Hunter coverup getting scary.

You have time to complain on DART but not enough time to watch an interview of the guy who’s the top witness in this whole debacle? Ok dude

You haven't specified the time within the video which contains the evidence. When people do not show you what you ask for and what would be easily obtainable, it generally means that they do not have it.

I thought Joe Biden was a middle class boy from Scranton🤔. Where’d rich come from?

asset management?

Time and asset management?

The video is there, I’m not going to waste my time finding specific timestamps when you’re just going to disregard it anyways. The source is there. If you want to watch it, watch it. If not, then don’t ask for “evidence” because you’re too lazy to watch/read it

Too lazy? No. Unwilling to sift through 17 minutes of footage? Yes. Unduly burdensome is unduly burdensome. The onus is on the claimant to present his evidence in a manner which is not unduly burdensome. You have not done that.

How is 17 minutes unduly burdensome? This is exactly the reason why the MSM influences people like you. You’re so stuck on the 1 minute sound bite you have no idea about what the entire context is. 

How is 17 minutes unduly burdensome? This is exactly the reason why the MSM influences people like you. You’re so stuck on the 1 minute sound bite you have no idea about what the entire context is. Watch it front to back or don’t watch it at all. If you want to continue believing one minute sound bites from political pundits who are burying the story, then go ahead. The witness is there. His emails are there. 

listening to 17 minutes of Fox "news" propaganda to try to find something that isn't complete nonsense is rather burdensome (since it is all bullshit anyway). Especially since you have a proven track record of just ignoring any information which challenges your pre-determined opinion anyway. So going through that would be completely pointless. 

17 minutes is too long. If there is any evidence in it then you can point to specific times within the video which show that evidence.

You’re welcome to watch it or not. The source is there. Either watch it, or say you don’t need sources cause you already have a viewpoint. 17 minutes is nothing when I’ve watch Biden events and Trump events that last 30-60 minutes. If you don’t have 17 minutes of your life to take out, then maybe you shouldn’t be on here arguing with me.

I’m not going to waste my time finding specific timestamps when you’re just going to disregard it anyways.

Ben Smith of The New York Times reported on October 25 that early that month a White House attorney, Eric Herschmann, and two other men devised a plan to present Bobulinski and a cache of emails about Hunter Biden to a Wall Street Journal reporter, expecting the paper to run a story. This was conveyed to the president, who expected the story would be published on October 19, according to Steve Bannon. Trump mentioned on a conference call with aides that the Journal would soon publish an "important piece". Word of this comment reached editors at the Journal, who reportedly resented the insinuation that the paper was "being teed up to do this hit job". Bannon asserted that Bobulinski "got spooked" about whether the story would run, and on October 21 he emailed a statement about his allegations to a variety of sources, including Breitbart, which published it in full. As the October 22 presidential debate was ending, the Journal published a short article reporting that Bobulinski did not prove his central claim that Joe Biden was involved in and profited from his son's lobbying

Listening to the other side is something you should be in a habit of doing.

Maybe you should present your evidence in a manner which isn't unduly burdensome. This is what you said -

Query: If you're not going to risk wasting your time, then why should I risk wasting mine?

I have no problem listening to the other side. If i did, I wouldn't be here talking to you. But i'm not going to spend hours and hours of my life watching well known liars spew nonsense. If you want someone to review your "evidence", then it is incumbent upon you to tell us precisely where to find it. What you are are doing is roughly equivalent to saying that there is evidence you want us to read and it is in a book. You won't tell us what page or chapter it is in, just read the book. 

We obviously are not going to do that. Make your argument, tell us exactly where to find the "evidence" you want to present. If you can't do that, then why are you here?

Maybe you should present your evidence in a manner which isn't unduly burdensome. This is what you said -

A 17 minute video is burdensome? Instead of wasting your time arguing with me you should’ve watched it.

Query: If you're not going to risk wasting your time, then why should I risk wasting mine?

I did waste time in finding the video, because you asked for a source. You just seem to argue the entire time. If you’re going to deny context then that’s on you. I prefer to have the entire source available; you clearly don’t.

It’s right in the source. The claim is simple: Bobulinski claims the “big man” in the verified emails refer to Joe Biden, who met with a member of Burisma.

