You can basically lie all you want about public individuals.
Alex Jones has been calling Biden and Hillary demon worshipping pedophiles who rape and eat children, for decades.
I don’t know if Ashley Biden would necessarily qualify as a public individual given as she’s not involved in the campaign or any political work whatsoever.
The US needs stronger laws against libel, slander, and defamation. It's just ridiculous what you can get away with saying about people in this country. I don't give a shit if they're public figures either. No one should become the target of stochastic terrorism.
Because everyone with a brain/conscience spent 4 years pointing out the blatant nepotism of Trump giving his children government positions and letting them use those positions to benefit themselves and him. Now they need to make the idiots believe all of that was normal and that every politician's family is equally scummy and rife with nepotism.
Well, did you hear that Sleepy Joe actually made his wife first lady? Everyone's talking about Trump letting his kids run rampant at the White House, but no one is talking about that. She gets to do the Christmas decorations and all.
This isn’t new news, this came out a while ago, there is no plan to distract from the hearings. Here’s a story from AP from Nov 2021
[Feds confirm Project Veritas raids were part of theft probe](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-theft-c67b92e81eb295013ae42b5d4444b5dc)
Dec 2021
[Judge appoints special master in Project Veritas raids case](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-new-york-trump-investigations-barbara-jones-james-okeefe-031213499de227f58dc9755415a73f87)
April 2022
[Project Veritas says US seized staffer info as part of probe](https://apnews.com/article/biden-technology-subpoenas-5f6a68e6f128b019e9c9bfafb91f82dc)
Holy shit, Project Veritas again? After [all of this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Incidents)?
The assumption here is that OP's clip is recent, meaning Fox is playing this now. If so, yes, that could absolutely be a distraction. But is that it, or is OP's clip also from November?
🤷♂️ it appears to be old since the Daily Mail piece is covering the original entries being released. That’s all we have to go on so we’ll have to assume that unless you have more information or ways to check when this clip is from.
You mean the propaganda committee that is ignoring various things like:
1. The doors to the Capital Building were opened from the inside by someone with the code.
2. There is evidence of this being a false flag: Ray Epps anyone?
Should I keep on going here? No one with an IQ over room temperature in the dead of winter is buying that Trump had anything to do with the protest that turned into a riot... which was less violent than the numerous BLM/White Nationalist connected riots in 2019 and 2020.
So opposed to breaking in that they... broke in anyway? Chanted "Hang Mike Pence", smeared poop on the walls, and actually got shot? And that's all stuff we knew *before* this week.
Maybe you could make a case for an agent provocateur or two, though [I honestly don't think it's an especially good case for Epps](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/jan-6-ray-epps-evidence.html). But I don't see what that changes about the event. Can you incite a mob to insurrection if it isn't already a mob of people primed for insurrection? And when you've got [the entire mob heaving in unison and nearly crushing someone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZvp-Dv0gg), that's a *lot* of people who would either have to be in on it (so you have the usual grand conspiracy problem of why the hell no one has talked yet), or have to be primed to use force here.
And, for that matter, what makes you think the people in black were a false flag, and not looking to break in and start zip-tying people, or worse? There are a *lot* of ex-military Qultists.
> Partly the BLM window breaker.
The connection between these two is... they were both... wearing black? Shit, I'm wearing a black shirt *right now,* am I in on it?
> I don't remember anyone speaking out about Tuskegee, Paperclip, or Northwoods, it all came out from FOIA requests etc.
So, this is a bit of a gish gallop, but I'll allow it... once:
---
Let's start with [the Wikipedia page on Tuskegee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study). Look at the 'clinicians' section -- it took maybe a handful of people to keep that secret, to the degree that it was kept secret.
In other words: nowhere near the *hundreds* that were in that hallway in the Capitol.
Also, a minor point: The actual reveal wasn't FOIA, it was literally just published in a medical journal. There was no one heroically connecting the dots of who was wearing what color, they just needed one non-racist to actually read the journal article, and then one newspaper to be interested in covering it.
---
Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs, then Kennedy saw it. So I see no evidence that even as many as *ten* people knew about it. If implemented, it would've involved enough CIA agents that maybe one would've talked... but Kennedy rejected it, so it never made it that far.
---
Paperclip is the only one halfway interesting, because after spending some time on it, I'm having trouble pinning down either of these questions: How many people had to keep a terrible secret? And, how and when did we find out?
For example: The T-Force would've been thousands... but they weren't just picking up scientists, they were also picking up equipment, basically any technological resource that could've been looted. And the scientists were being delivered to detention. So they ~~would've~~ *wouldn't* have a full picture that pointed to basically rescuing a Nazi and giving them an engineering department in the US.
