic Party’s Crucifixion of Matt Taibbi

"In March, Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger were called to testify before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government. While Taibbi was testifying on March 9, an IRS agent visited his house in New Jersey.

Taibbi discovered that the IRS opened a case against him on the day he published his Christmas Eve Twitter thread from a letter House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel inquiring about Taibbi’s case. It was a Saturday. It was Christmas Eve. Taibbi did not owe taxes. The case was four years old. All this suggests that the IRS case was politically motivated and the FBI was monitoring Taibbi."

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the- ... um=reader2

House Democrat Threatens Twitter Files Journalist with Prosecution and Imprisonment

Rep. Plaskett, citing MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, floats prison time for Matt Taibbi

https://www.leefang.com/p/house-democra ... ns-twitter?

yeah, keep citing Substack and Twitter writers' opinions...obviously, I mean obviously, these are entirely factual...

Remain stuck in your myopic bubble Did you even bother to read?

I read the first paragraph and got the arch tone and then looked into who Hedges is/was...very left wing former journalist, now opinion writer on substance, no editorial oversight too.

I've now read it and found it interesting, but similarly hyperbolic and largely unfounded in reality. This is a guy who was fired from the NYT, accused of plagiarism, and worked for RT...now maybe he's actually a good guy and just got caught up in some extreme lefty politics but what I see is someone, like Taibbi, who are willing to skirt journalistic ethics to get attention.

Being fired from the NYT should be something you proudly put on your resume. NYT is pretty much the print version of FOX news.

[MDlaxfan76]

And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Nope, Taibbi hasn't had editorial oversight since he left Rolling Stone, and that was very light oversight. They don't have a strong record and he was one of the most 'out there' writers. He's always been more sensationalist than journalist, an attention seeker. None of that makes him " a fine, trustworthy journalist". And no, I find his writing often interesting and sometimes aligned with my own views, though nearly always overstating and exaggerating for shock value. My issue with calling him a "journalist" has nothing to do with the particular views he's putting out there at any given time, it's whether his 'reporting' is factual vs grossly over stated.

The Twitter matter is a good example of gross overstatement and twisting of selected 'facts' (and errors) to put forward conclusions that are way beyond reality. All to get attention and promote a particular narrative. I get it that you resonate with that narrative, but when a journalist gets his facts wrong, he should admit his errors and strive to do better...he doesn't. Instead he only acknowledges errors when directly challenged and dismisses them as inconsequential.

And no, I don't want any journalist threatened for not revealing sources. However, the "threat" was in regard to perjury, a crime which does carry jail time potentially. Taibbi had made material ("foundational" according to Plaskett) misstatements to Congress and Plaskett was pushing him to prove what he said was based on facts not his agenda. It was not about not revealing his sources...unless you think asking him directly whether he'd had communications with Elon Musk, now owner of Twitter, is asking him to reveal his sources...She offered him the opportunity to correct and complete the record, as she and her colleagues have no prosecutorial powers though they can refer matters to the DOJ.

She certainly would have no capacity to send the IRS after him. And no, I don't think the IRS became more aggressive because they didn't like his testimony...and no, I don't think there's a global cabal of blood drinking pedophiles running the world either.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... i_redacted

Gotta love Plaskett

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges."

The Democratic Party’s Crucifixion of Matt Taibbi

"In March, Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger were called to testify before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government. While Taibbi was testifying on March 9, an IRS agent visited his house in New Jersey.

Taibbi discovered that the IRS opened a case against him on the day he published his Christmas Eve Twitter thread from a letter House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel inquiring about Taibbi’s case. It was a Saturday. It was Christmas Eve. Taibbi did not owe taxes. The case was four years old. All this suggests that the IRS case was politically motivated and the FBI was monitoring Taibbi."

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the- ... um=reader2

House Democrat Threatens Twitter Files Journalist with Prosecution and Imprisonment

Rep. Plaskett, citing MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, floats prison time for Matt Taibbi

https://www.leefang.com/p/house-democra ... ns-twitter?

yeah, keep citing Substack and Twitter writers' opinions...obviously, I mean obviously, these are entirely factual...

