How the Democrat Media Covered Up Hunter Biden Laptop Exposing Him as a Drug Addled Influence Peddling Machine

Executive Summary

• A treasure trove of information related to political corruption by the Biden family was dropped off at the doorstep of multiple media outlets, and they covered up this information.

Introduction

Information has come out from the Hunter Biden laptop, explained in the following video.

It appears that Hunter essentially is a shakedown specialist. You need to pay him to get Joe to do this or that. $3.5 million from the Chinese, the Burisma board, and gifts from all over the world. Life is one unending party for Hunter Biden filled with cocaine, alcohol prostitutes, and payoffs disguised as “perfectly normal.” 

While Hunter gets free gifts and fake board of director jobs, one has to wonder where his money goes. This is explained in one text exchange between him and his father.

In other text messages, Biden offers money to pay for Hunter’s daughter dentist bills and child support because Hunter was potentially broke and fiscally inconvenienced just as he was struggling with addiction issues.

How can Hunter, who receives many millions in income from doing no work, but instructing his father who paid him and what they want, be broke? How much of Hunter’s selling out of US interests to China, Ukraine, etc.. goes to cocaine and other irresponsible spending? Hunter’s lifestyle is very expensive. He has run up over $5,000 at just a hotel minibar. An empathetic person might propose that Hunter “needs” to do this because of this lifestyle.

This book lays out how not only Hunter Biden, but many Americans sell out the interests of the US public for China. 

Nothing Illegal?

I am not even sure there are many rules against payments going to relatives of politicians. It seems like Hunter’s current problems and pending prosecution are related to unpaid taxes, not influence peddling.

Hunter Pitch That He Can’t Be Held Responsible For His Behavior As He is a Drug Addict

Hunter has a specific pattern where he asks for sympathy. Hunter says, “I am a drug addict,” Therefore, he needs to have slack cut for him. He also cries in a lot of interviews. Because he said, the “Bidens are very emotional.” He also lost his brother.

Comparing the Coverage Between Jared Kushner’s Corruption and Hunter Biden’s Corruption

Kushner traded CIA information to MBS, who acted on this information to ferret his political enemies. 

This story should have been covered, although it did not appear to have any outcomes. Why was Kushner not investigated and prosecuted? Kushner benefited financially from this share of information.

This coverage was much better than it was from Democracy Now. Democracy Now is also aligned with the DNC. 

I could not find any coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop by Democracy Now, and I also could not find any range of the Hunter Biden laptop by PBS.

Mother Jones on Why The Hunter Biden Laptop Should Not Be Covered

Mother Jones wrote an article in October of 2020 to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story. The following quotes are quite typical of the coverage by Democrat-leaning media at the time.

An obvious ploy to generate headlines that suggest there is a new scandal about old (and already disproven) allegations? Will they fall for it?

On Wednesday morning, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted out the Post story and its headline referring to a “smoking-gun email.” Subsequently, she posted tweets taking a more skeptical view of the story. To his credit, Chris Megerian, the White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, quickly pointed out, “The story does not say that allegations of Ukrainian corruption have been pushed by Russia to undermine Joe Biden, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Nor does it mention that Rudy Giuliani has worked with a Ukrainian lawmaker identified as a Russian agent.” Facebook executive Andy Stone noted that the social media giant would limit the Post article’s distribution on its platform. – Mother Jones

This is shown in the following Twitter share.

This means that Twitter would censor people sharing the story. He also does not want the article from the New York Post that broke the laptop story to be read. He then says it will be “fact-checked” by Facebook’s third-party fact-checking partners. However, these fact-checkers do not do any fact-checking. They kill and discredit stories based on how that story satisfies the needs of elite interests.

Another reason Twitter gave for censoring the story is that the emails were hacked, which is neither here nor there, but secondly, there was no evidence they were hacked. The laptop’s origin was explained.

What is the History of Fact-Checking by Big Media and Big Tech?

Fact checking completely failed during the covid epidemic to do anything but shut down accurate information. It turned out Facebook’s “third-party fact-checkers” were funded by Bill Gates, as I cover in the article How Bill Gates and his Foundation Fund Facebook’s Fact-Checking, and much of the fact-checking was to promote vaccines as I cover in the article How Google Facebook and Twitter Censored Accurate Information on Covid to Promote The Vaccines.

