The thing is... if there was anything actually damning or illegal in these emails, the FBI supposedly already had them months ago and nothing came out of it. Rudy's decision to push ahead and have NY Post run a smear campaign using them... seems unwise.
The story this came from a laptop that was dropped off at a computer repair shop run by a Seth Rich truther who has no idea who actually dropped them off, but he happened to open them, make copies of the hard drive, and... somehow come into contact with Rudy... doesn't add up.
I feel like it's way more likely that if the contents are legit, they came from a hack... specifically the hack NYT reported on in January.…
But rather than acknowledge these came from a hack almost identical to 2016, and Rudy was conspiring with the people who hacked them to harm Biden (though, again, there don't seem to be any actual crimes in there, or... really anything scandalous), they made up a laptop story.
We know that Russia hacked the DNC's emails in 2016, fed them to Wikileaks, who dripped them out over the course of months to try to influence voters who were flooded with news about them anytime a new batch came out.
And we know that Russia hacked Burisma with the specific intention of finding something that could hurt Biden.

And suddenly, weeks away from the election a bunch of Biden's son's emails show up in a story from the NY Post with a cover story that makes no damn sense?
They're doing it again. The Trump campaign paid no price for cheating last time around, working with people claiming to have dirt on Clinton (which turned out to be the DNC's emails). And now they're doing it again. Amazing. Just amazing.
I'm curious if the New York Post knew the "laptop" backstory was BS or if they were genuinely fooled by the least convincing cover story ever.
In any case, there doesn't actually seem to be anything in the emails (even if they're legit) indicating that Joe Biden did anything wrong. NY Post slapped a headline calling them a "smoking gun" and made a bunch of insinuations, but nothing actually backs them up.
I think they're hoping that by releasing a story every day or so with some sort of NEW SHOCKING REVELATION that people will think there's a story there. But... the existence of emails themselves aren't actually a scandal.
Also... the lead reporter on those stories... has *only* written about this one specific topic. Zero bylines before this week.
And she had apparently been working at the Post since April. So you might think, "Okay, maybe she was working on these stories over a course of several months."
But the article itself very specifically says that the Post only received this data *this week*
And yeah, she worked for Hannity for 3.5+ years as a segment producer... doing social media for Matt Schlapp's organization before that... and then... had a summer internship for a few months before that.

Odd resume for someone handed what is supposed to be a huge story.
But seriously compare the journalism here:

NYT on Trump's taxes: Examined thousands of taxes spanning years, conducted "dozens of interviews," cross-referenced public and private data.

NY Post on HB's emails: Received mystery files on 10/11. Published story on 10/14. #YOLO
NYT: here's an article explaining why we believe this is newsworthy, we will be clear what these stories show and what they don't show, we've assigned a team to this who have been working on this beat for nearly 4 years.…
Meanwhile, NYP is over there like, "Hey, we can't vouch for any of this, BUT you see where he says "my guy" here? That's referring to his dad..we think. And we're not sure what's being discussed here, but MAYBE it's shady? We're gonna say it was, but not specify what was illegal"
I know I criticize NYT reporters and editors a fair amount on here, but that's usually over story framing or story selection. Their process is thorough. NYP's process seems to be more like the thought process that someone goes through before posting a Facebook article.
I feel like what the Post is doing right now shows how reckless they are as supposed journalists.

In 2016, there were several news organizations that could have published the Steele dossier ahead of the election. They didn't, in part, because they couldn't verify the claims.
And that's what journalists do: they report out what they can verify. The only outlet that wrote anything about the dossier before the election at all was Mother Jones, and that was a post about what could be verified: that a dossier was being looked at by the FBI. No one else.
BuzzFeed waited until January 2017 to publish what they had. Some people agreed with the decision, others didn't agree, but it didn't swing an election.
For NYP to publish this series, which a.) lacks verification, b.) is framed as evidence of a crime or wrongdoing even though nothing in the documents reported on actually illustrate that, and c.) lacks any sort of context, it's irresponsible. It's not journalism.
In any case, the whole thing with whatever NYP's doing right now just falls short of meeting even the most basic even the most basic ethics standards in reporting. I've been thinking about that a lot today.

• • •

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!


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
... ... ... they can’t even really believe this, can they? Image
Normal human being, especially one who has ever worked in a bar or a restaurant: oh yeah, they’re saying get him out of office/cut him off/vote him out/impeach him

MAGAbrains: sHe iS tHrEaTeNiNg tO mUrDeR HiM

Also, this bad faith play isn’t new:…
They’re going to get her killed. This is all a game to them.
Read 6 tweets
18 Oct
This guy highlights the issue with all this Hunter Biden stuff.

“It is not going to go away and it will not look like nothing.” Then if you follow his thread, his issue is that a company hiring someone who has a famous family member, and he tries to define that as “corruption.”
Unless you ban family members of famous people from working ... at all ... you can’t stop companies from hiring people because they’re adjacent to power.

What makes it corruption is if the person in power does something or changes policy in order to *get* their relative a job. Image
Was John McCain guilty of corruption because Meghan McCain was hired to work in media (Daily Beast, Fox News, and then most recently ABC)?

No. Because that’s not how corruption works. It’s a backwards understanding of corruption.
Read 13 tweets
18 Oct
Which would mean that Rudy has been sitting on a hard drive full of child porn for however long he had it. Not sure THAT is the slam dunk those guys want, either...
Anyway, these guys really think that voters are going to eventually forget that Joe and Hunter Biden are two different people
And that unlike with the Trump administration, Biden wouldn’t be making his kid a senior advisor with a security clearance.
Read 4 tweets
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… 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

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!