New York Times admits Hunter Biden’s laptop is legitmat
Everlasting, undying, soul-rending shame be upon you, Facebook and Twitter and Politico and all the others who covered up, denied and suppressed this newspaper’s true and accurate reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020. You should be hurling yourselves at the feet of the American people, begging forgiveness. You should be renting billboards saying, “WE LIED.”
But most importantly, you should be hauled before Congress to answer humiliating questions.
These and other information purveyors owe us — not just this paper, but this country — restitution for what now looks like the most egregious and willful fake-news scam of our time. This paper’s scoops on Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020 were labeled “Russian misinformation” (Politico), a “hoax” (Steven Brill of “fact-check” site NewsGuard), discredited by “many, many red flags” (NPR) and a “hack and leak” operation that had to be throttled (Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg).
It was infamously snuffed out on Twitter, as was The Post’s Twitter account, because of a policy about hacked materials that only seemed to apply to this one case.
Twitter didn’t bar the New York Times’s stories about Donald Trump’s tax returns, which could have come from hacked materials for all we know, and almost certainly were the product of a criminal act (leaking tax returns is against the law), but the Times never even told us how it got the returns, so we don’t know.
The Post acted with transparency in explaining to readers how it got the Laptop from Hell. Moreover, nobody on Team Biden denied The Post’s report, because they knew or suspected it was true. Every news outlet in the country should have fronted the story at that point: “Biden team refuses to deny Hunter Biden laptop story.” A few months later, Hunter himself said the laptop “certainly” could be his, and the media shrugged instead of apologizing.
Even in the presidential debate where the matter came up, Joe Biden’s comments were not a denial but simply a deflection, and everybody who reported that he denied the laptop story was guilty of propagating fake news all over again. What he actually said was, “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”
Joe (who later said “Yes, yes, yes” when a reporter asked him if he “believed” the laptop was Russian disinfo — the question allowed him all the wiggle room in the world) pointedly wasn’t denying the laptop belonged to Hunter, and wasn’t denying the material on it was genuine. He was simply referring to the now-infamous Politico whitewash of October 19, 2020, which was fake news about fake news: The headline “Hunter Biden Story is Russian Disinfo, Dozens of Former Intelligence Officials Say” didn’t even accurately relate what was in the story. Those officials simply said they were “suspicious” about Russian involvement, admitted they had no evidence for this and pointed out (this was buried in the 10th paragraph of Politico’s story), “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails … are genuine or not.”
In other words, the notorious liar James Clapper et al. (as far as I can tell, every signatory who made his opinion known about the election was a Biden supporter) were simply peeing in the dark. Their rank speculation was unworthy of being published.
Yet Politico’s fake headline on this piece of partisan fan fiction gave the media and its Democratic Party enforcers all the cover they needed to treat the whole story like it was a ruse planted by Vladimir Putin.
Say, geniuses, if Putin had simply fabricated the whole thing, don’t you think Hunter Biden would have said, “That’s not my stuff”? And wouldn’t Putin have planted material that would have nuked Joe Biden’s presidential aspirations rather than merely raising questions about his son’s dealings?
All Jen Psaki had to do was retweet Politico’s bullspit headline. Who reads beyond headlines?
The Times and other major papers simply ignored the substance of The Post’s scoop, and now their readers know, or rather have just been re-re-re-reminded, that they’re Democratic Party cheerleaders who even allow presidential candidates to dictate details of how they get covered.
The next time they “fact check,” the next time they cry wolf, who will believe them?