And in the case of the Biden laptop, the fact-checkers again failed, telling the public that the laptop was part of Russian disinformation, which was used to censor the Biden laptop story.

Furthermore, since when are Twitter or Facebook considered authorities in determining what is true. Both of these companies run platforms that did not begin with the assumption that they would be censoring information. The idea that I would look to Twitter or Facebook for what is true is a ludicrous proposal. For one reason, both companies constantly lie about their operations. I cover this for Facebook in the following articles.

How Much Are Google and Facebook Overstating the Effectiveness of Their AI and Ads?

How Facebook Lied About the Cambridge Analytica Scandal

How Facebook Lied About its Intentions with WhatsApp

How Facebook Lies About its Default Privacy Settings

Is Facebook going to fact-check my articles that found them lying on many occasions?

What do you think the result of that “fact check” would be?

The entire story of the supposed fact-checking and story suppression is fascinating and this following quote from the New York Post is one of the only detailed explanations of exactly what transpired.

Keep in mind that Twitter already had banned The New York Post a few days before. The rationale was that this was “hacked materials,” even though it wasn’t — and Twitter had no evidence to think it was. A Facebook official, meanwhile, said it wasn’t going to allow the sharing of The Post’s story until it was “fact checked” by a third party — a check that never happened. – New York Post

Naturally. Fact-checking would have been difficult as it was overwhelmingly obvious the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. So instead, the Facebook fact-checkers just punted.

No one actually proved The Post’s reporting was wrong. Media outlets showed up at the doorstep of the computer repairman who had gotten the laptop, and he confirmed it. People who exchanged e-mails with Hunter Biden attested to their accuracy in the days and weeks that followed.

Only after the election was safely over did Hunter tacitly admit the laptop was his. Last year, a Politico reporter confirmed that the laptop’s materials were real. And now, the coup de grace: The Times said it’s “authenticated” material from the laptop. – New York Post

The quote from the Mother Jones article continues.

Emails Can Only Be Verified Through Metadata?

Will the rest of the media handle this story responsibly? Thomas Rid, a cyber and disinformation expert at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, tweeted out a thread urging caution. “This here is highly suspicious behavior,” he observed. “Especially when viewed in the context of a political campaign. Creative, anonymous, credibility-generating, somewhat plausible. Exactly how a professional would surface disinformation and potentially forgeries.” He noted that “the revealed emails are shared as image files, not in a file format that would contain header information and metadata. That makes it harder to analyze and verify the files.” And Rid issued a warning: “To journalists considering writing about this toxic story: don’t—unless you can independently verify more details. And even if you can verify something, acknowledge the possibility of disinformation up-front, especially against the backdrop of 2016. Not doing so is bad practice.” – Mother Jones

This quote implies that the content of an email cannot be used to verify it and that it must contain metadata. However, that is not true and is beyond just not true, but preposterous. One can tell from reviewing the emails that they are very likely authentic. This would imply that the content of the emails could be blank, but if they had appropriate headers and metadata they could be validated. Secondly, as a “cyber expert,” it seems odd that Rid did not mention that the laptop did not just contain emails and text messages. It included highly personal photos. Rid also left out that the laptop was provided by a laptop repairman.

As Rid seems to have a lot of gaps in knowledge and seems to think that verifying information comes down to metadata, who is this person to be telling anyone what a good or bad practice is? And what is a “disinformation expert?” This same claim was made about the Wikileaks emails. Again and again, when emails come out, they turn out to be authentic. This is not to say material should not be analyzed with a critical eye, but the preponderance of experience has been that leaked emails should be taken seriously. A few emails can be faked, but without real information, it becomes very difficult to simply fake large numbers of emails. And email and text breaches tend to have large numbers of emails. Furthermore, none of those promoting the Russian disinformation hypothesis promoted investigating the information. Instead, they proposed throwing out the information and not looking at it. And some of the quotes from the establishment media came out and accused anyone who wanted to look into the information as Putin puppets. Therefore, the establishment media wanted the story censored and would smear anyone who asked for an investigation into the laptop and its contents.

