Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

it isn’t plausible that a Trump-led FBI would hide anything adverse to Biden.

Do you think Zuckerberg is lying?   Also, why do you think the FBI had any love for Trump in 2020?  Hadn't Trump fired their senior officers and called them all liars for about 3 years?  An FBI preference to tip the scales away from Trump is entirely plausible.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Willful ignorance about what exactly? I applaud the Biden administration for trying to squelch COVID misinformation after Trump, who was the single most significant driver of COVID misinformation, killed who knows how many thousands of Americans. By the way, if you read the letter from Zuckerberg Jim linked on X, Zuckerberg talks about how he made contributions during the 2020 election cycle meant to help people vote safely during a global pandemic. He acknowledges that some people, i.e., Trump and MAGA, think he helped Biden cheat in the 2020 election. So, which is it? I'm getting confused. Was Zuckerberg helping Biden or Trump?

These are valid points James, but in my opinion your points serve to bolster Zuckerberg's credibility.  Zuckerberg states that the government engaged in censorship during Covid, and we know after the fact that some of the censored information turned out to be as likely as not true, if politically inconvenient.  Viral origin theories for example.  No lives were saved by suppressing the lab-leak theories, that was pure political censorship.  I (for one) bought it wholesale at the time.

Governmental censorship is bad, even if one can argue that it is in some specific circumstance, it might be for the good of the people.  The Constitution mandates that the government fight bad information with good information, not censorship, except in very narrowly limited circumstances.

Zuckerberg also states in his letter to Congress that the FBI was spreading beware of "Russian Misinformation about Biden and Burisma" warnings to Meta, causing them to suppress the laptop story for a time.  I believe him in part because of the reasons you have stated.  Possibly the FBI was just spreading friendly "beware of Russian disinformation about the Bidens and Burisma" advice that just happened to "coincidentally" suppress the laptop story until after the election.  I of course am not buying that and I believe Zuck is accurately recounting events.  I also suspect he has a mountain of evidence to back himself up because he is not an idiot and he knows that he is alienating some of his allies with this move.

The two thing that have me scratching my head are why Rod thinks Zuckerberg is "aggrieved" and why he thinks my original comments are BS.  The facts of censorship and the FBI at best "giving friendly advice" to Meta are well demonstrated, unless one thinks Zuck is a total liar and unless one ignores a mountain of other evidence.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I dont think he’s lying. I also think Hunters laptop is a big nothing burger, and so did the FBI. I am confident they would have pursued it if serious charges stemmed from it, just as I am certain any physicist would gladly disprove global warming if they were able to do so (and win a Nobel prize incidentally).

If the FBI thought the laptop was a nothingburger, then why tell Meta to beware of "Russian disinformation regarding the Biden's and Burisma?"  If the laptop was deemed to be a nothingburger, why did Blinken coordinate 52 "experts" to say that it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation?   Maybe you are saying that it is a nothingburger to you, but I disagree that it was a nothingburger to the Bidens or the FBI.    The bottom line is that the laptop was not a big nothingburger to at least half the population.   

Personally, I am convinced that Hunter sold the "appearance of influence" for many hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.  (I've not seen any indication that actual influence was ever delivered.)   I don't think that Joe's mental acuity had deteriorated at the time to the point where he was oblivious to Hunter monetizing his last name.  On the contrary, I think Joe knew and condoned of his son and brother monetizing the family name.   Not sure if the "big guy" actually got his cut, or whether that was just more BS made up by Hunter to impress his victims.  We have all seen large checks made out to Joe for loan repayment.  https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-evidence-of-direct-payment-to-joe-biden/

Maybe this and Hunter's tenure with Burisma, and anything else on the laptop was all on the up-and-up, at least as far as Joe Biden is concerned, but there is plenty of evidence of interest on Hunter's laptop.  Far from a nothingburger indeed.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Is it election meddling, or were they merely exercising the "60-day rule" and trying to stay politically neutral? Imagine if Comey had adhered to the rule in 2016 instead of announcing a fresh re-opening of the Hillary email debacle 16 days before the election. Would he now be seen as suppressing information that meddled instead of being pivotal in the doom of her campaign? This all may be a case of damned if they do and damned if they don't.

This is an interesting angle, new to me, and I have thought about it after your post.  I'm not persuaded.  Your take might seem plausible after 2016 in a vacuum maybe, but the concurrent letter from "52 experts" directly saying that the laptop has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation is too similar.  The Biden team and apparently the FBI were very concerned that the laptop story was going to impact the election if it were widely disseminated.  I'm pretty suspicious that the FBI advice to Meta (and presumably every other outlet) and the letter from "52 experts" was coordinated.

