FBI informant charged for cooking up fake story about Hunter and Burisma

[impartialobserver]

There is a lot of unknowns in this ridiculous story. This story epitomizes why I have such disdain for politics. 

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I was just making fun of you stupid. Nevermind. 

You're just TROLLING.

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The FBI probably got something on Weis.

Even if you have some unpaid taxes from 15 years ago, the FBI can destroy you if you cross them. 

You just keep proving your views are entirely speculative.

6 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

There is a lot of unknowns in this ridiculous story. This story epitomizes why I have such disdain for politics. 

You believe the special prosecutor Weis is dishonest and the indictment lacks solid evidence?

[Nationalist]

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I was just making fun of you stupid. Nevermind. 

The FBI probably got something on Weis.

Even if you have some unpaid taxes from 15 years ago, the FBI can destroy you if you cross them. 

The FBI needs an enema.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

The FBI needs an enema.

"FBI: Enema of the State." 

[robosmith]

The Biden crime family

Quote

It has been one of the most dominant narratives in right-wing media and the GOP, used endlessly to demonize President Joe Biden — but on Thursday, it imploded in spectacular fashion.

For some time now, Fox News and the broader right-wing media machine have accused Biden and his son Hunter of engaging in an illicit $10 million bribery scheme to enrich themselves and sell out America. The tale, as it goes, claimed that an executive at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid for access to then-Vice President Biden to improperly wield his influence and help squash an investigation led by a Ukrainian prosecutor into the company.

Evidence of the bribery scheme has always been thin, at best, with most authoritative news outlets treating the claims with incredulity.

But MAGA Media personalities like Sean Hannity quickly shifted into hyperdrive last year when a supposedly highly credible FBI informant claimed to have smoking gun evidence of the conspiracy.

The emergence of a confidential FBI informant coursed through right-wing media, where talking heads and outlets spotlighted the claims as damning evidence of criminal wrongdoing. It spawned scores of articles. Hundreds of Fox News segments. Republican lawmakers like James Comer and Jim Jordan, eager to bathe in the media spotlight, appeared on radio and television programs to stoke the conspiracy flames and demand investigations.

The stunning demise of the claim is just the latest in a larger pattern from Fox News and the broader right-wing media ecosystem in which it operates. Time and time again, MAGA Media figures have hyped dishonest narratives and conspiracy theories to their sizable audiences, only to look away when they later collapse. Just last year, Fox News paid a record $787.5 million for its promotion of election lies. It never ran a retraction on its air and executives have maintained that they are proud of the network's 2020 coverage. 

It's a record that plays on repeat. By the time the truth can catch up to the bogus claims spreading in right-wing media, the narrative has already been set and the outlets have moved on to the next supposed scandal. 

But instead of slinking away in shame, Jordan and Comer are taking a lesson from Trump's BRAZEN LYING play book and doubling down. 🤮

[robosmith]

Quote

“This is the path that they’ve chosen to take, and honestly I’m surprised that they have this high of a threshold for humiliation. Every witness they have called has decimated their argument.” — Fox News anchor Jessica Tarlov mocking House Republicans for their pursuit of impeachment charges against President Biden. 

 

[impartialobserver]

this is yet another reason that I almost never react immediately to a story. Almost always, give it some time and the story changes. Things are never what they seem at first

 

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

this is yet another reason that I almost never react immediately to a story. Almost always, give it some time and the story changes. Things are never what they seem at first

 

Esp when Russian Intelligence is involved....

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Esp when Russian Intelligence is involved....

Unlike you, this is my view in general...not just politics or when the story agrees with me.  Humans are all flawed and imperfect. Time tends to show those flaws and get you to the true meat of a story. 

Edited February 29, 2024 by impartialobserver

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Unlike you, this is my view in general...not just politics or when the story agrees with me.  Humans are all flawed and imperfect. Time tends to show those flaws and get you to the true meat of a story. 

I'm just saying that purposeful action on the part of an intelligence operation significantly ups the odds that a story is FALSE.

