Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
stlrams

The story of tony bobulinski

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Their handling seems to be consistent...there is little to no evidence actually provided...the authorities have had the information and are not talking.  What is there to report?  Should they report unverified BS given out by Rudy G?

Hell, their best report right now should be digging how much Rudy is involved with possibly cooking up a scheme yet again to try and discredit Biden.

There is literally no evidence provided that this is a Russian hack and dump ploy, yet that's all we heard for three days on every news outlet.  Consistent my ###.  The lengths the media will go to protect Biden from even an obvious non-story is repugnant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure this is nothing.  I've been assured by well meaning libs that ol' sleepy joe is squeeky clean......🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Manster said:

Im sure this is nothing.  I've been assured by well meaning libs that ol' sleepy joe is squeeky clean......🙄

You dont find the timing of this suspect?  I mean literally a week out from the election

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Manster said:

Im sure this is nothing.  I've been assured by well meaning libs that ol' sleepy joe is squeeky clean......🙄

Didn't Bobulinski admit that Joe turned down the alleged offer? That would seem pretty clean to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

There is literally no evidence provided that this is a Russian hack and dump ploy, yet that's all we heard for three days on every news outlet.  Consistent my ###.  The lengths the media will go to protect Biden from even an obvious non-story is repugnant.

Literally no evidence? It came from Rudy. I haven't followed this story, but I know that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pantherclub said:

You dont find the timing of this suspect?  I mean literally a week out from the election

Kind of like right before a vote for a supreme court justice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

There is literally no evidence provided that this is a Russian hack and dump ploy, yet that's all we heard for three days on every news outlet.  Consistent my ###.  The lengths the media will go to protect Biden from even an obvious non-story is repugnant.

Like I said, I do think there's a conversation to be had around media coverage but this ain't it - for me, at least.  However, I will point out that Trump has brought this on himself with the media.  Should they do it (if, in fact, that is what goes on with some stories)?  No, they shouldn't.  But I also can recognize that people are human and after being called Fake News and the enemy for so long they may be willing to turn a blind eye.  It would be like one of the mods in the PSF handing out different punishment to posters based on whether the posters have complained about them.  Ideally it wouldn't happen but to be outraged when it does seems at least slightly disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

There is literally no evidence provided that this is a Russian hack and dump ploy, yet that's all we heard for three days on every news outlet.  Consistent my ###.  The lengths the media will go to protect Biden from even an obvious non-story is repugnant.

We heard from legitmate ex intelligence people that it sounded like a Russian disinformation campaign.  Did they report any different than that?

Repugnant is POTUS' personal lawyer creating much of this and digging this up...does that not bother you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

There is literally no evidence provided that this is a Russian hack and dump ploy, yet that's all we heard for three days on every news outlet.  Consistent my ###.  The lengths the media will go to protect Biden from even an obvious non-story is repugnant.

There is a difference between "the media is calling this a Russian hack and dump ploy" and "the media is reporting that 60 former intelligence officials have signed off on a letter claiming that this would be consistent with a Russian hack and dump ploy".

The latter is almost always newsworthy; the former is almost always not.

Edited by [scooter]
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Literally no evidence? It came from Rudy. I haven't followed this story, but I know that much.

Literally no evidence.  The DNI made clear that there was no evidence.  No one from any side is claiming that these are fake emails.  No one is claiming that the content is made up.  A group of former intelligence people, with no evidence, claimed it "had the earmarks of Russian disinformation".  That's the standard?  Its ridiculous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [scooter] said:

There is a difference between "the media is calling this a Russian hack and dump ploy" and "the media is reporting that 60 former intelligence officials have signed off on a letter claiming that this would be consistent with a hack and dump ploy".

The latter is almost always newsworthy; the former is almost always not.

And the DNI has come out and said there is NO EVIDENCE of this.  None.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:
4 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

There is a difference between "the media is calling this a Russian hack and dump ploy" and "the media is reporting that 60 former intelligence officials have signed off on a letter claiming that this would be consistent with a hack and dump ploy".

The latter is almost always newsworthy; the former is almost always not.

And the DNI has come out and said there is NO EVIDENCE of this.  None.  

Which the mainstream media has also reported.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

Which the mainstream media has also reported.

Which again...all seems to be legitimate reporting.  Reporting unverified crap fed from Rudy and Bannon...yeah, that seems to be why the only ones really reporting it are the places that are highly questionable sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Literally no evidence? It came from Rudy. I haven't followed this story, but I know that much.