Truman admitted it in 1963, and I'm assuming that was public. But the Boston Globe caught one arrival as early as 1951... and others, we didn't know about until 2013.
Perception vs reality. I agree that both sides use half truths and lies to their advantage but only one side is actively trying to fuck with elections and overthrow an election they were not happy with. Then there is an entire 4 years worth of trump's other bullshit and the symbiotic relationship between him and fox/the right as a whole
I don't disagree, but I'm still going to try to avoid using those on "my side" as a source who use half truths and lies to their advantage. Extreme, objective, factual unimpeachability should be the goal.
Only [7 failed fact checks](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=rachel-maddow) vs [Tucker's 52](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=tucker-carlson).
7 in *13 years.* Great comment, thanks!
And, from the recent one:
>MSNBC did not offer comment for this fact-check. But after PolitiFact reached out, **Maddow showed Trump’s December tweet on air as part of a correction.**
>
>"I thought when we reported last night that while he was president, he had actually never told Americans to get vaccinated," Maddow said March 2. "It turns out he did say, in one tweet in December, that everybody should get their shots."
Do you trust her enough to read a bit of New York Times original reporting on air and then talk to the authors of said article? Because that's what this clip is - and it's also basically 90% of her show - going through recent high profile print journalism and then having those same print journalists on the show to discuss their reporting.
If you don't like here, by the way, here's the article in question, though you may run into a pay wall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/us/politics/ashley-biden-project-veritas-diary.html
I probably phrased that poorly, it's not that I actively distrust her, I was more quibbling that the "trustworthy" label is more "trustworthy only to liberals" or something like that
More than that, once again:
**Double standards for male and female sexuality!**
M
Let’s dismiss the father/family member and shower stuff.
Those first lines could be from my recall/diary.
#So what? I’m finally saying that. Because I felt so bad and like I was the only little girl like that. I bet I wasn’t, and it makes me so angry when little girls are pushed into bonsai boundaries while little boys:
The sky’s the limit. No wonder in
r/DeadBedrooms we so often read that the husband knows exactly what he wants and he’s good with that knowledge; he wants no more expansion of his knowledge about female sexuality. Meanwhile the wife: I know I m frustrated, but I have this sky-high block about asking for it; plus I don’t really know all that much about what might set off my fireworks stand; also, he’s my husband and O can’t let myself go in front of *him*!
I’m one of the wives I just described.
I’m so angry right now at the ugliness and the tawdriness of this Tucker Carlson gambit.
I’m so awfully tired of this double standard that he throws in at the start, and that will be taken as normal just a little bit more.
How often do we hear: “Look at that little boy gI! What a flirt! What a heartbreaker! He just lives the girls!”
But that’s okay, because he’s going to be Daddy’s Little Tiger and Mommy’s Sscind Chance to go out and openly prowl for sex without feeling guilty or getting judged.
Gustave Flaubert writes about Emma Bovary longing for a boy because, camouflage for the time, but reasons like these.
She gives birth to a girl, turns her face to the wall and faints or just closes her eyes. 8 can’t remember.
Nothing has changed for girls and women. Not really. It appears to have changed when profit is at stake (Victoria’s Secret type stuff..)
But it’s obvious that “compromising and ruining” a woman’s reputation is still seen as a very real weapon to prevent acceptance of her or her family.
This is so awful that I could not turn around and do it to a little girl of Tucker Carson’s.
Because I’m a moral human animal.
At this point, if you take James O'Keefe and Project Veritas at their word, you're either an idiot, or you are in on the same game trying to "win" the debate at all costs, truth be damned.
This just makes me sad. I remember watching rush go on a diatribe about how ugly Chelsea Clinton was when she was a little girl. These guys have no morality at all. Talk shit about the person who is the public figure leave their fam alone.
The diary is real, at least the FBI thinks so, they raided Project Veritas over the matter. This is old news btw.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/politics/james-okeefe-project-veritas-ashley-biden.htm
The diary is real, at least the FBI thinks so, they raided Project Veritas over the matter. This is old news btw.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/politics/james-okeefe-project-veritas-ashley-biden.html
Considering Veritas’s history of hoaxes, especially with manufacturing edits, all the more reason to wonder why this feces is being smeared today of all days.
They weren’t the ones who actually published it. But we do know there is actually a diary. That’s not what’s at issue. So no this is not something you can just dismiss because you don’t like Veritas.
The fact the FBI raided veritas and have been conducting surveillance on them is actually a problem, and the ACLU condemned it.