Remain stuck in your myopic bubble Did you even bother to read?

I read the first paragraph and got the arch tone and then looked into who Hedges is/was...very left wing former journalist, now opinion writer on substance, no editorial oversight too.

I've now read it and found it interesting, but similarly hyperbolic and largely unfounded in reality. This is a guy who was fired from the NYT, accused of plagiarism, and worked for RT...now maybe he's actually a good guy and just got caught up in some extreme lefty politics but what I see is someone, like Taibbi, who are willing to skirt journalistic ethics to get attention.

Being fired from the NYT should be something you proudly put on your resume. NYT is pretty much the print version of FOX news.

sigh, not the reporting.

[cradleandshoot]

And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Nope, Taibbi hasn't had editorial oversight since he left Rolling Stone, and that was very light oversight. They don't have a strong record and he was one of the most 'out there' writers. He's always been more sensationalist than journalist, an attention seeker. None of that makes him " a fine, trustworthy journalist". And no, I find his writing often interesting and sometimes aligned with my own views, though nearly always overstating and exaggerating for shock value. My issue with calling him a "journalist" has nothing to do with the particular views he's putting out there at any given time, it's whether his 'reporting' is factual vs grossly over stated.

The Twitter matter is a good example of gross overstatement and twisting of selected 'facts' (and errors) to put forward conclusions that are way beyond reality. All to get attention and promote a particular narrative. I get it that you resonate with that narrative, but when a journalist gets his facts wrong, he should admit his errors and strive to do better...he doesn't. Instead he only acknowledges errors when directly challenged and dismisses them as inconsequential.

And no, I don't want any journalist threatened for not revealing sources. However, the "threat" was in regard to perjury, a crime which does carry jail time potentially. Taibbi had made material ("foundational" according to Plaskett) misstatements to Congress and Plaskett was pushing him to prove what he said was based on facts not his agenda. It was not about not revealing his sources...unless you think asking him directly whether he'd had communications with Elon Musk, now owner of Twitter, is asking him to reveal his sources...She offered him the opportunity to correct and complete the record, as she and her colleagues have no prosecutorial powers though they can refer matters to the DOJ.

She certainly would have no capacity to send the IRS after him. And no, I don't think the IRS became more aggressive because they didn't like his testimony...and no, I don't think there's a global cabal of blood drinking pedophiles running the world either.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... i_redacted

Gotta love Plaskett

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges."

The Democratic Party’s Crucifixion of Matt Taibbi

"In March, Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger were called to testify before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government. While Taibbi was testifying on March 9, an IRS agent visited his house in New Jersey.

Taibbi discovered that the IRS opened a case against him on the day he published his Christmas Eve Twitter thread from a letter House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel inquiring about Taibbi’s case. It was a Saturday. It was Christmas Eve. Taibbi did not owe taxes. The case was four years old. All this suggests that the IRS case was politically motivated and the FBI was monitoring Taibbi."

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the- ... um=reader2

House Democrat Threatens Twitter Files Journalist with Prosecution and Imprisonment

Rep. Plaskett, citing MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, floats prison time for Matt Taibbi

https://www.leefang.com/p/house-democra ... ns-twitter?

yeah, keep citing Substack and Twitter writers' opinions...obviously, I mean obviously, these are entirely factual...

Remain stuck in your myopic bubble Did you even bother to read?

I read the first paragraph and got the arch tone and then looked into who Hedges is/was...very left wing former journalist, now opinion writer on substance, no editorial oversight too.

I've now read it and found it interesting, but similarly hyperbolic and largely unfounded in reality. This is a guy who was fired from the NYT, accused of plagiarism, and worked for RT...now maybe he's actually a good guy and just got caught up in some extreme lefty politics but what I see is someone, like Taibbi, who are willing to skirt journalistic ethics to get attention.

Being fired from the NYT should be something you proudly put on your resume. NYT is pretty much the print version of FOX news.

sigh, not the reporting.