How the Establishment Has Responded to the Man Who Caught Them Red Handed

Elite power constantly denies their nefarious activities, until documents surface proving these nefarious activities. However, the evidence surfaces, then they were “hacked” or it is Russian disinformation, etc.. Julian Assange and others at Wikileaks brought the world much of this information. Most likely Julian Assange will be killed by the US. He has already been driven half instant and is said to be physically and mentally degraded in prison. Hillary Clinton is once said to have remarked “Why can’t we just take him out with a drone strike?” Furthermore, none of the establishment media support Julian Assange. Why not? Well, the establishment media works for the elites. Therefore they do not care what happens to Julian Assange and are probably quite happy to see him tortured and killed. Wikileaks was just making their jobs of being stenographers for power more difficult. Similar to the Hunter Biden laptop, Assange has been accused of running a hostile foreign-run intelligence service. There is no evidence of this, and no evidence has ever been presented to support this claim. 

And as Thomas Rid was incorrect, isn’t Thomas Rid now responsible for disseminating disinformation?

Is that why Thomas Rid calls himself a “disinformation expert” because he disseminates disinformation?

It Takes The New York Times One and a Half Years to Verify the Authenticity of the Laptop?

Furthermore, having read a number of the emails, they are authentic. The emails mention details that would be impossible to manufacture, company names email addresses. The entire laptop has a chain of custody to a repair shop in Delaware. The shop owner has receipts; the laptop has many photos of Hunter Biden, some of them selfies.

Hunter’s “Interesting Photos”

I don’t have any interest in Hunter Biden’s sex life or his predilection for taking pictures of himself in the nude or while doing cocaine. But I am sharing this link for some rather personal photos of Hunter Biden that were on the laptop. This is not to show what a degenerate Hunter Biden is, but because these and many other photos help verify the fact the laptop belonged to Hunter as they are personal photos. What is hypocritical is that Joe Biden was one of the architects of the 1994 crime bill that put large numbers of Americans in jail for drug offenses. Meanwhile, his son has had a multi-decade drug addiction, something the Secret Services is well aware of, and he has faced no consequences. So when Joe Biden was talking about incarcerating drug users, he meant those people outside of his family. 

sc name=”ending-spacer” ]

How did Putin construct such a laptop if it is Russian disinformation? The combined data means it took me very little time to figure out the laptop contents were from Hunter Biden. I knew the laptop belonged to Biden when first read about the story back in 2020. Many other people did as well. However, The New York Times did not authenticate the laptop contents until May 2022. How can it take 1.5 years to figure out something is authentic that it took me perhaps an hour? Actually, when you read the emails, a number of issues become interesting immediately. So the emails are captivating and seem authentic from a first reading. All that is necessary to verify is to check the companies, the recipients and senders. Many of these texts and emails were sent to Joe Biden. Why has no one asked if these emails went to him. Joe Biden needed to be placed on the record as to whether these are correspondences with him. Suspiciously, not a single establishment media source thought to ask Joe Biden this question.

But again, the laptop could be authenticated without even checking the emails. Any laptop that has been used by someone can be verified. Imagine if your laptop were taken from you and its material reviewed how long it would take to verify it was yours. And the laptop had a very large amount of personal information on it, as is explained in the following quotation.

In short, the English media outlet obtained 103,000 text messages, 154,000 emails and some 2,000 photos that were reportedly “verified by top forensic experts.” – El American

Hunter stated in an interview that the laptop might be his, or it might be Russian disinformation. That is a curious statement. Another question for Hunter might be “Here is a picture of the laptop, that has the sticker of your brother’s foundation on it. Are you missing a laptop?”

This means the New York Times is part of lying about the laptop. I do not look to the New York Times for what is true and what is not true and no one should either. The New York Times, like all establishment media are the expressions of what the elites would like the public to think is true.

The FBI Loses the Biden Laptop

The laptop was given to the FBI. However, now the FBI says it cannot find the laptop. Now that the New York Times says the laptop is authentic, it is supposed to change everything.

It is curious how none of this testimony was covered in the establishment Democrat media. 