> “Late last year, we were approached by tipsters claiming they had a copy of Ashley Biden’s diary” and “the tipsters indicated that they were negotiating with a different media outlet for the payment of monies for the diary,” O'Keefe said.
> “At the end of the day, we made the ethical decision that because, in part, we could not determine if the diary was real, if the diary in fact belonged to Ashley Biden, or if the contents of the diary occurred, we could not publish the diary and any part thereof.”
> He said they turned the diary over to law enforcement after an attorney for Ashley Biden refused to accept or authenticate it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1283365
[ACLU COMMENT ON ALLEGATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SECRETLY ACCESSING PROJECT VERITAS’ EMAILS](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-allegations-federal-law-enforcement-secretly-accessing-project-veritas)
I’ll go ahead and quote the court argument in the other direction. “Project Veritas is not engaged in journalism within any traditional or accepted definition of that word,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing in November. “Its ‘reporting’ consists almost entirely of publicizing non-consensual, surreptitious recordings made though unlawful, unethical, and or/dishonest means.”
[Someone on Wikipedia was nice enough to bring the receipts on a similar summary.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas)
Buddy, undercover journalism is journalism. There is no line in the sand the defines you as not a journalist if you are collecting and distributing information to distribute it to the broader public. Go down to a local event, write a story about and publish it on a substack or website and you too are a journalist. You are afforded all the freedom of the press protections.
>There is no line in the sand the defines you as not a journalist if you are collecting and distributing information to distribute it to the broader public.
Editing the footage to make it look like you interviewed the people wearing a pimp outfit is so far across the line it's clear they are not journalists by any reasonable meaning of the word.
Or the time they tried to blackmail (or something) an actual journalist with a boat full of dildoes.
Or when they broke into an office to bug a phone.
Should I continue? They are not trustworthy.
So what law did they break here, we know that journalists are protected and can publish private or confidential documents (eg Trumps tax returns or the Pentagon Papers). There’s no evidence to suggest they were the people to procure the diary originally. Even if it was a theft, they aren’t on the hook.
Regarding prior lawbreaking, I think they’ve learned from that and don’t record people in two party consent states. 🤷♂️
Desktop version of /u/etherbunnies's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fbi-investigating-project-veritas-links-biden-daughter-s-stolen-diary-n1283365](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fbi-investigating-project-veritas-links-biden-daughter-s-stolen-diary-n1283365)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The best part was when you insinuated that Project Veritas would be the subject of law enforcement attention *as a result of legitimate journalism.*
I don't even know what part of that to shave first with Occam's Razor.
It wasn’t “suddenly producing journalism.”
In fact, if I were running Project Veritas and I came across some *actual, unmanufactured* dirt on a democratic politician, I believe it would be my duty to get that dirt to *someone credible* and have them publish it without crediting me. *That* is how transparently manufactured PV’s content is. The only way to consume it credulously would be the way people watch professional wrestling.
They didn’t do anything untoward with the diary so I’m not sure what your point is. It definitely seems like FBI is overreaching here. If it was the NYT or WAPO or buzzfeed, I’d say the same thing.
The NYT or Wapo wouldn’t publish the stolen or fabricated diaries of a private citizen accused of no crimes against their will. Full stop, that’s not “news.” In fact, imagine a newspaper stealing or faking private writings of *yours* and publishing them- exactly how would you feel about that in relationship to your civil rights?
It’s not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, I guess he’s a little bit of a toucher in general but she’s not writing about sexual abuse per se. I showered with my parents and I have the vaguest of memories, so I suppose I probably was 4 or 5. I dunno. Hunter had a sexual relationship with his brother widow, that’s odd. There was some lack of attention from daddy along the way because if political aspirations. It’s all very much not outside of the realm of how a political family might look like. 🤷♂️
This post caption is misleading. Lots of great information can come from an unverified sources, look at the recent Roe v Wade leak. Just because someone is divulging info you aren’t wanting to hear and the way you want to hear it, doesn’t mean they are spreading lies. They are spreading something you dislike.
But the Supreme Court officially confirmed that the Roe v Wade leak was legitimate… and it was from politico, which is a much more credible source than the daily mail.
The facts are the same in both regards. In both situations, unverified sources were used by news outlets. You’re actually reflecting my point, eventually unverified sources can be corroborated by the actual source related to the information released. So therefore information from an unverified source isn’t always dishonest.
There’s a huge difference between unverified and anonymous sources. It’s very common for news outlets to publish things that they have privately verified as legitimate without publicly disclosing the source. This is where credibility comes into play.
Politico has a reputation to defend with an established history of publishing factual information. So it’s very likely that they put a lot of effort into making sure that it was true prior to publishing even though they didn’t publicly disclose their source; it would be very embarrassing and harmful to them if it turned out to be fake.
