2020 POTUS ELECTION THREAD

[DoctorWho]

Remember when the CIA and the NYT chattering classes said without any evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop had suspicious origins and was almost certainly "Russian disinformation?"

Welp, turns out that its origin is the much more pedestrian "he left his laptop at a repair shop" (rich people, amirite?).

Hey NYT/Politico, are the Russians in the room with you right now?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nfo-430276

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html (paywall, but it's 2022 and you can figure it out).

OK, but thank goodness the CIA and the NYT are there to give us nothing but objective truth about Ukraine and Russia now.

I skimmed the article linked by the original post and all I saw was national security people (not current CIA iirc) saying it looked like a Russian plant.

Intelligence analysis is a guessing game. Guessing wrong doesn't in itself prove bias. It doesn't even prove incompetence.

I'm not trying to let the people in question off the hook but let's spike the ball here.

Would Ivana Trump's laptop been given the same treatment?

[dw]

Remember when the CIA and the NYT chattering classes said without any evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop had suspicious origins and was almost certainly "Russian disinformation?"

Welp, turns out that its origin is the much more pedestrian "he left his laptop at a repair shop" (rich people, amirite?).

Hey NYT/Politico, are the Russians in the room with you right now?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nfo-430276

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html (paywall, but it's 2022 and you can figure it out).

OK, but thank goodness the CIA and the NYT are there to give us nothing but objective truth about Ukraine and Russia now.

I skimmed the article linked by the original post and all I saw was national security people (not current CIA iirc) saying it looked like a Russian plant.

Intelligence analysis is a guessing game. Guessing wrong doesn't in itself prove bias. It doesn't even prove incompetence.

I'm not trying to let the people in question off the hook but let's spike the ball here.

Would Ivana Trump's laptop been given the same treatment?

I readily agree that the media is generally liberal (I would put it slightly differently but who cares), and that the punditocracy was anti-Trump (as I was and am).

So no, if we could agree on some suitable parallel scenario I think the media would certainly have covered it differently and probably fewer ex-government people would endorse the Trump side.

However that doesn't really get to the point that guessing wrong is not in itself proof of bias, or even bad guessing. If you want to go to the trouble of digging up some overconfident quotes by supposed experts on this matter I'm sure you can find some zingers, but still, the opinion that it looked like a Russian plant seems true to me.

[DoctorWho]

Remember when the CIA and the NYT chattering classes said without any evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop had suspicious origins and was almost certainly "Russian disinformation?"

Welp, turns out that its origin is the much more pedestrian "he left his laptop at a repair shop" (rich people, amirite?).

Hey NYT/Politico, are the Russians in the room with you right now?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nfo-430276

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html (paywall, but it's 2022 and you can figure it out).

OK, but thank goodness the CIA and the NYT are there to give us nothing but objective truth about Ukraine and Russia now.

I skimmed the article linked by the original post and all I saw was national security people (not current CIA iirc) saying it looked like a Russian plant.

Intelligence analysis is a guessing game. Guessing wrong doesn't in itself prove bias. It doesn't even prove incompetence.

I'm not trying to let the people in question off the hook but let's spike the ball here.

Would Ivana Trump's laptop been given the same treatment?

I readily agree that the media is generally liberal (I would put it slightly differently but who cares), and that the punditocracy was anti-Trump (as I was and am).

So no, if we could agree on some suitable parallel scenario I think the media would certainly have covered it differently and probably fewer ex-government people would endorse the Trump side.

However that doesn't really get to the point that guessing wrong is not in itself proof of bias, or even bad guessing. If you want to go to the trouble of digging up some overconfident quotes by supposed experts on this matter I'm sure you can find some zingers, but still, the opinion that it looked like a Russian plant seems true to me.

A concerted effort by media and government is not "guessing wrong." And the FBI wasn't guessing at all when it declined to investigate. And the fact that no one is asking for accountability is a problem in itself.

