The New York Post is trying to make it a story that other news outlets aren’t falling for their ongoing disinformation campaign
Their latest update shows that they must be scraping the bottom of the barrel, going with a piece that’s basically just personal photos and a note he wrote himself about his dead brother. Not sure what the news value is here, but hey, it’s the New York Post
I’m still waiting for someone, anyone to explain what the scandal is supposed to be and how these emails are evidence of it. Running headlines calling something a “smoking gun” does not make something a smoking gun. This is the same playbook as their “unmasking” nonsense.
This is currently the explanation we’re expected to believe. And that’s just to get to the “okay, how did they get the emails?” part before even tackling whether the emails actually show a scandal involving Joe Biden (so far, they don’t)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Parker Molloy

Parker Molloy Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ParkerMolloy

18 Oct
Imagine being the type of person who thinks that weirdly, Dems just happen to endorse uniquely corrupt candidates! Twice in a row! And that had they just nominated the other candidate in the race that it would have gone off without a hitch.
Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Bullock, Booker... et al. No matter who they nominated, yes, this was going to be the final play from the Trump team. Had Bernie won the primary, we’d be hearing about some nonsense smear against him.
Read 26 tweets
17 Oct
He bought this home for $185,000 in the 70s and then sold it for $1.2 million in 1996 wsj.com/articles/in-hi… ImageImage
The “Biden is corrupt” argument (that centered on him somehow getting massive payments for... something?) doesn’t make sense. He made his taxes available, his primary source of income between age 29 and 73 was the federal government, etc.
After he left office in 2017, he started raking in cash because turns out former VPs are highly sought after speakers/authors/etc. The money he made during that time has been really well documented, too. This is why presidential nominees who aren’t corrupt release their taxes.
Read 4 tweets
17 Oct
In honor of Schlapp’s bad take, I made something
Here. I’ll balance it out: Marilyn Monroe with Trump’s face
Audrey Hepburn with Anthony Fauci’s face, you say? Sure
Read 5 tweets
17 Oct
New York Post reporter discovers what a pre-interview is
What he doesn’t mention is that this is a photo from something I think should be abolished, but exists: the White House holiday party photo line.

A NYT article referred to a photo from one as “one of hundreds of seconds-long interactions that the president and the First Lady.”
It’s a dumb tradition that I think should end forever, but it’s a thing, not a sign she was hanging out with the Obamas or whatever. nytimes.com/2015/12/14/us/…
Read 4 tweets
17 Oct
“Does it matter if the Hunter Biden emails are, you know, true?” he says, referencing the difference between whether they’re actual emails or forgeries...

There’s nothing NY Post has published that’s scandalous so far? No, “hey, we got a bunch of emails” in itself is not news. Image
Biden released his taxes. His finances are out there in the open. People can go check them if they want. That’s one of the reasons why it’s good for candidates to release them!
Reminds me of what @MattGertz wrote about back in May about “unmasking.” It was a “noninformation campaign,” releasing a document without context or a clear point with the hope of others filling in the blanks and and coming to a sinister conclusion.

mediamatters.org/trumprussia/ri…
Read 10 tweets
17 Oct
Ah yes, the dossier, which was so radioactive that journalists with access to it before 2016 didn’t publish it because they couldn’t confirm what they were putting out there and doing so would be irresponsible and could have swung an election.
The “anti-anti-Trump” crowd are just sad.
Journalism isn’t just getting info and blasting it out into the world without contextualizing it or confirming it.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!