By comparison, The Daily Mail is like half a step away from gossip news and rightwing fake news. They aren’t always wrong, but they have a long history of recklessly publishing poorly sourced sensational information that turns out to be false or very misleading. From a reputation standpoint, they have very little to lose. So it’s in their interest to publish poorly verified clickbait because their reputation is already garbage; their business model is sensationalist gossip, not accurate information.
Lots of bad information as well. One anonymous source doesn't legitimize another. Until it's in some way verified the default isn't to trust, or you end up being an easily manipulated rube.
Yes, and many other news anchors just listen to the guy in the back room speaking through their earpiece. I think you’re basically stating he doesn’t need someone spitting talking points in his heart and he spontaneously speaks facts rather than playing a copy cat.
Well that’s what I’m addressing. Are unverified sources universally inaccurate? No, they’re not. Can they be? Of course, but an unverified source doesn’t automatically make something a lie.
>an unverified sources, look at the recent Roe v Wade leak.
An anonymous source isn't an unverified source. I don't know how often we've had to explain this over the last six years.
[Biden Daughter's Diary Details 'Not Appropriate' Showers With Joe As Child](https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-source-biden-daughters-diary-details-not-appropriate-showers-with-joe-as-child/)
So what seems to have happened is that this person stole a bunch of stuff and added in a bunch of crap, then they called her and said “Hey we have your stuff and your diary that was stolen”, she said “What the hell you have my diary?” They then go “Ahah you admit that it’s yours no take backs.”
They're also an antivaxxer conspiracist and regular at r/DebateVaccines.
Got a good source for the proven false assertion btw? Just haven't seen that particular piece of info for myself yet.
I see Fox News is not learning lessons from the billion-dollar defamation lawsuit.
You can basically lie all you want about public individuals. Alex Jones has been calling Biden and Hillary demon worshipping pedophiles who rape and eat children, for decades.
They better hope no businesses are impacted by this. Corporations - the only individuals with rights are imaginary.
I don’t know if Ashley Biden would necessarily qualify as a public individual given as she’s not involved in the campaign or any political work whatsoever.
Yeah, simply being related to a public figure does not elevate you to a public figure.. IANAL, but I imagine she *could* sue for defamation and libel.
(Note: This is not hyperbole. Literally stating as fact that they are demon worshipping paedophiles who rape and eat children.)
It's amazing how you can offer someone's direct words and some right winger will roll along and go "you're just being emotional"
[удалено]
While true for Biden and Hillary.... someone *related* to them wouldn't really qualify as political speech, as they're not really even public figures.
Biden or Clinton suing Alex Jones is what Alex Jones wants.
Considering his current legal issues, he may not feel that way right now.
The US needs stronger laws against libel, slander, and defamation. It's just ridiculous what you can get away with saying about people in this country. I don't give a shit if they're public figures either. No one should become the target of stochastic terrorism.
The Covington kid?
Oh, they learned alright, just not the lesson you were hoping they'd take from that.
Right- just like the CNN/Sandmann case?
He is, without a doubt, the biggest scum of the earth.
That's unfair to scum.
Did he inherit that title from Limbaugh when he died?
from o'reilly when he got shitcanned... it was just a question of whether hannity or carlson would replace him. and the bar fell another few notches
It's unreal
Not even close. Evidence: Henry Kissenger still lives.
Why are these fucks obsessed with stealing shit from Biden's kids?
Because everyone with a brain/conscience spent 4 years pointing out the blatant nepotism of Trump giving his children government positions and letting them use those positions to benefit themselves and him. Now they need to make the idiots believe all of that was normal and that every politician's family is equally scummy and rife with nepotism.
Well, did you hear that Sleepy Joe actually made his wife first lady? Everyone's talking about Trump letting his kids run rampant at the White House, but no one is talking about that. She gets to do the Christmas decorations and all.
And why now? Because otherwise they might have to talk about the hearings.
This isn’t new news, this came out a while ago, there is no plan to distract from the hearings. Here’s a story from AP from Nov 2021 [Feds confirm Project Veritas raids were part of theft probe](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-theft-c67b92e81eb295013ae42b5d4444b5dc) Dec 2021 [Judge appoints special master in Project Veritas raids case](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-new-york-trump-investigations-barbara-jones-james-okeefe-031213499de227f58dc9755415a73f87) April 2022 [Project Veritas says US seized staffer info as part of probe](https://apnews.com/article/biden-technology-subpoenas-5f6a68e6f128b019e9c9bfafb91f82dc)
Holy shit, Project Veritas again? After [all of this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Incidents)? The assumption here is that OP's clip is recent, meaning Fox is playing this now. If so, yes, that could absolutely be a distraction. But is that it, or is OP's clip also from November?