[dw]

Remember when the CIA and the NYT chattering classes said without any evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop had suspicious origins and was almost certainly "Russian disinformation?"

Welp, turns out that its origin is the much more pedestrian "he left his laptop at a repair shop" (rich people, amirite?).

Hey NYT/Politico, are the Russians in the room with you right now?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nfo-430276

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html (paywall, but it's 2022 and you can figure it out).

OK, but thank goodness the CIA and the NYT are there to give us nothing but objective truth about Ukraine and Russia now.

I skimmed the article linked by the original post and all I saw was national security people (not current CIA iirc) saying it looked like a Russian plant.

Intelligence analysis is a guessing game. Guessing wrong doesn't in itself prove bias. It doesn't even prove incompetence.

I'm not trying to let the people in question off the hook but let's spike the ball here.

Would Ivana Trump's laptop been given the same treatment?

I readily agree that the media is generally liberal (I would put it slightly differently but who cares), and that the punditocracy was anti-Trump (as I was and am).

So no, if we could agree on some suitable parallel scenario I think the media would certainly have covered it differently and probably fewer ex-government people would endorse the Trump side.

However that doesn't really get to the point that guessing wrong is not in itself proof of bias, or even bad guessing. If you want to go to the trouble of digging up some overconfident quotes by supposed experts on this matter I'm sure you can find some zingers, but still, the opinion that it looked like a Russian plant seems true to me.

A concerted effort by media and government is not "guessing wrong." And the FBI wasn't guessing at all when it declined to investigate. And the fact that no one is asking for accountability is a problem in itself.

A couple of things:

1. Was that a concerted effort by media and "government"? Seems to me the Biden campaign got a bunch of current and former national security people to sign a letter saying they thought the laptop was likely a plant. And they probably did.

Is that a government conspiracy or freedom of speech and election year politicking?

2. It is customary for the FBI to avoid cases that have obvious political implications shortly before a presidential election. I'm not sure what you're referring to is anything more than that.

[DoctorWho]

Remember when the CIA and the NYT chattering classes said without any evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop had suspicious origins and was almost certainly "Russian disinformation?"

Welp, turns out that its origin is the much more pedestrian "he left his laptop at a repair shop" (rich people, amirite?).

Hey NYT/Politico, are the Russians in the room with you right now?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nfo-430276

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html (paywall, but it's 2022 and you can figure it out).

OK, but thank goodness the CIA and the NYT are there to give us nothing but objective truth about Ukraine and Russia now.

I skimmed the article linked by the original post and all I saw was national security people (not current CIA iirc) saying it looked like a Russian plant.

Intelligence analysis is a guessing game. Guessing wrong doesn't in itself prove bias. It doesn't even prove incompetence.

I'm not trying to let the people in question off the hook but let's spike the ball here.

Would Ivana Trump's laptop been given the same treatment?

I readily agree that the media is generally liberal (I would put it slightly differently but who cares), and that the punditocracy was anti-Trump (as I was and am).

So no, if we could agree on some suitable parallel scenario I think the media would certainly have covered it differently and probably fewer ex-government people would endorse the Trump side.

However that doesn't really get to the point that guessing wrong is not in itself proof of bias, or even bad guessing. If you want to go to the trouble of digging up some overconfident quotes by supposed experts on this matter I'm sure you can find some zingers, but still, the opinion that it looked like a Russian plant seems true to me.

A concerted effort by media and government is not "guessing wrong." And the FBI wasn't guessing at all when it declined to investigate. And the fact that no one is asking for accountability is a problem in itself.

A couple of things:

1. Was that a concerted effort by media and "government"? Seems to me the Biden campaign got a bunch of current and former national security people to sign a letter saying they thought the laptop was likely a plant. And they probably did.

Is that a government conspiracy or freedom of speech and election year politicking?

2. It is customary for the FBI to avoid cases that have obvious political implications shortly before a presidential election. I'm not sure what you're referring to is anything more than that.