Here is a crucial quote from the FBI.

“Sir, I’m not here to talk about the laptop. I’m here to talk about the FBI’s cyber program,” Vorndran told Gaetz after being pressed about the laptop’s whereabouts. “You are the assistant director of FBI cyber. I want to know where Hunter Biden’s laptop is. Where is it?” the congressman continued. “Sir, I don’t know that answer,” the FBI official responded. Calling Vorndran’s claim “astonishing,” Gaetz asked, “Has FBI cyber assessed whether Hunter Biden’s laptop could be a point of vulnerability, allowing America’s enemies to hurt our country?” – Meaww

The following tweet describes the problem with the FBI very well.

The FBI’s Expertise in Losing Evidence…When it Suits Them

The FBI has a pattern of losing evidence when they want to. They claimed that they did not shoot into the doors of the Branch Davidian Compound. And that all the bullets came out of the compound. However, the doors were taken from the compound.

This video shows how the FBI lost the doors it took from the Branch Davidian Compound. The reason is simple. The doors would have shown the ATF lied about shooting into the compound. 

Russia Attacked the American Election?

In 2016, Russia attacked an American election and accomplished its mission of electing Trump—in part because much of the media throughout October of that year focused on the Hillary Clinton-related emails hacked-and-leaked by Putin’s secret operation without paying much attention to the Kremlin assault itself. – Mother Jones

This is incorrect.

This is called Russiagate, and it has been thoroughly discredited. It was concocted by Hillary Clinton to explain her loss to Trump and the emails that exposed that the DNC discriminated against Bernie Sanders and handed her the nomination. The Democrats never disputed the authenticity of the email, but made up a story that they were hacked by the Russians. This part of the story turned out to not be true, as digital evidence indicates the emails were taken from a thumb drive, which means it was most likely an inside job at the DNC. In fact, it is now referred to as the Russiagate Hoax. However, this has not stopped CNN from referring to Russia’s meddling in US elections.

Russiagate is a joke, and this means after its creation, Russiagate is used in the Mother Jones article to discredit a true story and a story that could have been verified in just a few hours. 

After two years, Mueller came up with nothing that demonstrated Russian interference in the election. And when testifying he was no longer in possession of his faculties. How a person who should be in an assisted living facility could be leading such an investigation is another question. As soon as Meuller testified and it was apparent that he was just a broken and mentally disabled old man, the establishment media covered up his testimony by not giving it any coverage. 

I was not the only person to observe Meuller’s dementia.

Not only was Bob Mueller stuttering, but during the entire hearing he had a blank stare on his face and was seen looking into space multiple times as if he was having a difficult time comprehending questions from lawmakers.

Nearly every single time Mueller was asked a question by a Republican, he paused with confusion and had to ask for the question to be repeated and clarified.

In one very bizarre part of the hearing, Rep. Louie Gohmert asked Mueller:

“Who wrote your comments at the last DOJ presser?”

Mueller replied, saying, “I’m not going to comment on that.”

Gohmert replied by saying, “I got it, you didn’t write them.”

Mueller looked confused and didn’t challenge Gohmert’s claims that Mueller didn’t even write his own statements that he delivered at a press conference regarding his report. Mueller’s response is concerning given that his report has consumed the focus and energy of the country and the mainstream media for the last two years.

If Bob Mueller truly does have dementia, then his testimony is not valid.

One of the most striking giveaways that Mueller may be suffering from dementia was when he was questioned by Rep. Steve Chabot about Fusion GPS, and he replied that he did not know what it was. However, anybody who has been following the Russia conspiracy fiasco and the Mueller investigation over the last two years knows that Fusion GPS is a key part to the investigation.

Despite these obvious signs, the mainstream media has not uttered a single word during the hearing regarding the obvious fact that Mueller is unwell. – Loomered

Mueller had a long history of lying going back decades where he helped support the idea that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction. The idea that the former head of the FBI was anything more than a politician and not a reliable source was a construction of the Democrat-aligned media.

Trump did have some Russian connections prior to taking office. However, Trump sold condos in Trump Tower to a number of unsavory wealthy individuals. Trump Jr is also said to have admitted that the company had Russian investors. But this is not the same as proving that Russia meddled in the 2012 presidential election.

