Fla. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) accused of sex trafficking

[TheCount]

Cases like this with no evidence or due process are essentially Rorschach tests. People see what they want to see, or infer their own motivations.

To me, the most revealing thing about it is that certain people who normally see pedophile elites hiding behind every blade of grass have been extremely quick to reflexively discount reports on pizzaGaetz.



As for Glenn Greewald, his love for due process and giving the benefit of the doubt somehow did not extend to Hunter Biden.

 

[dannno]

To me, the most revealing thing about it is that certain people who normally see pedophile elites hiding behind every blade of grass have been extremely quick to reflexively discount reports on pizzaGaetz.

Maybe because Gaetz largely opposes the establishment narratives.

As for Glenn Greewald, his love for due process and giving the benefit of the doubt somehow did not extend to Hunter Biden.

That is irrelevant to this particular discussion, as there was a lot of evidence against Hunter.

 

[TheCount]

Maybe because Gaetz largely opposes the establishment narratives.

What does that have to do with whether or not he fucks kids?

That is irrelevant to this particular discussion, as there was a lot of evidence against Hunter.

Your standards for what constitutes evidence vary as necessary to contort the world to fit your irrational beliefs.

 

[dannno]

What does that have to do with whether or not he fucks kids?

Uh, because fucking kids is how the elite keep many of their people in line and what they try and use against their enemies to distract from their own kid fucking..

Gaetz isn't in the club, so obviously they are going to try and smear him some how.

Your standards for what constitutes evidence vary as necessary to contort the world to fit your irrational beliefs.

Uh.. ya.. you see, there is a laptop full of evidence against Hunter Biden, and not a shred of evidence against Gaetz... soo...

 

[jmdrake]

To me, the most revealing thing about it is that certain people who normally see pedophile elites hiding behind every blade of grass have been extremely quick to reflexively discount reports on pizzaGaetz.



As for Glenn Greewald, his love for due process and giving the benefit of the doubt somehow did not extend to Hunter Biden.

What made the Hunter Biden story interesting to a true journalist like Glenn Grenwald is the fact that it was being censored. The opposite is happening with Gaetz.

 

[Occam's Banana]

As for Glenn Greewald, his love for due process and giving the benefit of the doubt somehow did not extend to Hunter Biden.

Bullshit.

Of what did Greenwald ever deem Hunter Biden to be guilty (either with or without having first extended "the benefit of the doubt")?

In what way did Greenwald ever exhibit any support for a lack of "due process" to be applied with respect to Hunter Biden?

Greenwald's problem with the Hunter Biden laptop affair was not Hunter Biden. It was the media's concerted and deliberate suppression and obfuscation of the story.

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that if the controversy swirling around Gaetz was being treated by the media the same way they treated the Hunter Biden laptop story, Greenwald would be making the same criticisms and commentary, and for exactly the same reasons. Both are absolutely legitimate stories that any journalists worthy of being called such would pursue with great tenacity.

 

[jmdrake]

Bull$#@!.

Of what did Greenwald ever deem Hunter Biden to be guilty (either with or without having first extended "the benefit of the doubt")?

In what way did Greenwald ever exhibit any support for a lack of "due process" to be applied with respect to Hunter Biden?

Greenwald's problem with the Hunter Biden laptop affair was not Hunter Biden. It was the media's concerted and deliberate suppression and obfuscation of the story.

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that if the controversy swirling around Gaetz was being treated by the media the same way they treated the Hunter Biden laptop story, Greenwald would be making the same criticisms and commentary, and for exactly the same reasons. Both are absolutely legitimate stories that any journalists worthy of being called such would pursue with great tenacity.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

 

[TheCount]

Greenwald's problem with the Hunter Biden laptop affair was not Hunter Biden. It was the media's concerted and deliberate suppression and obfuscation of the story.