I'm not an expert in law enforcement, but the FBI was pretty energetic in investigating Russian collusion and Hillary's e-mail server before the 2016 election. I think that if the laptop would have been Ivana Trumps, there would have been more curiosity.

You're (I think) in the majority that isn't troubled it. Fine by me.

[aurelius]

You're (I think) in the majority that isn't troubled it. Fine by me.

What would the FBI investigate? That Hunter Biden is an idiot?

1) We know Hunter Biden is the family Black Sheep. The good Biden son died.
2) Hunter Biden is a private citizen. Holds no government position. Never has as far as I am aware.
3) The laptop divulged influence peddling

I'm just trying to understand your position that the FBI should have investigated the laptop of a private citizen because some politically motivated people claim a private individual 'did bad things'. Should the FBI open up investigations into Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk?

The contents of the laptop were released 17 months ago and I have yet to hear anyone claim illegal actions. Just influence peddling and nepotism. I'm not super happy but I'm not surprised. But it is hilarious to read Trumpers get in an uproar about it.

[dw]

You're (I think) in the majority that isn't troubled it. Fine by me.

What would the FBI investigate? That Hunter Biden is an idiot?

1) We know Hunter Biden is the family Black Sheep. The good Biden son died.
2) Hunter Biden is a private citizen. Holds no government position. Never has as far as I am aware.
3) The laptop divulged influence peddling

I'm just trying to understand your position that the FBI should have investigated the laptop of a private citizen because some politically motivated people claim a private individual 'did bad things'. Should the FBI open up investigations into Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk?

The contents of the laptop were released 17 months ago and I have yet to hear anyone claim illegal actions. Just influence peddling and nepotism. I'm not super happy but I'm not surprised. But it is hilarious to read Trumpers get in an uproar about it.

I haven't really followed it but supposedly the laptop contains references to kickbacks to Joe Biden. IIRC.

[dw]

Remember when the CIA and the NYT chattering classes said without any evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop had suspicious origins and was almost certainly "Russian disinformation?"

Welp, turns out that its origin is the much more pedestrian "he left his laptop at a repair shop" (rich people, amirite?).

Hey NYT/Politico, are the Russians in the room with you right now?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nfo-430276

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html (paywall, but it's 2022 and you can figure it out).

OK, but thank goodness the CIA and the NYT are there to give us nothing but objective truth about Ukraine and Russia now.

I skimmed the article linked by the original post and all I saw was national security people (not current CIA iirc) saying it looked like a Russian plant.

Intelligence analysis is a guessing game. Guessing wrong doesn't in itself prove bias. It doesn't even prove incompetence.

I'm not trying to let the people in question off the hook but let's spike the ball here.

Would Ivana Trump's laptop been given the same treatment?

I readily agree that the media is generally liberal (I would put it slightly differently but who cares), and that the punditocracy was anti-Trump (as I was and am).

So no, if we could agree on some suitable parallel scenario I think the media would certainly have covered it differently and probably fewer ex-government people would endorse the Trump side.

However that doesn't really get to the point that guessing wrong is not in itself proof of bias, or even bad guessing. If you want to go to the trouble of digging up some overconfident quotes by supposed experts on this matter I'm sure you can find some zingers, but still, the opinion that it looked like a Russian plant seems true to me.

A concerted effort by media and government is not "guessing wrong." And the FBI wasn't guessing at all when it declined to investigate. And the fact that no one is asking for accountability is a problem in itself.

A couple of things:

1. Was that a concerted effort by media and "government"? Seems to me the Biden campaign got a bunch of current and former national security people to sign a letter saying they thought the laptop was likely a plant. And they probably did.

Is that a government conspiracy or freedom of speech and election year politicking?

2. It is customary for the FBI to avoid cases that have obvious political implications shortly before a presidential election. I'm not sure what you're referring to is anything more than that.

I'm not an expert in law enforcement, but the FBI was pretty energetic in investigating Russian collusion and Hillary's e-mail server before the 2016 election. I think that if the laptop would have been Ivana Trumps, there would have been more curiosity.