The quote continues.

In 2020, Moscow, according to the Trump administration’s top intelligence officials, is at it again. So allegations or stories that might be linked to or created by Russia’s ongoing covert operation ought to be vetted carefully before being reported or amplified. Journalists should resist becoming handmaids for Putin’s latest war on the United States. Especially now that the New York Post has provided all reporters a wonderful tutorial on how to be a useful idiot for Russia. – Mother Jones

Yes, according to this quote, no reporter should look at any of the material on the laptop because of an evidence-free claim that the laptop is Russian disinformation. And that anyone who does cover the story is a useful idiot for Russia. And this is how the establishment media conducts itself. Then after it is proven wrong, it never goes back and apologizes to those that it smeared.

Another important piece of information that is left out of this quote related to the US intelligence officials that support the view Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation is that Trump had a long-running fight with US intelligence, primarily because he would not get on board with enough of the regime change wars US intelligence wanted Trump to engage in. US intelligence wanted Trump not to be reelected and therefore supported a fake story that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.

Now that the US intelligence community has been proven wrong on this topic, a topic which again I was able to figure out in around an hour of reviewing the material, where is their credibility? 51 intelligence officials came forward to declare that the Hunter Biden laptop was textbook “Russian disinformation.” This is covered in the article Why The Letter from 51 Senior Intelligence Officials About Hunter Biden’s Laptop Was Always a Made Up.

Wikipedia Still Calls The Hunter Biden Laptop Story a Conspiracy Theory

Wikipedia, as with all of Big Tech is aligned with the DNC. As such they call the Biden corruption in Ukraine a conspiracy theory.

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unconfirmed claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.[1] They were spread primarily in an attempt to damage Joe Biden’s reputation during the 2020 presidential campaign.[2] United States intelligence community analysis released in March 2021 found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens “to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration.”[3] The New York Times reported in May 2021 that a federal criminal investigation was examining a possible role by current and former Ukrainian officials, including whether they used former Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to spread unsubstantiated claims, who is the subject of a separate federal investigation.[4]

The conspiracy theory alleges that then-Vice President Biden withheld loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor to prevent a corruption investigation into Burisma and to protect his son. Although the United States did withhold government aid to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor,[5] this was the official and bipartisan policy of the federal government of the United States, which, along with the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, believed the prosecutor to be corrupt and ineffective, and too lenient in investigating companies and oligarchs, including Burisma and its owner.[6][7] A January 2018 video shows Biden taking credit for withholding the loan guarantees to have the prosecutor fired, but not for the reasons the conspiracy theory alleges.[8]

In October 2020, during the last weeks of the presidential campaign, the New York Post published an article, with the involvement of Donald Trump’s personal attorney Giuliani and former chief strategist Steve Bannon, about a found laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden. The laptop contained an email, the authenticity of which was not verified, which showed what the New York Post characterized as a “meeting” between Joe Biden and a Burisma advisor in 2015, though that characterization was disputed by witnesses.[5] The article’s veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the questionable provenance of the laptop and its contents, and the suspicion it may have been part of a disinformation campaign.[9][10][11] In April 2021, Hunter Biden said that the laptop “certainly” could be his,[12] and further reporting by Politico[13] and The New York Times[14] confirmed that at least some of the laptop materials were genuine.[15] According to The Guardian, despite early claims that the laptop was Russian disinformation, “Now…almost no one disputes its authenticity.”[16] – Wikipedia

Now everything stated in this conspiracy theory has turned out to be true. There is no “questionable provenance of the laptop and the contents.” In fact, the proposal of the questionable provenance of the laptop is a conspiracy theory.

What is amusing is the statement that “The New York Times confirmed at least some of the laptop materials were  genuine” That is interesting. So some of the contents are authentic. Are the others Russian disinformation? That statement does not make sense. And “Now…almost no one disputes its authenticity.”

So why has this Wikipedia entry been changed from the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory to the Biden Ukraine Fact? How did Putin get some authentic contents onto a laptop that is Hunter Biden’s? What is the story again? It seems like Wikipedia does not want to change its entry.