Remember when McCarthy waved a piece of paper that he claimed had a list of 205 communists working for the State Dept. ? The fact that the paper was never submitted into evidence or ever seen again was irrelevant, the McCarthyists were required to believe in red panic and so the witch hunt proceeded.

--> @oromagi

Remember when McCarthy waved a piece of paper that he claimed had a list of 205 communists working for the State Dept. ? The fact that the paper was never submitted into evidence or ever seen again was irrelevant, the McCarthyists were required to believe in red panic and so the witch hunt proceeded.

All smoke and no fire.

"Where there's smoke, there's fire" is the relevant aphorism.

The shouting FIRE analogy originates from a Supreme Court argument adjudicated by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who used the analogy as an example of speech that First Amendment does not protect.

One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.

The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.

The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.

One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.

Despite the document's questionable authorship and anonymous sourcing, its claims that Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to the Communist Party of China have been used by people who oppose the Chinese government, as well as by far-right influencers, to baselessly accuse candidate Joe Biden of being beholden to the Chinese government.

The document and its spread have become part of a wider effort to smear Hunter Biden and weaken Joe Biden's presidential campaign, which moved from the fringes of the internet to more mainstream conservative news outlets.

An unverified leak of documents — including salacious pictures from what President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and a Delaware Apple repair store owner claimed to be Hunter Biden's hard drive — were published in the New York Post on Oct. 14. Associates close to Trump, including Giuliani and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, have promised more blockbuster leaks and secrets, which have yet to materialize.

The fake intelligence document, however, preceded the leak by months, and it helped lay the groundwork among right-wing media for what would become a failed October surprise: a viral pile-on of conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.

Behind Typhoon

The Typhoon Investigations document was first posted in September to Intelligence Quarterly, an anonymous blog "dedicated to collecting important daily news," according to its "about" section. Historical domain records show the blog was registered to Albert Marko, a self-described political and economic adviser, who also lists the blog on his Twitter bio. When asked about the provenance of the document, Marko said he received it from Balding.

Balding, previously an associate professor at Fulbright University Vietnam who studied the Chinese economy and financial markets, posted the document on his blog on Oct. 22, seven weeks after it was initially published.

"I had really not wanted to do this but roughly 2 months ago I was handed a report about Biden activities in China the press has simply refused to cover. I want to strongly emphasize I did not write the report but I know who did," Balding said in an email.

Balding later claimed to NBC News that he wrote some of the document.

"I authored small parts of the report and was involved in report preparation and review. As a researcher, and due to the understandable worry about foreign disinformation, it was paramount that the report document activity from acknowledged and public sources," Balding said. "Great care was taken to document, cite, and retain information so that acknowledged facts could be placed in the public domain."

A viral dossier about Hunter Biden was written by "Martin Aspen," a fake identity whose profile picture was created by artificial intelligence.TyphoonInvesti1 / via Twitter

Balding said Aspen is "an entirely fictional individual created solely for the purpose of releasing this report." Balding did not name the document's main author, saying "the primary author of the report, due to personal and professional risks, requires anonymity."

Balding claimed that the document was commissioned by Apple Daily, a Hong Kong-based tabloid that is frequently critical of the Chinese government. A spokesperson for Apple Daily confirmed it had worked with Balding on the document.

In addition to posting the document to his blog, Balding also promoted it in far-right media, appearing on Bannon's podcast and on "China Unscripted," a podcast produced by The Epoch Times, a pro-Trump media outlet opposed to the Chinese government.

Balding, an American who taught economics at China's Peking University HSBC Business School until 2018, is often critical of the Chinese government. He made news this year as a source uncovering a global bulk data collection operation by the Chinese company Shenzhen Zhenhua Data Technology.

Blog posts highlighting the most salacious parts of the document, including articles from the Intelligence Quarterly Blog, Revolver News and Balding's blog, received 70,000 public interactions — which includes reactions, comments and shares — across Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, according to the social media analysis tool BuzzSumo.

Balding's blog was the primary driver of virality in conservative and conspiracy communities. The report itself was shared across Facebook and Twitter around 5,000 times, according to BuzzSumo, and more than 80 sites linked back to the blog, which was shared more than 25,000 times on Facebook and Twitter. Hyperpartisan and conspiracy sites like ZeroHedge and WorldNetDaily led the pack.