You're (I think) in the majority that isn't troubled it. Fine by me.

Actually I think the policy is not to not investigate but to not release news of an investigation around the time of a relevant election.

So Comey's behavior around the Hilary Clinton email server investigation was criticized because he twice held news conferences when arguable he shouldn't have.

Anyway I don't really care how one feels about the particular public statement in question, I just think it is rather wild to compare it putative CIA propaganda in the Ukraine invasion coverage. They just seem like unrelated phenomena to me.

[Skander]

Just influence peddling and nepotism. I'm not super happy but I'm not surprised. But it is hilarious to read Trumpers get in an uproar about it.

I really never understood the end game on the Hunter Biden stuff... The Trumps wanted people to get mad at Biden for using his family's name to get a job? It's just firing a machine gun in a glass house.

[hector]

Remember when the CIA and the NYT chattering classes said without any evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop had suspicious origins and was almost certainly "Russian disinformation?"

Welp, turns out that its origin is the much more pedestrian "he left his laptop at a repair shop" (rich people, amirite?).

Hey NYT/Politico, are the Russians in the room with you right now?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nfo-430276

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html (paywall, but it's 2022 and you can figure it out).

OK, but thank goodness the CIA and the NYT are there to give us nothing but objective truth about Ukraine and Russia now.

I skimmed the article linked by the original post and all I saw was national security people (not current CIA iirc) saying it looked like a Russian plant.

Intelligence analysis is a guessing game. Guessing wrong doesn't in itself prove bias. It doesn't even prove incompetence.

I'm not trying to let the people in question off the hook but let's spike the ball here.

Would Ivana Trump's laptop been given the same treatment?

I readily agree that the media is generally liberal (I would put it slightly differently but who cares), and that the punditocracy was anti-Trump (as I was and am).

So no, if we could agree on some suitable parallel scenario I think the media would certainly have covered it differently and probably fewer ex-government people would endorse the Trump side.

However that doesn't really get to the point that guessing wrong is not in itself proof of bias, or even bad guessing. If you want to go to the trouble of digging up some overconfident quotes by supposed experts on this matter I'm sure you can find some zingers, but still, the opinion that it looked like a Russian plant seems true to me.

A concerted effort by media and government is not "guessing wrong." And the FBI wasn't guessing at all when it declined to investigate. And the fact that no one is asking for accountability is a problem in itself.

A couple of things:

1. Was that a concerted effort by media and "government"? Seems to me the Biden campaign got a bunch of current and former national security people to sign a letter saying they thought the laptop was likely a plant. And they probably did.

Is that a government conspiracy or freedom of speech and election year politicking?

2. It is customary for the FBI to avoid cases that have obvious political implications shortly before a presidential election. I'm not sure what you're referring to is anything more than that.

I'm not an expert in law enforcement, but the FBI was pretty energetic in investigating Russian collusion and Hillary's e-mail server before the 2016 election. I think that if the laptop would have been Ivana Trumps, there would have been more curiosity.

You're (I think) in the majority that isn't troubled it. Fine by me.

Actually I think the policy is not to not investigate but to not release news of an investigation around the time of a relevant election.

So Comey's behavior around the Hilary Clinton email server investigation was criticized because he twice held news conferences when arguable he shouldn't have.

Anyway I don't really care how one feels about the particular public statement in question, I just think it is rather wild to compare it putative CIA propaganda in the Ukraine invasion coverage. They just seem like unrelated phenomena to me.

Comey was in a tough position. Holding a press conference, or not holding a press conference, both could have been interpreted by the unhappy side as a political act on his part. One possibility, what I assume, is that Comey was just trying to do his job and didn't have an overtly political motivation.

If someone knows about a part of the CIA with a mission to psyop the US population into supporting war in Ukraine I'd like to hear about it. Until then my assumption is that the CIA is (like Comey was) more focused on doing their job. CIA is liekly working more to achieve an outcome in Ukraine than on manipulating the domestic population.