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that if the controversy swirling around Gaetz was being treated by the media the same way they treated the Hunter Biden laptop story, Greenwald would be making the same criticisms and commentary, and for exactly the same reasons. Both are absolutely legitimate stories that any journalists worthy of being called such would pursue with great tenacity.

First, just because you say that the media covered them differently does not mean that they actually did.

Second, one is a sitting member of congress and the other was the son of a presidential candidate. Are those two equally deserving of scrutiny?

 

[Firestarter]

This almost suggests that the Hunter Biden laptop story was pushed back into the spotlight to save Matt Gaetz...

It also make no sense at all that Hunter would save a photo of working on his laptop in his bear a$$ (who made the photo?)?

Especially not when he was supposedly making porn where both he and the prostitutes were wearing underwear while having sex!

Hunter-Biden's-career-as-porn-star

 

[dannno]

The graph doesn't debunk anything he said... but you are really good at adding nothing of value to this forum, obfuscating and filling it with shit.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/11/liberal-medias-smear-campaign-against-the-posts-hunter-biden-story/

 

[TheCount]

The graph doesn't debunk anything he said... but you are really good at adding nothing of value to this forum, obfuscating and filling it with shit.

I aspire to one day post things that are as valuable as what you post.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/11/liberal-medias-smear-campaign-against-the-posts-hunter-biden-story/

I could find an identical story from another source saying the same about the Gaetz story.

 

[TheCount]

This almost suggests that the Hunter Biden laptop story was pushed back into the spotlight to save Matt Gaetz...

Yes, I think that's obvious. It went completely unmentioned for months. And now people are trying to conflate the two, when there's no apt comparison to be made.


Next month people will be back to crowing about family values, but this month those are forgotten.

 

[donnay]

https://therightscoop.com/watch-pro...er-stunning-admission-from-cnn-on-matt-gaetz/

 

[Occam's Banana]

Greenwald's problem with the Hunter Biden laptop affair was not Hunter Biden. It was the media's concerted and deliberate suppression and obfuscation of the story.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyybO3oWUAIfcrQ.jpg

Twitter and Facebook banned dissemination of the New York Post's breaking reportage of the Hunter Biden laptop story. CNN, NPR, et al. made explicit statements to the effect that they would not pursue or investigate the story. Other corporate media outlets made ludicrous "Ooh! Look! A squirrel!" excuses for their deliberate lack of attention (with the Washington Post going so far as to say that the matter should be considered as "Russian disinformation" even if it probably wasn't).

But hey, by all means, go ahead and pretend that none of that actually happened and just post a smirky-face emoji and an irrelevant graph of Google search-term frequencies, as if those things constitute any kind of effective or competent rebuttal. Muy impressivo! (Because, you know ... even generously granting that Google search-term frequencies stand as evidence of anything, it couldn't possibly be the case that the degree of interest in the Biden laptop documents would have been even greater - perhaps much greater - than it already was if so-called "journalists" had done their goddam jobs instead of running interference and doing damage control on behalf of their preferred POTUS candidate or anything like that, now, could it?)

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1337085128728662023

https://twitter.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that if the controversy swirling around Gaetz was being treated by the media the same way they treated the Hunter Biden laptop story, Greenwald would be making the same criticisms and commentary, and for exactly the same reasons. Both are absolutely legitimate stories that any journalists worthy of being called such would pursue with great tenacity.

First, just because you say that the media covered them differently does not mean that they actually did.

That's right - "just because" I say so does not make it so. What makes it so is that that's what they actually did.

Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence that the Gaetz story is being suppressed and obfuscated just like the Biden story was (per the above tweets, for example)? Or maybe you'd prefer to approach it from the other direction and present some evidence that the Biden story was pushed and promoted just like the Gaetz story is (per the tweet below, for example)?

Either way will do. Thanks in advance.

https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1382062653816856576

Second, one is a sitting member of congress and the other was the son of a presidential candidate. Are those two equally deserving of scrutiny?