At least the NYT is not owned by Gannett. That would be the kiss of death. Gannett does a remarkable job of destroying newspapers with many decades of prestigious journalism. Frank Gannett must be spinning in his grave wondering what happened to his newspapers.

Since I don't read the NYT nor do I listen to Fox News my go to baseline is to ignore your opinion on everything at all times. It has worked for me for a long time now
IMO your right up their with Gannett when it comes to credibility.

[tech37]

A Question for the Very ‘Special’ Counsel, David Weiss
The Biden probe couldn’t be in better hands — at least from the administration’s perspective.

"So here’s the question for Weiss: What the hell have you been doing for the last five years?

The answer, of course, is: burying the Biden investigation. And for that service, Biden attorney general Merrick Garland has branded him “special counsel” — a position for which he is unqualified based on the relevant regulations and unfit based on performance . . . or lack thereof.

But don’t you worry: Weiss is now promising that, by the end of this month, he will indict a gun charge so straightforward it could have been indicted with about a week’s competent investigation five years ago — and would have been if the defendant’s name hadn’t been Biden. That would be the same gun charge Weiss tried to disappear six weeks ago. Garland is right: The Biden probe couldn’t be in better hands — at least from the Biden administration’s perspective."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/ ... vid-weiss/

[njbill]

No worries. The gun charges are unconstitutional thanks to Clarence Thomas. Wouldn’t the frothers’ heads explode if they were to be dismissed?

[Typical Lax Dad]

A Question for the Very ‘Special’ Counsel, David Weiss
The Biden probe couldn’t be in better hands — at least from the administration’s perspective.

"So here’s the question for Weiss: What the hell have you been doing for the last five years?

The answer, of course, is: burying the Biden investigation. And for that service, Biden attorney general Merrick Garland has branded him “special counsel” — a position for which he is unqualified based on the relevant regulations and unfit based on performance . . . or lack thereof.

But don’t you worry: Weiss is now promising that, by the end of this month, he will indict a gun charge so straightforward it could have been indicted with about a week’s competent investigation five years ago — and would have been if the defendant’s name hadn’t been Biden. That would be the same gun charge Weiss tried to disappear six weeks ago. Garland is right: The Biden probe couldn’t be in better hands — at least from the Biden administration’s perspective."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/ ... vid-weiss/

“Show me the man”

[njbill]

Here’s the question Hunter Biden allegedly answered “no” to on the gun form he signed:

“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

So if someone, say, used marijuana and answered “no” on the form, they would have violated the same law Hunter is accused of having violated.

Wonder how many guns have been purchased by people who have used marijuana?

And then there is Don Jr. who is a well-known user of cocaine. He buys a gun every other week to kill endangered species. Why hasn’t he been prosecuted?

[cradleandshoot]

Here’s the question Hunter Biden allegedly answered “no” to on the gun form he signed:

“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

So if someone, say, used marijuana and answered “no” on the form, they would have violated the same law Hunter is accused of having violated.

Wonder how many guns have been purchased by people who have used marijuana?

And then there is Don Jr. who is a well-known user of cocaine. He buys a gun every other week to kill endangered species. Why hasn’t he been prosecuted?

Quite the dilemma smoking weed puts forth. It is now legal in NYS. The rub is if you have a CDL Class A license and you pee dirty the DOT and the Federal government will take your license and you will lose your job. Leg okal in the eyes of the State of New York but still illegal in the eyes of the Federal Government. Why is that good citizens?? If your not stoned while your driving your rig that joint you smoked 2 weeks ago will cost you your job. The federal government and the state government should find a way to get on the same page..

Big difference between Hunter and Don Jr. Hunter got caught lying. Your a lawyer NJ with a prestigious reputation. Your doing a fine job of doing what a good lawyer should do. Where is your proof that Trump Jr did anything wrong? How do you know that Don Jr is a well known user of cocaine? You have the inside scoop? You and Don Jr party together?