[aurelius]

If someone knows about a part of the CIA with a mission to psyop the US population into supporting war in Ukraine I'd like to hear about it. Until then my assumption is that the CIA is (like Comey was) more focused on doing their job. CIA is liekly working more to achieve an outcome in Ukraine than on manipulating the domestic population.

I think Comey had personal political aspirations. He broke with long standing LE precedence during elections by publicly discussing the investigation into Clinton and Russian influence. Simple explanations: like greed, ambition, and incompetence explain 99% of bad actions.

[hector]

If someone knows about a part of the CIA with a mission to psyop the US population into supporting war in Ukraine I'd like to hear about it. Until then my assumption is that the CIA is (like Comey was) more focused on doing their job. CIA is liekly working more to achieve an outcome in Ukraine than on manipulating the domestic population.

I think Comey had personal political aspirations. He broke with long standing LE precedence during elections by publicly discussing the investigation into Clinton and Russian influence. Simple explanations: like greed, ambition, and incompetence explain 99% of bad actions.

Agree on potential motivations.
It's hard to know Comey's aspirations. Greed, ambition, incompetence, and a desire to do his job as best he could all could lead to the same outcome given the right motivation.

Incompetence is the especially tricky one because it can run contrary to motivation; Even if Comey wanted outcome A, he might have launched an action that actually brought about action B.

It's tempting to think that one wouldn't rise to a position like Director of FBI without political cunning and an amazing maneuverability of the system. And I'm sure that's how some get to that level. But nepotism and luck are factors as well. Can be hard to parse what percentage of each got someone to a director level position.

(When you look at where General Flynn and Scheuer have ended up, and what they say now, it makes you wonder how they ever served in such high roles.)

[aurelius]

It's tempting to think that one wouldn't rise to a position like Director of FBI without political cunning and an amazing maneuverability of the system. And I'm sure that's how some get to that level. But nepotism and luck are factors as well. Can be hard to parse what percentage of each got someone to a director level position.

(When you look at where General Flynn and Scheuer have ended up, and what they say now, it makes you wonder how they ever served in such high roles.)

It is a different skill set to navigate the bureaucracy of a large corporation or organization versus national politics. How many Fortune 500 executives would be good politicians or government administrators or vice versa? History informs me not many.

[JonA]

Agree on potential motivations.
It's hard to know Comey's aspirations. Greed, ambition, incompetence, and a desire to do his job as best he could all could lead to the same outcome given the right motivation.

Incompetence is the especially tricky one because it can run contrary to motivation; Even if Comey wanted outcome A, he might have launched an action that actually brought about action B.

It's tempting to think that one wouldn't rise to a position like Director of FBI without political cunning and an amazing maneuverability of the system. And I'm sure that's how some get to that level. But nepotism and luck are factors as well. Can be hard to parse what percentage of each got someone to a director level position.

(When you look at where General Flynn and Scheuer have ended up, and what they say now, it makes you wonder how they ever served in such high roles.)

A large ( or at least as reported at the time) reason that Obama appointed him at the time was his integrity. He kinda made a name for himself in the DOJ by opposing some of the more insane policies in the Bush admin.

I think he was kinda of a "Do the right thing no matter what" type of guy. It's no surprise that eventually irritated both political parties.

[hector]

Agree on potential motivations.
It's hard to know Comey's aspirations. Greed, ambition, incompetence, and a desire to do his job as best he could all could lead to the same outcome given the right motivation.

Incompetence is the especially tricky one because it can run contrary to motivation; Even if Comey wanted outcome A, he might have launched an action that actually brought about action B.

It's tempting to think that one wouldn't rise to a position like Director of FBI without political cunning and an amazing maneuverability of the system. And I'm sure that's how some get to that level. But nepotism and luck are factors as well. Can be hard to parse what percentage of each got someone to a director level position.

(When you look at where General Flynn and Scheuer have ended up, and what they say now, it makes you wonder how they ever served in such high roles.)