I have no idea what "equally" is supposed to mean here, but both stories are quite clearly deserving of thorough and complete scrutiny. Whether such vetting ends up taking one story "equally" as far as the other is entirely contingent upon how deep their respective "rabbit holes" go, if anywhere. Only those who are being deliberately disingenuous or willfully obtuse would pretend otherwise.

Furthermore, the same disingenuity and obtuseness goes for anyone who claims to think that the possible compromise and/or corruption of the son of a major presidential candidate is somehow of lesser concern merely because that son does not hold any public office. (And if the laptop and the materials it contained had belonged to one of Trump's sons, I am skeptical that you would make so much as a whispered peep of objection to the matter being thoroughly investigated and widely reported upon.)

And now that I have addressed your question, I can't help but notice that you have not only failed to answer my questions, but even snipped them entirely from your reply. So I will repeat them with bold emphasis, just so you won't miss them this time. They are not rhetorical:

As for Glenn Greewald, his love for due process and giving the benefit of the doubt somehow did not extend to Hunter Biden.

Of what did Greenwald ever deem Hunter Biden to be guilty (either with or without having first extended "the benefit of the doubt")?

In what way did Greenwald ever exhibit any support for a lack of "due process" to be applied with respect to Hunter Biden?

 

[TheTexan]

Must spread rep before repping OB.

Probably see that message 10x a day

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1382063660298870784

FTA: Due Process Is Good, He Said Controversially

As to the people claiming that there’s hypocrisy in Greenwald’s attitude toward Hunter Biden versus Gaetz, come on. The issue with the Hunter Biden story was a) Facebook and Twitter blocking access to an expose during an election season, and b) the bulk of the press running with the outrageous, CIA-backed narrative that it was “Russian disinformation.” Greenwald has been consistent in his approach to cases like Gaetz’s dating back to the Eliot Spitzer affair.
​

 

[TheCount]

Twitter and Facebook

Neither of those are "the media"

CNN, NPR, et al. made explicit statements to the effect that they would not investigate the story.

All of them reported on the story.

Other corporate media outlets made ludicrous "Ooh! Look! A squirrel!" excuses for their deliberate lack of attention (with the Washington Post going so far as to say that the matter should be dismissed as "Russian disinformation" even it probably wasn't).

By lack of attention, what do you mean? They all reported the story. What attention should they have paid to it that they did not pay to it?

Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence that the Gaetz story is being suppressed and obfuscated like the Biden story was (per the above tweets, for example)?

Suppressed and obfuscated by... writing stories about it?

Or maybe you'd prefer to approach it from the other direction and present some evidence that the Biden story was pushed and promoted like the Gaetz story is (per the tweet below, for example)?

How is the Gaetz story being "pushed" and the Hunter Biden story "suppressed" if the Hunter Biden story was reported on more, got more attention, and got more traffic?

Anyway, sure. Gaetz's string of 180 appearances on Fox news programs came to an abrupt end when the story came out. They stopped talking about him entirely after first bringing him onto a show so he could get his toes sucked and he fucked it up. Stories since then are about other people's coverage of him, not their own coverage or investigations. Search for Gaetz and you'll find out what SNL said about him and what he said about CNN and Project Veritas' story about CNN hyping Gaetz coverage.

I have no idea what "equally" is supposed to mean here, but both stories are quite clearly deserving of thorough and complete scrutiny.

Gaetz is a congressman. Hunter Biden is a crackhead.

Why are these people's issues both 'politics' reporting and equivalently important for news reporting?

Furthermore, the same disingenuity and obtuseness goes for anyone who claims to think that the possible compromise and/or corruption of the son of a major presidential candidate is somehow of lesser concern merely because that son does not hold any public office. (And if the laptop and the materials it contained had belonged to one of Trump's sons, I am skeptical that you would make so much as a whispered peep of objection to the matter being thoroughly investigated and widely reported upon.)

First off, Trump's sons' business dealings were reported on before and after the election and were widely dismissed as: "they're just his sons, lol."

