I’m not sure this is an accident. You’re supposed to come away with a vague impression that there’s something scandalous going on with Biden’s kid. Who knows what, exactly, but if the junkies are so steeped in the details it must be pretty bad.
This was what worked in 2016 after all. “FBI finds new laptop with Clinton emails!” It was nothing, but that didn’t matter. What mattered was that voters got a sense there was something shady.
DID JOE BIDEN KNOW ABOUT HUNTER’S TIES TO GORPMAN AND BLEEMER? Who are they? Why is that supposed to be bad? Who cares? It sounds shady. You’re just supposed to throw up your hands and infer that Biden must be no less corrupt than Trump after all.
Look, anyone engaged with or remotely attentive to politics has either already voted or knows how they’re voting. The debates only really matter for people who don’t pay attention to or know anything about politics. Those people aren’t going to do research.
So the details don’t matter. The impression matters. The impression Trump conveyed was “there’s some scandal about Biden’s kid, and the people who pay attention know all about the details.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A prediction: The Hunter Biden laptop story is going to end up being pretty big as it plays out over the next week or two. Not because of the contents of the (putative) e-mails or Hunter’s sex tapes, which are nothingburgers even if authentic—but because of Giuliani’s role.
By Monday, nobody but the fever swamps will be talking about the contents of the hard drive. We WILL be talking about whether this was a foreign info op, and how much Trump knew about Giuliani’s decision to accept stolen communications and send them to the NY Post.
In the unlikely event the NY Post’s narrative of where the laptop came from is basically accurate, Giuliani’s actions still look appalling, and if Trump knew & approved reflect badly on him. If that narrative is a cover for an info op, things look substantially worse...
The more I think about the Post’s story, the crazier it seems. IF the story is accurate, Rudy Giuliani is approached with a private citizen’s stolen hard drive, containing e-mails about conduct that on face isn’t even inappropriate, let alone criminal, & hands it to a tabloid.
That’s the best case scenario where we assume this incredibly sketchy “abandoned laptop” story is true. At worst Giuliani is participating in a foreign information operation. But even on the OFFICIAL version his conduct is appalling & of dubious legality.
I’m also pretty curious about the claim that the laptop was handed over to the FBI. Again, IF the story is correct this is basically stolen property. Instead of trying to return it to its owner, they just take it and comb through private files?
Let me offer another explanation: They get that protection because the idea that platforms (or bookstores, or newsstands, or cocktail party hosts) should be legally responsible for what other people say is self-evidently incredibly stupid.
Additionally: Punishing them with incredibly stupid liability for exercising their own first amendment rights of speech and association would be both incredibly stupid and constitutionally dubious.
The Trumposphere appears to be freaking out about the Clinton campaign having a messaging strategy around Russian interference, while folks on the left are bizarrely dismissing it as “disinformation.” This is all very weird. It’s both obviously true and totally fine.
The Russian interference campaign on Trump’s behalf was absolutely real. The Trump campaign was consistently downplaying and denying it long past the point of reasonable doubt and signaling gratitude in countless ways. Of course you draw attention to that.
Any comptetent politician would have done the same thing. And the FBI would have been utterly derelict not to open an investigation on those facts. The idea that this means the FBI was somehow taking orders from the Clinton campaign is ridiculous.
The idea that Facebook has a social networking “monopoly” is ridiculous; the only way people don’t laugh out loud at that is if they’re defining “social networking” to mean “services that look and function exactly like Facebook”.
Google doesn’t have a search “monopoly”; they have a really popular search engine. I promise, Bing & Yahoo & DuckDuckGo all still exist, and they’re all exactly as easy to access as Google. You don’t have to drive to some obscure off-brand search engine store.
This makes it harder for an unhinged cult to recruit new dupes, which is probably a net positive. But moved like this seem bound to read as validation, and potentially to further radicalize, the already brainwashed.
Which is always the tradeoff with these decisions: Arrest the spread, but shunt those already infected into other fora where they can go even crazier together.
It occurs to me, incidentally, that QAnon has to some extent been less harmful than it might be otherwise because of the core tenet that Trump and his allies have some master plan against their imaginary satanic cabal, for which they’re all meant to wait...