A large ( or at least as reported at the time) reason that Obama appointed him at the time was his integrity. He kinda made a name for himself in the DOJ by opposing some of the more insane policies in the Bush admin.

I think he was kinda of a "Do the right thing no matter what" type of guy. It's no surprise that eventually irritated both political parties.

That's right!
It's nice to think that someone got to the top for doing the right thing.

[JonA]

It's nice to think that someone got to the top for doing the right thing.

It's also what got him fired. (Refusing to squash the Trump investigations)

[hector]

It's nice to think that someone got to the top for doing the right thing.

It's also what got him fired. (Refusing to squash the Trump investigations)

Good point.

[DoctorWho]

Remember when the CIA and the NYT chattering classes said without any evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop had suspicious origins and was almost certainly "Russian disinformation?"

Welp, turns out that its origin is the much more pedestrian "he left his laptop at a repair shop" (rich people, amirite?).

Hey NYT/Politico, are the Russians in the room with you right now?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nfo-430276

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/p ... ation.html (paywall, but it's 2022 and you can figure it out).

OK, but thank goodness the CIA and the NYT are there to give us nothing but objective truth about Ukraine and Russia now.

I skimmed the article linked by the original post and all I saw was national security people (not current CIA iirc) saying it looked like a Russian plant.

Intelligence analysis is a guessing game. Guessing wrong doesn't in itself prove bias. It doesn't even prove incompetence.

I'm not trying to let the people in question off the hook but let's spike the ball here.

Would Ivana Trump's laptop been given the same treatment?

I readily agree that the media is generally liberal (I would put it slightly differently but who cares), and that the punditocracy was anti-Trump (as I was and am).

So no, if we could agree on some suitable parallel scenario I think the media would certainly have covered it differently and probably fewer ex-government people would endorse the Trump side.

However that doesn't really get to the point that guessing wrong is not in itself proof of bias, or even bad guessing. If you want to go to the trouble of digging up some overconfident quotes by supposed experts on this matter I'm sure you can find some zingers, but still, the opinion that it looked like a Russian plant seems true to me.

A concerted effort by media and government is not "guessing wrong." And the FBI wasn't guessing at all when it declined to investigate. And the fact that no one is asking for accountability is a problem in itself.

A couple of things:

1. Was that a concerted effort by media and "government"? Seems to me the Biden campaign got a bunch of current and former national security people to sign a letter saying they thought the laptop was likely a plant. And they probably did.

Is that a government conspiracy or freedom of speech and election year politicking?

2. It is customary for the FBI to avoid cases that have obvious political implications shortly before a presidential election. I'm not sure what you're referring to is anything more than that.

I'm not an expert in law enforcement, but the FBI was pretty energetic in investigating Russian collusion and Hillary's e-mail server before the 2016 election. I think that if the laptop would have been Ivana Trumps, there would have been more curiosity.

You're (I think) in the majority that isn't troubled it. Fine by me.

Actually I think the policy is not to not investigate but to not release news of an investigation around the time of a relevant election.

So Comey's behavior around the Hilary Clinton email server investigation was criticized because he twice held news conferences when arguable he shouldn't have.

Anyway I don't really care how one feels about the particular public statement in question, I just think it is rather wild to compare it putative CIA propaganda in the Ukraine invasion coverage. They just seem like unrelated phenomena to me.

We are just not going to agree. Whatever you think is wild, I think is prudent skepticism and the steel-manning approach to considering both sides of an argument in the best possible light.

To @hector, why wouldn't some agency get the US story out -- winning hearts and minds? For lots of reasons, the Russia has been our adversary.

[5hout]

Was this the thread with truck discussion? Cybertruck no more! https://carbuzz.com/news/canceled-tesla ... ck-is-dead

[TimF]

Was this the thread with truck discussion? Cybertruck no more! https://carbuzz.com/news/canceled-tesla ... ck-is-dead

Check the date on that post.