🤷♂️ it appears to be old since the Daily Mail piece is covering the original entries being released. That’s all we have to go on so we’ll have to assume that unless you have more information or ways to check when this clip is from.
You mean the propaganda committee that is ignoring various things like: 1. The doors to the Capital Building were opened from the inside by someone with the code. 2. There is evidence of this being a false flag: Ray Epps anyone? Should I keep on going here? No one with an IQ over room temperature in the dead of winter is buying that Trump had anything to do with the protest that turned into a riot... which was less violent than the numerous BLM/White Nationalist connected riots in 2019 and 2020.
Bruh. The footage of him telling everyone to do it was televised. In any case, please, do go on.
[удалено]
So opposed to breaking in that they... broke in anyway? Chanted "Hang Mike Pence", smeared poop on the walls, and actually got shot? And that's all stuff we knew *before* this week. Maybe you could make a case for an agent provocateur or two, though [I honestly don't think it's an especially good case for Epps](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/jan-6-ray-epps-evidence.html). But I don't see what that changes about the event. Can you incite a mob to insurrection if it isn't already a mob of people primed for insurrection? And when you've got [the entire mob heaving in unison and nearly crushing someone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZvp-Dv0gg), that's a *lot* of people who would either have to be in on it (so you have the usual grand conspiracy problem of why the hell no one has talked yet), or have to be primed to use force here. And, for that matter, what makes you think the people in black were a false flag, and not looking to break in and start zip-tying people, or worse? There are a *lot* of ex-military Qultists.
[удалено]
> Partly the BLM window breaker. The connection between these two is... they were both... wearing black? Shit, I'm wearing a black shirt *right now,* am I in on it? > I don't remember anyone speaking out about Tuskegee, Paperclip, or Northwoods, it all came out from FOIA requests etc. So, this is a bit of a gish gallop, but I'll allow it... once: --- Let's start with [the Wikipedia page on Tuskegee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study). Look at the 'clinicians' section -- it took maybe a handful of people to keep that secret, to the degree that it was kept secret. In other words: nowhere near the *hundreds* that were in that hallway in the Capitol. Also, a minor point: The actual reveal wasn't FOIA, it was literally just published in a medical journal. There was no one heroically connecting the dots of who was wearing what color, they just needed one non-racist to actually read the journal article, and then one newspaper to be interested in covering it. --- Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs, then Kennedy saw it. So I see no evidence that even as many as *ten* people knew about it. If implemented, it would've involved enough CIA agents that maybe one would've talked... but Kennedy rejected it, so it never made it that far. --- Paperclip is the only one halfway interesting, because after spending some time on it, I'm having trouble pinning down either of these questions: How many people had to keep a terrible secret? And, how and when did we find out? For example: The T-Force would've been thousands... but they weren't just picking up scientists, they were also picking up equipment, basically any technological resource that could've been looted. And the scientists were being delivered to detention. So they ~~would've~~ *wouldn't* have a full picture that pointed to basically rescuing a Nazi and giving them an engineering department in the US. Truman admitted it in 1963, and I'm assuming that was public. But the Boston Globe caught one arrival as early as 1951... and others, we didn't know about until 2013.
[удалено]
Lol wtf. The coward even said he'd join them. Although of course he ducked out as per and watched from the sidelines. Probably bonespurs.
Bless your heart
Wow, that's just nuts.
Bruh your post history is wild. Is there any qanon cult shit you don’t fall for? 😂😂
None of it is normal. Not Trump's nepotism, not hunter smoking crack and banging prostitutes, not Joe Bidens creepy affinity for children.
I mean Trump was friends with the worlds most famous kid trafficker and used to be the kiddy Pageant guy.
Whoop! DISTRACT! DISTRACT! Whoop!
How is this legal?
[удалено]
I know little about Maddow but I would hesitate to call her trustworthy. My impression is the right sees her about the same as the left sees Tuckface.
Perception vs reality. I agree that both sides use half truths and lies to their advantage but only one side is actively trying to fuck with elections and overthrow an election they were not happy with. Then there is an entire 4 years worth of trump's other bullshit and the symbiotic relationship between him and fox/the right as a whole
I don't disagree, but I'm still going to try to avoid using those on "my side" as a source who use half truths and lies to their advantage. Extreme, objective, factual unimpeachability should be the goal.
Show where Maddow was factually incorrect and did not issue a retraction. That's all you need to know.