The vast majority of stories reported by the mainstream media are NOT purposefully false.

The same does not apply to newer partisan hack "news" sites.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

I'm just saying that purposeful action on the part of an intelligence operation significantly ups the odds that a story is FALSE.

The vast majority of stories reported by the mainstream media are NOT purposefully false.

The same does not apply to newer partisan hack "news" sites.

They may not be deliberately false but they almost always do not have 100% of available information. They take what they have (less than 100%) and go with it. As more information comes out.. a story changes no matter the context. 

[robosmith]

Just now, impartialobserver said:

They may not be deliberately false but they almost always do not have 100% of available information. They take what they have (less than 100%) and go with it. As more information comes out.. a story changes no matter the context. 

That same EXCUSE does not apply to stories perpetrated by House Republicon's PARTISAN HACKS.

Fool me once....shame on me.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, robosmith said:

That same EXCUSE does not apply to stories perpetrated by House Republicon's PARTISAN HACKS.

Fool me once....shame on me.

Its not an excuse. This is simple reality. If that is too much for you.. not sure what to say. 

[robosmith]

16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Its not an excuse. This is simple reality. If that is too much for you.. not sure what to say. 

It is NOT "too much," it is too little. Reality is NOT simple.

There are credible sources, discredited sources, and purposeful PROPAGANDA. And that's just scratching the surface.

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It is NOT "too much," it is too little. Reality is NOT simple.

There are credible sources, discredited sources, and purposeful PROPAGANDA. And that's just scratching the surface.

Even the most credible of sources will come across new information in time.. surely, you can't be so biased to not be aware of this. 

[robosmith]

30 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Even the most credible of sources will come across new information in time.. surely, you can't be so biased to not be aware of this. 

Sure. The point is, that probability differs dramatically depending on the source. You surely can't maintain EVERY source should be equally disregarded for an indeterminate length of time.

[impartialobserver]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Sure. The point is, that probability differs dramatically depending on the source. You surely can't maintain EVERY source should be equally disregarded for an indeterminate length of time.

unless it is something like weather or sports.. I wait for a story to develop before weighing in. Forming a strong, informed (feel free to laugh) based on reading chapters 1 and 2 of a 12 chapter novel seems a bit silly and juvenile. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

unless it is something like weather or sports.. I wait for a story to develop before weighing in. Forming a strong, informed (feel free to laugh) based on reading chapters 1 and 2 of a 12 chapter novel seems a bit silly and juvenile. 

Credible reporting organizations usually get it right the first time.

[impartialobserver]

14 hours ago, robosmith said:

Credible reporting organizations usually get it right the first time.

Credible reporting organizations also know that more information comes in time... but your bias gets in the way of you realizing this. 

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Credible reporting organizations also know that more information comes in time... but your bias gets in the way of you realizing this. 

Credible reporting organizations usually wait to get the story nailed down before going to press.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, robosmith said:

Credible reporting organizations usually wait to get the story nailed down before going to press.

you are quite the comedian. Wait too long and someone breaks the story before you.. 

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

you are quite the comedian. Wait too long and someone breaks the story before you.. 

And they have egg on their face while the one which nails it down keeps their credibility.

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

And they have egg on their face while the one which nails it down keeps their credibility.

So then who has the egg on their face when new developments take six to 12 months to come to light? Had these credible sources waited six to 12 months... no one reads their stuff. 

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So then who has the egg on their face when new developments take six to 12 months to come to light? Had these credible sources waited six to 12 months... no one reads their stuff. 

Depends on whether the new "come to light" contradicts what was previously reported. Most credible reporting does not draw conclusions that can be contradicted. AKA they report only what is KNOWN.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, robosmith said:

Depends on whether the new "come to light" contradicts what was previously reported. Most credible reporting does not draw conclusions that can be contradicted. AKA they report only what is KNOWN.

Exactly.. known as of one point in time. new information filters in over time. New information usually changes a person's view of a topic. You can't possibly be so biased to not acknowledge that.