What would the FBI do if it found a laptop detailing bribes paid to Trump's family by a foreign company? Wait...

Suppose a Republican presidential candidate had a son who was 40 years old, and the FBI seized a laptop containing tens of thousands of emails from that son--emails alluding to bribes and corruption, with the son raking in millions from foreign companies.  Do you think the FBI would have done nothing with that evidence--briefed no member of congress?

Of course you know the answer:  The still-totally-corrupt FBI would have leaked everything to every Dem member of congress, and to all the media, within a week.

But now suppose the candidate was a Democrat, and that ten months after the FBI seized the laptop with the bombshell emails--evidence strongly suggesting the candidate himself was corrupt--the FBI had done nothing at all with that evidence?  Briefed no one.  What would you think?

My liberal friend would say "Perfectly normal.  Cuz the FBI probably investigated and found that the tens of thousands of emails were all fake--nothing but a plot to smear the Democrat candidate!"

Ah, yes.  Perfectly normal.  At least normal if the perp is a Democrat.

If you think the second scenario above is absurd fiction you probably get your "news" from Twatter and Fakebook, because both social media giants have not only spiked the story, they've deleted the accounts of several users who tried to post about it.  In other cases the media giants have refused to post user comments or tweets about the story, which was broken by the New York Post yesterday.

But wait, there's more:  Fakebook's "policy communications director," Andy Stone, took to Twatter to defend (rationalize) Fakebook's decision to kill the story:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook&#39;s third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.</p>&mdash; Andy Stone (@andymstone) <a href="https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 

One has to marvel at the Orwellian phrase "In the meantime we are reducing its distribution on our platform."  

Apparently Andy defines "killing the story" as "reducing its distribution."  And "in the meantime" implies that if the story is accurate, Fakebook will allow users to post and comment on it.  Uh-huh, sometime after 2030.

Here's how twatter first tried to kill tweets about the story, before just refusing to post: 

For those who may not be familiar with propaganda wars:  Twatter absolutely knows the link is safe, but blares the scary warning "link may be unsafe" to scare users into not clicking on it.  Also, look at the possible reasons they give for the warning: 

"Could steal personal information or harm [your] electronic devices," eh?

"Spammy links that mislead people..."   According to whom?  Yes, the Dems who rule Twatter.

"Violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world HARM."  There's that "mislead" term again.  Heaven knows the Dems at Twatter are, like, totally against misleading folks, eh?

You're being led like sheep.  But liberals swallow Twatter's and Fakebook's crap and love it.

Source (of many)

https://pjmedia.com/election/paula-bolyard/2020/10/14/facebook-exec-admits-throttling-nyp-story-about-biden-burisma-corruption-while-twitter-blocks-access-n1052209