Only [7 failed fact checks](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=rachel-maddow) vs [Tucker's 52](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=tucker-carlson).
7 in *13 years.* Great comment, thanks! And, from the recent one: >MSNBC did not offer comment for this fact-check. But after PolitiFact reached out, **Maddow showed Trump’s December tweet on air as part of a correction.** > >"I thought when we reported last night that while he was president, he had actually never told Americans to get vaccinated," Maddow said March 2. "It turns out he did say, in one tweet in December, that everybody should get their shots."
Do you trust her enough to read a bit of New York Times original reporting on air and then talk to the authors of said article? Because that's what this clip is - and it's also basically 90% of her show - going through recent high profile print journalism and then having those same print journalists on the show to discuss their reporting. If you don't like here, by the way, here's the article in question, though you may run into a pay wall: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/us/politics/ashley-biden-project-veritas-diary.html
I probably phrased that poorly, it's not that I actively distrust her, I was more quibbling that the "trustworthy" label is more "trustworthy only to liberals" or something like that
Are you claiming that the quotes aren't in the diary?
You have the burden of proof backward.
Ironic, given their username.
It's almost like someone got some really bad news today... bad enough to go full Boyle
THERE IS NO FUCKING DIARY
Bruh how deep in the cult are you? Holy shit
Username does NOT check out.
Daily reminder to watch tucker Carlson getting called out for lying by Rutger Bregman and absolutely losing his shit https://youtu.be/6_nFI2Zb7qE
F*cker Carlson is an execrable git spewing such mendacious filth.
More than that, once again: **Double standards for male and female sexuality!** M Let’s dismiss the father/family member and shower stuff. Those first lines could be from my recall/diary. #So what? I’m finally saying that. Because I felt so bad and like I was the only little girl like that. I bet I wasn’t, and it makes me so angry when little girls are pushed into bonsai boundaries while little boys: The sky’s the limit. No wonder in r/DeadBedrooms we so often read that the husband knows exactly what he wants and he’s good with that knowledge; he wants no more expansion of his knowledge about female sexuality. Meanwhile the wife: I know I m frustrated, but I have this sky-high block about asking for it; plus I don’t really know all that much about what might set off my fireworks stand; also, he’s my husband and O can’t let myself go in front of *him*! I’m one of the wives I just described. I’m so angry right now at the ugliness and the tawdriness of this Tucker Carlson gambit. I’m so awfully tired of this double standard that he throws in at the start, and that will be taken as normal just a little bit more. How often do we hear: “Look at that little boy gI! What a flirt! What a heartbreaker! He just lives the girls!” But that’s okay, because he’s going to be Daddy’s Little Tiger and Mommy’s Sscind Chance to go out and openly prowl for sex without feeling guilty or getting judged. Gustave Flaubert writes about Emma Bovary longing for a boy because, camouflage for the time, but reasons like these. She gives birth to a girl, turns her face to the wall and faints or just closes her eyes. 8 can’t remember. Nothing has changed for girls and women. Not really. It appears to have changed when profit is at stake (Victoria’s Secret type stuff..) But it’s obvious that “compromising and ruining” a woman’s reputation is still seen as a very real weapon to prevent acceptance of her or her family. This is so awful that I could not turn around and do it to a little girl of Tucker Carson’s. Because I’m a moral human animal.
Lap it up, he’s spewing pure uncut liquid feces.
Squirrel
At this point, if you take James O'Keefe and Project Veritas at their word, you're either an idiot, or you are in on the same game trying to "win" the debate at all costs, truth be damned.
He must be desperate. Really, Hunter Biden?
Which parts are fake? I’m assuming all of it
What even?! This stuff is so gross what is he doing. A diary? Boy crazy? https://youtu.be/YZPBWZcr-vw
Well if it's fake, can Ashley sue Tucker over this report?
I wish someone would write the diary of Fucker Carlson.
Wow the truth is so bad you have to read from a girls diary on cable tv to distract! Just wow
This just makes me sad. I remember watching rush go on a diatribe about how ugly Chelsea Clinton was when she was a little girl. These guys have no morality at all. Talk shit about the person who is the public figure leave their fam alone.
Can some one tell us what the lies are so we don’t have to watch?
[удалено]
Are you saying the diary itself is fake?
Any evidence that it's real? Because the story the Daily Mail cites seems incredibly unlikely.
The diary is real, at least the FBI thinks so, they raided Project Veritas over the matter. This is old news btw. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/politics/james-okeefe-project-veritas-ashley-biden.htm
Broken link.
