I would have to see a lot more evidence before I can conclude that this information really came from Hunter Biden’s computer. The whole thing just does not add up at all. If Hunter Biden is such a master criminal/James Bond villian, why would he just give his computers (full of all kinds of incriminating information including pics of him smoking crack) to some hole in the wall computer shop run by a Trump supporter?
Don’t you think Hunter Biden can pay for a discreet, professional IT guy?
Hunter Biden has issues and I don’t think he thought the repair shop was owned by a Trump supporter. He thought they would check or fix his computers. Instead, the shop owner got concerned when he saw information that was questionable on the laptop and reported it. One laptop had a Beau Biden Foundation sticker on it. He gave the laptop to the FBI but kept a copy of the harddrive. The owner wanted to protect himself.
Two of three computers were no good(hardrives were damaged) so Hunter Biden probably thought the computers were trash.
The story is an old story about Hunter Biden and his connections. What is new is the emails.
Apparently the shop owner was frustrated because the FBI did nothing about the laptops given to them in December 2019 that he gave a copy of the hardrive to Giuliani in September 2020 and Giuliani gave a copy to the NYPost.
The “smoking gun” message is embedded in the story. It was allegedly sent by Burisma board adviser Vadym Pozharskyi in April 2015, and read, “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”
Did Joe Biden actually meet Pozharskyl?
The second email
The Post story contained a second email, allegedly sent by Pozharskyi in 2014, addressed to both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer, who was also on the Burisma board. In the message, Pozharskyi was seeking “advice” from the men as to “how you could use your influence” to help the company in a matter described as various Ukrainian government agencies attempting extract money from the company.
This language, a single sentence in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, establishes a baseline of protection for internet platforms from being held liable for things published by their users. That’s why Section 230 is widely regarded as the law that permitted the internet as we know it today—from Facebook and Twitter to Wikipedia and Reddit, filled with user-generated content—to thrive.
Supporters of reforming the law say tech giants should lose protections if they operate as a publisher rather than as a neutral platform.
I am sure they will be looking at this. How can “neutral” social media sites start blocking newspaper articles that they deem should not be printed?
I don’t use Twitter but their past actions including this one show clearly they are not some kind of neutral bulletin board.
I think they should be severely punished for this action and then the interpretation of the 230 provision should be such that it doesn’t allow brainwashing of the population under the cover of social messaging networks.
For punishment, there would need to be an identifiable violation of law. As of yet no violation has been alleged.
Section 230 ( c ) does not mandate one be neutral in their judgements. In section 230 ( a ), which is about observations, notes in part 3 that the Internet is a diverse place. But an observation is not a prescription or prohibition.
The real story is coming out now about the Biden family. The charges against Trump were smoke and mirrors. The liberals hate him because of the corruption being revealed in the Obama/Biden reign of
The New York Post has reportedly had its Twitter account reinstated after it was blocked from tweeting following the publication of its bombshell Biden story.
The New York Post can finally tweet again after it was locked out of its account by Twitter on October 14 for tweeting a link to its bombshell story on alleged corrupt activities of the Biden family. Breitbart News recently reported that during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey falsely answered senators that his platform lifted a ban on users tweeting articles from the Post’s Hunter Biden exposé. . . .