-01 Feb 23-
What sort of playground is this? You tell us, Gateway Pundit. You asked the question so now, why don’t you answer it in a manner emblematic of your outlet having a modicum of journalistic integrity? Or won’t your apparent intelligence community handlers permit that instead deciding to sneak a flimsy and pathetic effort through the backdoor?
That first question about a “playground” suitable for clowns was the opening line of a Gateway Pundit article from several days ago. That article went on to level false accusations against, malign and smear Garrett Ziegler and his Marco Polo group over its authoritative and definitive report on the Hunter Biden [Biden Family] laptop.
Did Gateway Pundit or for that matter anyone else to-date take Marco Polo or Ziegler to task over the substantive content of the report? No, of course not.
It can’t be done. The report is a leviathan of a granular and meticulously detailed, sourced, cited and water-tight document representing 14 months of real forensic documentary and digital examination of the Biden laptop that law firms would pay exorbitant fees to procure.
In pro bono service to America and Americans, the entire world can have it for free right here.
Unfortunately for the Gateway Pundit, they got it wrong; very wrong.
In fact, TGP got it so wrong that it caused us to question what appears to be clear ties to the intelligence community in ways that would subject TGP to undue influence, which would impact the timing and content of its article publications. The influence has clear threads to Israel and China on Gateway Pundit’s own accord and vis-a-vis XRVision, which is the Singapore-based AI firm that Gateway Pundit utilizes for the provision of Biden emails in its publications.
XRVision’s CTO is Yaacov Apelbaum and not coincidentally, there was a preexisting working relationship between him and Gateway Pundit to precede TGP’s journalistic tripe smearing Marco Polo and Ziegler.
The contextual backdrop for those granular details and the story in general can be found in two earlier articles, with the examination of XRVision and Apelbaum in the second:
- SWING and a MISS: Shoddy Forensics Causes Gateway Pundit to Embarrass Itself and Defame Marco Polo with Attempted Smear Tactics
- Marco Polo Issues Formal Response to Gateway Pundit’s Smear Tactics, Libelous Error and False Accusation
Gateway Pundit’s egregious error and shoddy forensic examination of Biden email timestamp differences were the substance of their grievances with and alleged malfeasance against Marco Polo.
Gateway Pundit’s misplaced position held that email timestamps in exhibits found in the Marco Polo report were different as compared to the original timestamps indicating when the Biden laptop emails were originally sent by the author.
Gateway Pundit missed a glaringly obvious indicator that there was no malfeasance on Marco Polo’s part and that the explanation rested elsewhere. In fact, you could find a full-stop explanation in about two minutes of due diligence with a basic internet search to produce an Apple community help thread about the topic: Incorrect Timestamp on Emails.
At this point, even first year journalism students are rolling their eyes.
The decision by Gateway Pundit not to take an extra two minutes to investigate the timestamp matter indicates one of two things: laziness and poor investigative journalism or an ulterior agenda.
I’ll tell you right now that it’s the latter and all of the evidence for that is found in the two articles I linked above and the details of the “update” to TGP’s article as delineated below.
The first indicator that there was no malfeasance on Marco Polo’s part is found in the fact that the timestamp differences only occurred in full, one-hour increments. Anyone with an eye for detail would have latched onto this for closer examination; especially anyone with investigative prowess.
Reasonable due diligence and closer examination by Gateway Pundit would have preempted the basis of the entire smear article and kept it from going to print but it seems ulterior agendas trump good journalism. This is because the technical and accurate explanation for the timestamp differences, which eviscerates every granular aspect of TGP’s false accusations and libelous reporting, is found in the Macbook’s programming respective to email files.
The net effect is that when email files are opened by a third party to print or save to PDF, the emails display an adjusted timestamp based on time zone differences. This automated adjustment accounts for the timestamp differences occurring in exactly one-hour increments. Therefore, the programming takes the time zone of the email author and automatically adjusts it to the reader’s time zone. End of story.
End of story for a story that should have never been written.
In the follow-up article to this story, I suggested that Gateway Pundit go to print to issue a retraction of their smear article and issue a formal apology to Marco Polo.
Did Gateway Pundit do that?
Of course not and it’s indicative of the ulterior agenda I cite.
Rather than retracting the article and correcting the record, Gateway Pundit instead decided to let the entirety of the libelous article stand pat with an “update” plugged into it at the very bottom; after all of the erroneous content and false allegations have been consumed by the reader.
See for yourself:
Even worse, Gateway Pundit’s flimsy correction that it brands as an “update” is mealy mouthed, indirect and insufficient. “There may be a reason,” they say. That’s it.
Did Gateway Pundit go beyond the realm of possibility? Did they do anything to verify it? Nope. Rather Gateway Pundit simply said there “may be a reason” and left it at that.
No apology. No retraction. No correction of the record. Just a back end revision to plug-in an ass-covering “update” for a shameful article that people won’t read twice and where no actual ass is covered at all in an effort that sure as hell doesn’t equate to any standard of professional journalism.
To the folks at Marco Polo – Gateway Pundit had its opportunity to correct the record, issue an apology and retract the smear article that clearly aligns with an ulterior agenda. My suggestion is to notify counsel and pursue litigation for libel and defamation.
My instincts tell me that Marco Polo will take the high ground here, not file suit, avoid wrestling pigs in the mud and permit this to all play-out naturally; instead preferring to display their integrity by standing tall and resolutely behind an historic body of work.
My instincts also tell me that this won’t be the last time Gateway Pundit serves an ulterior agenda apparently shaped by the intelligence community in lieu of reliable and factual journalistic practices.
What sort of playground is this?