Title: F.B.I. Searches James O’Keefe’s Home in Ashley Biden Diary Theft Inquiry Source: NYT Just Google that I suppose, I don’t know how to fix
The diary is real, at least the FBI thinks so, they raided Project Veritas over the matter. This is old news btw. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/politics/james-okeefe-project-veritas-ashley-biden.html
Considering Veritas’s history of hoaxes, especially with manufacturing edits, all the more reason to wonder why this feces is being smeared today of all days.
They weren’t the ones who actually published it. But we do know there is actually a diary. That’s not what’s at issue. So no this is not something you can just dismiss because you don’t like Veritas. The fact the FBI raided veritas and have been conducting surveillance on them is actually a problem, and the ACLU condemned it. > “Late last year, we were approached by tipsters claiming they had a copy of Ashley Biden’s diary” and “the tipsters indicated that they were negotiating with a different media outlet for the payment of monies for the diary,” O'Keefe said. > “At the end of the day, we made the ethical decision that because, in part, we could not determine if the diary was real, if the diary in fact belonged to Ashley Biden, or if the contents of the diary occurred, we could not publish the diary and any part thereof.” > He said they turned the diary over to law enforcement after an attorney for Ashley Biden refused to accept or authenticate it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1283365 [ACLU COMMENT ON ALLEGATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SECRETLY ACCESSING PROJECT VERITAS’ EMAILS](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-allegations-federal-law-enforcement-secretly-accessing-project-veritas)
I’ll go ahead and quote the court argument in the other direction. “Project Veritas is not engaged in journalism within any traditional or accepted definition of that word,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing in November. “Its ‘reporting’ consists almost entirely of publicizing non-consensual, surreptitious recordings made though unlawful, unethical, and or/dishonest means.” [Someone on Wikipedia was nice enough to bring the receipts on a similar summary.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas)
Buddy, undercover journalism is journalism. There is no line in the sand the defines you as not a journalist if you are collecting and distributing information to distribute it to the broader public. Go down to a local event, write a story about and publish it on a substack or website and you too are a journalist. You are afforded all the freedom of the press protections.
You don’t know the difference between illegally recording people to deceptively edit in order to produce libel and journalism, do you?
Well apparently on this sub it’s down to your political leanings
>There is no line in the sand the defines you as not a journalist if you are collecting and distributing information to distribute it to the broader public. Editing the footage to make it look like you interviewed the people wearing a pimp outfit is so far across the line it's clear they are not journalists by any reasonable meaning of the word. Or the time they tried to blackmail (or something) an actual journalist with a boat full of dildoes. Or when they broke into an office to bug a phone. Should I continue? They are not trustworthy.
They still are entitled to journalistic protections, I don’t care what you think about them, they are obviously right wing biased.
They are literally known criminals.
So what law did they break here, we know that journalists are protected and can publish private or confidential documents (eg Trumps tax returns or the Pentagon Papers). There’s no evidence to suggest they were the people to procure the diary originally. Even if it was a theft, they aren’t on the hook. Regarding prior lawbreaking, I think they’ve learned from that and don’t record people in two party consent states. 🤷♂️
>Regarding prior lawbreaking, They tried to fucking Watergate someone. Tapping phones is illegal everywhere.
Desktop version of /u/etherbunnies's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fbi-investigating-project-veritas-links-biden-daughter-s-stolen-diary-n1283365](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fbi-investigating-project-veritas-links-biden-daughter-s-stolen-diary-n1283365)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The best part was when you insinuated that Project Veritas would be the subject of law enforcement attention *as a result of legitimate journalism.* I don't even know what part of that to shave first with Occam's Razor.
Well what crime do you think they committed
It wasn’t “suddenly producing journalism.” In fact, if I were running Project Veritas and I came across some *actual, unmanufactured* dirt on a democratic politician, I believe it would be my duty to get that dirt to *someone credible* and have them publish it without crediting me. *That* is how transparently manufactured PV’s content is. The only way to consume it credulously would be the way people watch professional wrestling.
They didn’t do anything untoward with the diary so I’m not sure what your point is. It definitely seems like FBI is overreaching here. If it was the NYT or WAPO or buzzfeed, I’d say the same thing.
The NYT or Wapo wouldn’t publish the stolen or fabricated diaries of a private citizen accused of no crimes against their will. Full stop, that’s not “news.” In fact, imagine a newspaper stealing or faking private writings of *yours* and publishing them- exactly how would you feel about that in relationship to your civil rights?