Literally no evidence.  The DNI made clear that there was no evidence.  No one from any side is claiming that these are fake emails.  No one is claiming that the content is made up.  A group of former intelligence people, with no evidence, claimed it "had the earmarks of Russian disinformation".  That's the standard?  Its ridiculous.

The standard -- in terms of journalism -- is not based on what is said, but who said it. If 60 former intelligence officers issue a press release saying "it has the earmarks of purple monkey dishwasher", then it will be reported. By the same token, if a homeless guy issues a press release saying "Joe Biden killed five hookers", it would not be reported.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Literally no evidence.  The DNI made clear that there was no evidence.  No one from any side is claiming that these are fake emails.  No one is claiming that the content is made up.  A group of former intelligence people, with no evidence, claimed it "had the earmarks of Russian disinformation".  That's the standard?  Its ridiculous.

If DNI Ratcliffe says it, it must be true? Ratcliffe also said that the Russian interference in the 2016 election may have helped Hillary more than Trump. He also claimed that the Mueller report was not written by Mueller, but by "Hillary Clinton's de facto legal team." He is a partisan hack who is not a credible source of information, unfortunately.

And his statement about "no evidence" is obviously wrong. The fact that the stuff came from Rudy is evidence that it's planted by Russians because we know that Rudy was being fed information from people like Dmytry Firtash. (That doesn't mean that it's dispositive evidence, or even strong evidence, but it's more than no evidence.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Literally no evidence.  The DNI made clear that there was no evidence.  No one from any side is claiming that these are fake emails.  No one is claiming that the content is made up.  A group of former intelligence people, with no evidence, claimed it "had the earmarks of Russian disinformation".  That's the standard?  Its ridiculous.

For argument's sake, let's say all the texts and emails are real. What do they show? The WSJ and Fox News went through the cache of Bobulinski data and information and concluded there is no evidence that Joe Biden was involved, no evidence that a crime was committed, no evidence the deal being discussed went anywhere, and no evidence that Joe Biden collected any money. In fact, there is evidence that Joe Biden REJECTED the deal and did not accept any money (which all happened AFTER he was out of office). And Bobulinski admitted that Joe did not play an active role in anything in his interview. The FBI and Rudy have had all this stuff in their possession since December (if not earlier).

So sure, the media has been reluctant to get involved on what essentially is a witch hunt over Hunter Biden. If the information in all the texts and emails was so clear cut and obvious, why didn't Rudy turn them over when there was an ongoing investigation into Joe Biden? Why did the WSJ and Fox News say there was nothing to support Bobulinski's claims? Why did this story sit on the back burner for 12+ months and then suddenly materialize two weeks before the election, broken by Rudy Giuliani?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

For argument's sake, let's say all the texts and emails are real. What do they show? The WSJ and Fox News went through the cache of Bobulinski data and information and concluded there is no evidence that Joe Biden was involved, no evidence that a crime was committed, no evidence the deal being discussed went anywhere, and no evidence that Joe Biden collected any money. In fact, there is evidence that Joe Biden REJECTED the deal and did not accept any money (which all happened AFTER he was out of office). And Bobulinski admitted that Joe did not play an active role in anything in his interview. The FBI and Rudy have had all this stuff in their possession since December (if not earlier).

So sure, the media has been reluctant to get involved on what essentially is a witch hunt over Hunter Biden. If the information in all the texts and emails was so clear cut and obvious, why didn't Rudy turn them over when there was an ongoing investigation into Joe Biden? Why did the WSJ and Fox News say there was nothing to support Bobulinski's claims? Why did this story sit on the back burner for 12+ months and then suddenly materialize two weeks before the election, broken by Rudy Giuliani?

My initial post said specifically that I thought it was an obvious non-story and that is still my take.  

The issue I have is regarding the bolded.  They haven't been reluctant to get involved.  They've been running with the Russia! angle for a week now, again sans evidence other than a group of former intelligence officers signed a paper that said this "had the earmarks" of Russian involvement.  This assertion isn't based on anything other than its an attempted smear on Biden and that seems like something Russia would do.  All of this to block and tackle for the guy on a NON ISSUE.  Just be honest, report that while there is some semblance of shadiness and evidence that Hunter probably used his last name to make a lot of money, there really is no there there.  They can't do that.  They must malign this as a conspiracy theory/Russian interference.  For the mere illusion of impropriety this story seems to paint, the media seems like they must destroy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unckeyherb said:

My initial post said specifically that I thought it was an obvious non-story and that is still my take.  

