Source? Be specific. I’ve only seen links reported that were dick pics.

Source that the FBI/Dems/etc only sent dick-pic links to be censored, or proof that the laptop leak contained more than dick pics?

Earlier in this thread you made a claim that the leak was only dick pics, have you read a source which claimed that, or is it only that you haven't seen a source talk about anything else?

There're these, many of which are verified: https://bidenlaptopemails.com/

I don't know the entire contents but it is certainly more than just dick pics. I've heard someone discuss using the dates in those to corroborate other stories which means they aren't just salacious either.

We are taking about Twitter and all the censorship you’re on about. So obviously it should be things reported to twitter to remove.

And you're limiting this to only things disclosed during the Elon Twitter-files?

Because Jack Dorsey said to congress that they blocked the NYPost story because of reports by the dems and the FBI. The NYPost's story didn't have porn thus they reported at least some non-porn links.

We've known the broad strokes of this for quite a while and it's just the emails and chat logs of the conspirators that we're seeing for the first time now.

Umm..in latest release of Twitter files, you had members of the Biden administration reaching out to explicitly ban and de-platform accounts including accounts that simply showcased the CDC's actual data. There was severe and direct pressure from the white house to ban accounts of US citizens.

I cannot think of a more fundamental violation of the US first amendment.

Contain possible evidence? How do you know that?

There are 128k+ emails, many about the Biden's business dealings. I say 'possible evidence' because it hasn't been investigated yet.

https://bidenlaptopemails.com/

We also know that the emails, or at least many of them, are valid. The signatures, made years before the leaks, check out.

https://blog.erratasec.com/2020/10/yes-we-can-validate-leake...

Ok the emails are valid, why are you assuming a crime was committed?

I didn't say that I did. The scope of "corrupt dealings" is much wider than the scope of illegal dealings.

It contains possibly legal things that the voters might find to be a turn-off, such as the ne'er-do-well son selling access to his dad in his official position.

Who cares? He doesn’t get to control his adult son. It’s laughable you think any American cares after all the selling access the Trump admin did and the kids getting access without clearances. Fuck off.

Wow, I don't live in the USA so I forget how strongly trump-delusion-syndrome hit you guys.

Considering Hunter appears to be speaking to leaders and oligarchs it feels that Joe needs to control him, and imho could easily do it through the courts by making Hunter's allowance conditional on not claiming a business relationship with his dad.

> It’s laughable you think any American cares after all the selling access the Trump admin did and the kids getting access without clearances.

Biden thought they would, or they wouldn't have tried to squash the story.

> Fuck off.

What's that, you say I'm right in every way?

You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. I've banned the account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.