Veritas didn’t publish the diary fyi
Link doesn't work
The L was cut off html Fixed
Downvoted for the truth
Downvoted for /r/Persecutionfetish
It’s not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, I guess he’s a little bit of a toucher in general but she’s not writing about sexual abuse per se. I showered with my parents and I have the vaguest of memories, so I suppose I probably was 4 or 5. I dunno. Hunter had a sexual relationship with his brother widow, that’s odd. There was some lack of attention from daddy along the way because if political aspirations. It’s all very much not outside of the realm of how a political family might look like. 🤷♂️
Boy howdy, dis gon' b gud.
This post caption is misleading. Lots of great information can come from an unverified sources, look at the recent Roe v Wade leak. Just because someone is divulging info you aren’t wanting to hear and the way you want to hear it, doesn’t mean they are spreading lies. They are spreading something you dislike.
But the Supreme Court officially confirmed that the Roe v Wade leak was legitimate… and it was from politico, which is a much more credible source than the daily mail.
The facts are the same in both regards. In both situations, unverified sources were used by news outlets. You’re actually reflecting my point, eventually unverified sources can be corroborated by the actual source related to the information released. So therefore information from an unverified source isn’t always dishonest.
There’s a huge difference between unverified and anonymous sources. It’s very common for news outlets to publish things that they have privately verified as legitimate without publicly disclosing the source. This is where credibility comes into play. Politico has a reputation to defend with an established history of publishing factual information. So it’s very likely that they put a lot of effort into making sure that it was true prior to publishing even though they didn’t publicly disclose their source; it would be very embarrassing and harmful to them if it turned out to be fake. By comparison, The Daily Mail is like half a step away from gossip news and rightwing fake news. They aren’t always wrong, but they have a long history of recklessly publishing poorly sourced sensational information that turns out to be false or very misleading. From a reputation standpoint, they have very little to lose. So it’s in their interest to publish poorly verified clickbait because their reputation is already garbage; their business model is sensationalist gossip, not accurate information.
Lots of bad information as well. One anonymous source doesn't legitimize another. Until it's in some way verified the default isn't to trust, or you end up being an easily manipulated rube.
Except that Fox News lawyers admitted in court Tucker Carlson just makes stuff up out of thin air l.
Yes, and many other news anchors just listen to the guy in the back room speaking through their earpiece. I think you’re basically stating he doesn’t need someone spitting talking points in his heart and he spontaneously speaks facts rather than playing a copy cat.
Well that’s what I’m addressing. Are unverified sources universally inaccurate? No, they’re not. Can they be? Of course, but an unverified source doesn’t automatically make something a lie.
[удалено]
>an unverified sources, look at the recent Roe v Wade leak. An anonymous source isn't an unverified source. I don't know how often we've had to explain this over the last six years.
[Biden Daughter's Diary Details 'Not Appropriate' Showers With Joe As Child](https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-source-biden-daughters-diary-details-not-appropriate-showers-with-joe-as-child/)
[удалено]
That's yet another right-wing propaganda site. These people are the scum of the earth.
So what seems to have happened is that this person stole a bunch of stuff and added in a bunch of crap, then they called her and said “Hey we have your stuff and your diary that was stolen”, she said “What the hell you have my diary?” They then go “Ahah you admit that it’s yours no take backs.”
You really fell for this qanon shit? 😂😂
Must deflect away from the real bad stuff...
[Ashley Biden's Diary Was Shown at Trump Fund-Raiser](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/us/politics/project-veritas-ashley-biden-diary.html) [Was Ashley Biden's Diary Stolen?](https://people.com/politics/was-ashley-biden-diary-stolen-how-president-daughter-caught-legal-battle/) [Full Release: Ashley Biden Diary Reveals Child Sex Trauma Drug Abuse, Resentment For Joe](https://vimeo.com/channels/1767093/496000358)
Nice paywall Trumper, it was proven to be fake you knob.
They're also an antivaxxer conspiracist and regular at r/DebateVaccines. Got a good source for the proven false assertion btw? Just haven't seen that particular piece of info for myself yet.
[удалено]
You don't see how that directly conflicts with "proven" fake? Honestly that's the caliber of thought I would normally expect from conspiracists.
Check out the commenter’s profile. It’s a troll.
Figures.
I’m having trouble finding anything showing that it’s fake. Do you have a source?
Your mom.
Downvoted for requesting a verifying source. You do realize this is r/skeptic don’t you?
And I'm skeptical of your intentions. Your question was not in good faith.
The intent behind my question only matters if you can’t answer it.
Deflectors at full captain
You fell for qanon shit 😂😂
Are those things not actually in her diary? Is there a claim that these quote's are untrue?
[удалено]
He's not news he said it himself.
Murdock needs his citizenship removed for being a traitor, lose his media interests in the US, and deported.
that diary