The issue I have is regarding the bolded.  They haven't been reluctant to get involved.  They've been running with the Russia! angle for a week now, again sans evidence other than a group of former intelligence officers signed a paper that said this "had the earmarks" of Russian involvement.  This assertion isn't based on anything other than its an attempted smear on Biden and that seems like something Russia would do.  All of this to block and tackle for the guy on a NON ISSUE.  Just be honest, report that while there is some semblance of shadiness and evidence that Hunter probably used his last name to make a lot of money, there really is no there there.  They can't do that.  They must malign this as a conspiracy theory/Russian interference.  For the mere illusion of impropriety this story seems to paint, the media seems like they must destroy it.

Yep. Biden's name not being mentioned specifically even though Bobulinski says that is who the big guy is= no proof.

Blasey Ford's notes not naming Kavanaugh, but saying that it was Kavanaugh= proof.

Ivanka Trump getting chinese trademarks (that I think were first applied for in 2016) for things like Ivanka branded sausage casings is some huge international issue and a conflict of interest.(trademarks for Trump Branded products are only worth anything if those products are actually being sold and do not generate any revenue on their own they just protect your name from being taken and used). There is zero conflict of interest since these were given after she had shut down her line, and even if she hadn't just look at these things. It isnt like now every single sausage in china that is manufactured has to be called ivankawurst and she just gets to collect money. 

Hunter Biden leveraging his dad's name to try and secure business- nada. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story doesn't seem to be the Bidens. The story seems to be Giuliani and the repair-shop owner and the other weird stuff.

I do wish it were easier to find good media reporting on all of that. It's hard to find an explanation of (a) what facts are being alleged against the Bidens, (b) what the evidence supporting those allegations are, (c) the reasons for skepticism about that evidence, and (d) Rudy LOL.

There isn't a page on Wikipedia about this stuff, at least as far as I can find. This summary by the AP is the closest thing I can find to a general overview, but I can't help thinking that there must be more juicy details regarding this saga. I hope they are discovered and reported because I think it will be good entertainment. Most things involving Giuliani these days are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

They haven't been reluctant to get involved.  They've been running with the Russia! angle for a week now, again sans evidence other than a group of former intelligence officers signed a paper that said this "had the earmarks" of Russian involvement.  This assertion isn't based on anything other than its an attempted smear on Biden and that seems like something Russia would do. 

It seems like something Russia would do......because they already did something similar, in 2016.

Also, you are incorrect that the assertion is based solely on the fact that it's an attempted smear of Biden. In their letter, the 60 IC officers also cite the previous intelligence about Russia targeting Burisma's emails, plus the previous intelligence about a Russian agent being involved with Rudy Giuliani. (And, gee, what a coincidence that the Hunter Biden story just happens to contain those exact elements!)

In other words, if we removed the previous intelligence reports from the equation, then you would have a decent argument that the assertion was based solely on the smear of Biden.

(By the same token, if you kept the intelligence reports, but changed the scenario to a different type of Biden smear -- say, for example, an adult video starlet who claimed that she had an affair with Biden -- then you would also have a strong argument that the IC's assertion was based solely on the smear of Biden.)

But when you combine all of the known elements of the current story, then it's absolutely fair for 60 former members of the intelligence community to describe it as "earmarks of a Russian information operation".

And, the Trump campaign is free to get 61 former IC members to sign a letter stating, "Nuh-uhh!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The story doesn't seem to be the Bidens. The story seems to be Giuliani and the repair-shop owner and the other weird stuff.

I do wish it were easier to find good media reporting on all of that. It's hard to find an explanation of (a) what facts are being alleged against the Bidens, (b) what the evidence supporting those allegations are, (c) the reasons for skepticism about that evidence, and (d) Rudy LOL.

There isn't a page on Wikipedia about this stuff, at least as far as I can find. This summary by the AP is the closest thing I can find to a general overview, but I can't help thinking that there must be more juicy details regarding this saga. I hope they are discovered and reported because I think it will be good entertainment. Most things involving Giuliani these days are.

There actually is a Wiki entry . . .Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Thank you! :thumbup:

(It doesn't mention Bobulinski at all, though.)

Tony B. has a little write up under the Hunter Biden entry.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.