After the promise of a big reveal one day earlier, the document was also posted on the extremist forum 8kun by Q, the anonymous account behind the QAnon conspiracy theory movement.

On Twitter, the document was pushed by influencers in the QAnon community, as well as by Dinggang Wang, an anti-Chinese government YouTube personality who works for Guo Wengui, a billionaire who fled China amid accusations of bribery and other crimes. Republican Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, tweeted the document to his 2.3 million followers.

'Immediately suspicious'

The document gained attention from disinformation researchers in part because of the image of the document's author.

Elise Thomas, a researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, first spotted telltale signs of a fake photo when she went searching for Typhoon Investigations' Aspen on the web. Thomas found a Twitter account for Aspen named @TyphoonInvesti1, which had posted a link to Typhoon's WordPress page that contained the document on Aug. 15.

The profile picture for Aspen immediately showed signs of being a computer-generated image that can be created by computers and even some websites. Aspen's ears were asymmetrical, for one, but his left eye is what gave away that he did not really exist. Aspen's left iris juts out and appears to form a second pupil, a somewhat frequent error with computer-generated faces.

"The most obvious tell was the irregular shape of the irises," Thomas said. "The profile picture looks pretty convincing in the Twitter thumbnail, but when I popped it up into full view I was immediately suspicious."

Thomas then consulted with Ben Nimmo, director of investigations at the analytics company Graphika, who noted the other telltale sign of a computer-generated face.

"One of the things he and his team have figured out is that if you layer a lot of these images over the top of one another, the eyes align," Thomas said. "He did that with this image, and the eyes matched up."

Other parts of Aspen's identity were clearly stolen from disparate parts of the web. Aspen's Facebook page was created in August, and it featured only two pictures, both from his "new house," which were tracked back to reviews on the travel website Tripadvisor. The logo for Typhoon Investigations was lifted from the Taiwan Fact-Checking Center, a digital literacy nonprofit.

Aspen claimed on his LinkedIn profile to have worked for a company called Swiss Security Solutions from 2016 to 2020. Swiss Security Solutions denied having ever employed anyone named Aspen, and it said it had found fake accounts for two other people pretending to have worked for the company.

"Martin Aspen was never a freelancer or worker of the Swiss Security Solutions. We do not know this person. According to our Due Diligence Software, this person does not exist in Switzerland," Swiss Security Solutions Chairman Bojan Ilic said, adding that the company has reported the profile to LinkedIn.

Fake faces

Computer-generated faces have become a staple of large-scale disinformation operations in the run-up to the election. In December, Facebook took down a network of fake accounts using computer-created faces tied to The Epoch Times. Facebook removed over 600 accounts tied to the operation, which pushed pro-Trump messages and even served as moderators of some Facebook groups. Stephen Gregory, publisher of the U.S. editions of The Epoch Times, has denied any connection to the accounts.

Last month, Facebook removed another batch of computer-generated profiles originating in China and the Philippines, some of which made anti-Trump posts.

Renee DiResta, a researcher at the Stanford Internet Observatory, said computer-created identities are becoming common for disinformation campaigns, in part because they are easy to create.

DiResta, who helped examine a ring of AI-generated faces tied to the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA last month, said computer-generated profile pictures can be used to "build an army of fake people" to artificially support a cause or to make "disinformation operations harder to discover."

"One of the things that investigators look at to understand the narrative that is spreading is whether the accounts are authentic, whether they're real," DiResta said. "If they were to use a stock photo, it confirms something dishonest is likely happening. By using an AI-generated face, you're guaranteeing you won't find that person elsewhere on the internet."

CORRECTION (Oct 30, 2020. 11:19 a.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misstated Christopher Balding’s position at Fulbright University Vietnam. As of Thursday afternoon, the university had listed him as being currently employed, but later put out a statement saying he was a former professor. He is no longer an employee of the university as of Sept. 10, 2020.

--> @oromagi

The shouting FIRE analogy originates from a Supreme Court argument adjudicated by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who used the analogy as an example of speech that First Amendment does not protect.

And that's exactly why I always hate that analogy.

The patrons should be smart enough to look around and see if there's any smoke or anything without flying into a panic.

ALSO,

Do people typically panic and trample each other when their fire-alarm/smoke-alarm system is unexpectedly tripped?

Wouldn't this "danger" kind of make all fire-alarm/smoke-alarms counter productive??