Second, Trump used them as official mouthpieces regardless of their holding political office or not. Did Hunter Biden speak at any campaign rallies? Do any interviews on behalf of his father? Raise money? Anything?


So long as Biden avoids the level of nepotism embodied by Trump, I have far less interest in his family's dealings than I do in Trump's.

And now that I have addressed your question, I can't help but notice that you have not only failed to answer my questions, but even snipped them entirely from your reply. So I will repeat them with bold emphasis, just so you won't miss them this time. They are not rhetorical:

It's a disgrace to report on Matt Gaetz, who has not been charged with any crimes:

It's a disgrace to not report on Hunter Biden, who has not been charged with any crimes:

 

[acptulsa]

Neither of those are "the media"

No? They aren't media? They don't drive narratives?

So what is Google, then? It doesn't pretend to be a news service per se, so when it plays Information Gatekeeper we shouldn't be the least bit concerned?

All of them reported on the story.

All of them reported there was Russian disinformation. Yeah, that's a story all right. A fairy tale.

So long as Biden avoids the level of nepotism embodied by Trump, I have far less interest in his family's dealings than I do in Trump's.

So, using his connections with his father to blackmail bribes out of Ukraine is fine, as long as he doesn't do any fundraising or hold an office. Is that your bottom line?

It has been a while since Obama. I forgot how extreme your double standards are.

 

[Firestarter]

This man, Bob Kent, looks like he's lying.
He denies that he extorted Matt's father, Don Gaetz, but admits that he "asked" him for $25 million, because "we" needed it (and don't we all need a couple of million?), and his son Matt is in need of some good publicity.

This explanation sound ridiculous. It isn't clear how this $25 million would deliver anything but a (probably fake) video of somebody that could be former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who according to the official (American government) story died while in prison in Iran (if I understand correctly).
It also isn't clear (at least not to me) how this would make Matt Gaetz's legal troubles go away. Or why the Gaetz family would have a special interest in Levinson, paying a cool $25 million.

Bob Kent also explains that he was in contact with the US authorities (including the FBI), who weren't interested in his (fake?) tale.
It could be interesting if Kent would provide evidence that the US authorities aren't interested in rescuing Levinson, but he doesn't...

Former Air Force intelligence officer Bob Kent doesn't even explain what's his interest in Levinson, although he doesn't need to explain why he's interested in $25 million.
I can also understand that former federal prosecutor David McGee, who was hired by the Levinson family, is interested in $25 million. It isn't quite clear why the Levinson family wasn't asked to raise money...



As for a possible story to cover up...
In 2009, the FBI asked Oleg Deripaska (who once hired Paul Manafort) to funnel millions of dollars to Iran, to rescue former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who was captured in Iran in 2007, while working for the CIA.
In 2009, FBI agents courted Deripaska in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris, Vienna, Budapest and Washington.

One agent who negotiated with Deripaska was Andrew McCabe, fired by president Donald as FBI deputy director. McCabe supposedly played a seminal role in starting the Trump-Russia story.
The FBI rewarded Deripaska for his help. In 2009, Deripaska visited Washington on a rare law enforcement parole visa. Since 2011, Deripaska was granted entry on at least 8 occasions on a diplomatic passport (even though he’s no diplomat).

In 2016, Deripaska was in New York as part of Russia’s UN delegation when 3 FBI agents awakened him.
A couple of months before Trump was elected, they discussed how Russia could get Trump elected: http://archive.is/e2uwc

 

[PRB]

This man, Bob Kent, looks like he's lying.
He denies that he extorted Matt's father, Don Gaetz, but admits that he "asked" him for $25 million, because "we" needed it (and don't we all need a couple of million?), and his son Matt is in need of some good publicity.

Mcgee had nothing to hide, it was a favor, there's no blackmail unless Gaetz actually had legal trouble. you can't blackmail people with fake charges.