More importantly.  If it is true that the FBI did this to avoid the appearance of election meddling, think about what that means.  We know as fact now that the FBI possessed the laptop and had verified its authenticity long before Giuliani fed the story to the NYP.  So for your take to be correct, the FBI had to actively lie to META with the noble goal of avoiding election interference.   I do not think the FBI actively lying to or misleading the press or social media is ever OK.  At best they should have kept their mouths shut and neither admitted or denied anything.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I don't doubt Zuck is accurately recounting from his point of view. On the other hand, I doubt that the DOJ purposely suppressed the laptop story to influence an election. Unless a smoking gun shows up, this mostly sounds like the same kind of speculation that leads people to think that Comey purposely meddled in 2016.

You have to admit though, it's a bit funny that Zuck claims the government suppresses free speech while at the same time lamenting that his free speech and ability to operate as a private citizen are being squelched by the conspiracy theories that his social media platform spreads.

These guys don't leave smoking guns.  It might get interesting though, if Zuck has more to share.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Soooo are you guys looking forward to watching Walz try to stifle the inevitable forthcoming word salad from Kamala's CNN interview?

My guess is that she does really well, comes across as knowledgeable, competent, and presidential.  I think Harris has matured a lot as a politician in 4 years.  She has 12 days from now until the debate to really cement her case - or lose it.  We'll see.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Soooo are you guys looking forward to watching Walz try to stifle the inevitable forthcoming word salad from Kamala's CNN interview?

Apparently the interview has already occurred.    https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/kamala-harris-tim-walz-cnntv/index.html  I thought it was going to be live.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'm not sure why you thought it was going to be live. Town Halls are usually live as are the debates.

Why did I think this was live?  I guess because CNN and other outlets have been promoting this as a big deal, and also promoting this as an answer to Harris' critics who have harped on her going 38 days or so without an unscripted interview.  I would think that Harris would want to answer those critics too.  A recorded interview with a friendly questioner on a friendly cable outlet is not going to answer the critics.   

It raises an interesting strategy question.  Should the Harris campaign continue to script her appearances?  She is up in the popular vote, but Nate Silver currently has her as a slight underdog in the electoral college in part because she is a very slight underdog in PA.  As her convention bounce fades this could change - Silver's model factors in a normal convention bounce, and if she did not get a good one, the model may be underrating her at this point.  Opposite is true too.

Bottom line, the race is effectively tied in the swing states.  Should Harris risk some unscripted moments to make her appear more genuine to undecideds, or should she continue to carefully manage her appearances?

September 10 is going to be the first or second most important debate of our time, maybe even more important than the debate that ended Biden's career since Harris is so new to this campaign.

Have a really great trip!   See you when you get back.  This forum is always pretty fun in October-November of an election year!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

" A recorded interview with a friendly questioner on a friendly cable outlet is not going to answer the critics. "

This is the same CNN interviewer whom Trump recently praised.

That said, I agree the upcoming debate is pivotal. And, assuming Trump doesn't come up with another excuse not to show up, I anticipate several outcomes: 
1. Trump, as always, lies his head off.
2. Trump tries the same sort of shitshow he did in 2020 in the hopes of speaking over and dominating Harris.
3. Harris, being the skilled prosecutor that she is, will flame his ass.

I have not been following the squabbles closely, but Trump's team, assuming they have any brains at all, had better be making sure that the microphones remain muted during off time.  That saved Trump's bacon in the first debate.  He was forced to be quiet while Biden fumbled away his candidacy.  Imagine if Trump had been able to make that debate into the "angry men shouting at each other" we all expected from past performances.   Biden would still be in the race.  Probably.

On the other side, Harris' team ought to be fighting tooth and nail to have Trump's mike on full-time so that he can talk over her, interrupt her, belittle her and otherwise emphasize what a moronic, boorish, misogynistic, ass and fool he is and always has been.    

I have to go check to see where that squabble stands.

My expectations are about the same as yours.  I think Harris owns Trump whatever the format.  He is too arrogant to properly prepare.  She seems to be comfortable and articulate as the candidate.  I also think this is likely to seal the deal on her election.  Her answer on any Supreme Court packing scheme will determine whether I consider voting for her.   I wonder if they will ask about this personal key issue ?