[a fan]

But don’t you worry: Weiss is now promising that, by the end of this month, he will indict a gun charge so straightforward it could have been indicted with about a week’s competent investigation five years ago — and would have been if the defendant’s name hadn’t been Biden

Where's the follow up piece in the National Review where they explain to their readers......TeamTinFoil...... how it's pretty hard to protect the Biden Administration "with a week's competent investigation" when both the FBI and DoJ opened their cases in 2018, and the Biden Administration didn't start until 2021?

But why let silly details like holding the Trump Administration and Bill Barr responsible for not indicting Hunter on this simple, simple slam dunk charge in the three years that they had the chance get in the way of a brilliant "the Dems are bad" piece?

Personally, I think it was the Eisenhower Administration that was responsible for taking it easy on Hunter, since space and time doesn't matter to TeamTinFoil or the National Review.

On an unrelated note, what I want to know is: why didn't the Biden Administration do more about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Hopefully, the National Review is all over this in their next piece where space and time are just footnotes.

[njbill]

Here’s the question Hunter Biden allegedly answered “no” to on the gun form he signed:

“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

So if someone, say, used marijuana and answered “no” on the form, they would have violated the same law Hunter is accused of having violated.

Wonder how many guns have been purchased by people who have used marijuana?

And then there is Don Jr. who is a well-known user of cocaine. He buys a gun every other week to kill endangered species. Why hasn’t he been prosecuted?

Quite the dilemma smoking weed puts forth. It is now legal in NYS. The rub is if you have a CDL Class A license and you pee dirty the DOT and the Federal government will take your license and you will lose your job. Leg okal in the eyes of the State of New York but still illegal in the eyes of the Federal Government. Why is that good citizens?? If your not stoned while your driving your rig that joint you smoked 2 weeks ago will cost you your job. The federal government and the state government should find a way to get on the same page..

Big difference between Hunter and Don Jr. Hunter got caught lying. Your a lawyer NJ with a prestigious reputation. Your doing a fine job of doing what a good lawyer should do. Where is your proof that Trump Jr did anything wrong? How do you know that Don Jr is a well known user of cocaine? You have the inside scoop? You and Don Jr party together?

Hunter got caught because he got investigated. No doubt in my mind that Junior would be caught as well if he were investigated.

But no worries, the law is unconstitutional. That’s what Clarence says.

[ggait]

But don’t you worry: Weiss is now promising that, by the end of this month, he will indict a gun charge so straightforward it could have been indicted with about a week’s competent investigation five years ago — and would have been if the defendant’s name hadn’t been Biden.

Just a couple of facts for Team TinFoil. Although we know you guys don't really deal with those.

1. Reports are that no one, not one single person, has ever been prosecuted in the federal district of Delaware for this crime. Never. Hunter would be the first and only person charged. So yes, Hunter is being treated differently.

2. Thanks to SCOTUS Thomas, said law is almost certainly now unconstitutional.

Disgraceful how you MAGAs are trampling on Hunter's 2A rights. Live free or die!!

[Typical Lax Dad]

But don’t you worry: Weiss is now promising that, by the end of this month, he will indict a gun charge so straightforward it could have been indicted with about a week’s competent investigation five years ago — and would have been if the defendant’s name hadn’t been Biden

Where's the follow up piece in the National Review where they explain to their readers......TeamTinFoil...... how it's pretty hard to protect the Biden Administration "with a week's competent investigation" when both the FBI and DoJ opened their cases in 2018, and the Biden Administration didn't start until 2021?

But why let silly details like holding the Trump Administration and Bill Barr responsible for not indicting Hunter on this simple, simple slam dunk charge in the three years that they had the chance get in the way of a brilliant "the Dems are bad" piece?

Personally, I think it was the Eisenhower Administration that was responsible for taking it easy on Hunter, since space and time doesn't matter to TeamTinFoil or the National Review.

On an unrelated note, what I want to know is: why didn't the Biden Administration do more about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Hopefully, the National Review is all over this in their next piece where space and time are just footnotes.

The WTC bombing on 9/11 would not have taken place had Obama not been the President!