Time the Gaslight the Public Into Thinking Supressing the Hunter Biden Laptop Story Was Responsible

The establishment media and Big Tech were eventually going to have to admit that they were wrong about the Biden laptop story. However, they would have to explain that it was an “honest mistake” and not part of a conspiracy to censor information to prop up the Democratic Party and win the 2016 election. If found an article that is a perfect representation of this gaslighting in the Washington Post, whose coordination on stories with the DNC is well known.

New Reporting?

When the New York Post reported on Oct. 14, 2020, that it was in possession of emails between a Ukrainian businessman and Hunter Biden, son of the then-Democratic presidential nominee, it would have been hard to predict what followed. This was less than three weeks before the election itself, and the content of the report was soon subsumed to the odd way in which the paper obtained the information. Mainstream outlets and social media companies balked at elevating the story’s claims, triggering frustrations on the right that remain to this day.

New reporting has re-elevated questions about how the story emerged and was handled. In light of that resurrection, it seems useful to articulate exactly why there was suspicion about the story’s origins — suspicion that itself has not entirely been resolved. – Washtington Post

The “new reporting” is that the New York Times finally verified Hunter’s laptop.

Notice that two paragraphs in, this article has not yet observed that the suppressed story ended up being true. Furthermore, I am not a conservative or part of the right, and I am not only frustrated by the censorship of the laptop contents, but I am quite sure it was deliberately covered up. This is a pattern of the Democratic aligned media to assert that all opposition to their coverage only comes from the “right,” or the “far right.”

Russiagate Hoax Meant Hunter’s Laptop Must Have Been Russian Disinformation?

There are at least four questions that arose from the initial report. Those are:

How did the information published by the New York Post purportedly get from Hunter Biden to the paper?
Was that information legitimate?
Was the media’s skepticism about the chain of custody and the information warranted?
Was the social media blackout of the Post’s story warranted?
In this article, we’ll only look at the overlap of the first and third questions: Was the sourcing for information sufficiently dubious to justify caution by mainstream outlets? The answer, it seems clear, is yes.

You’ll remember the story. Hunter Biden allegedly showed up at a computer repair shop with three water-damaged laptop computers. According to John Paul Mac Isaac, the proprietor of that shop, one of the three computers was beyond repair, one simply needed an external keyboard and one required data recovery. Mac Isaac recovered the data, but no one ever came to pick the machine up. Eventually the data from the computer made its way to Rudolph W. Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal attorney. It was Giuliani that gave it to the Post.

That summary excludes a lot of detail, some known at the time the Post story broke, some that only emerged afterward. Here, in the form of a timeline, is detail that seems salient to our current consideration of how the Post got the material from the laptop as well as what was known at the time. The 2016 election. It’s critical to remember what happened in the 2016 election cycle. Then WikiLeaks published two large clusters of documents stolen by Russian hackers from the Democratic National Committee’s network and from John Podesta, a top aide to the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. The Podesta material in particular was released in tranches for days beginning Oct. 7, 2016. It was real information, understood even then to have been a product of Russian efforts, that became fodder for criticism of Clinton. – Washtington Post

I have addressed this already, but this information was not hacked by Russians, and no evidence has ever been presented that it was. And even if it had been hacked by the Russians, what is the difference if the information was authentic? The information contained in those emails shows clear evidence of things the DNC denied for years and smeared people as conspiracy theorists for proposing. Caught red-handed, the DNC performed a misdirection by making the claim of Russian hacking. However, they never handed their servers over to be analyzed.

What is also curious is that long after Russiagate hoax has been exposed, it is continued to be relied upon as a crutch by the establishment Democratic media. Russiagate was fake, and the idea that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation campaign was also fake.

More Russiagate Fakery

After the election, we learned the full scope of Russia’s involvement in the election. Suddenly, the coverage of the WikiLeaks material took on a new light: It was stolen by a foreign government to try to influence U.S. politics. Media companies reconsidered their coverage; should there have been more caution about playing into the hands of a foreign influence campaign?

This question was very much on people’s minds in the months before the 2020 election — particularly given indications that Russia was again hoping to aid Trump’s election.

The 2019 impeachment. The other overlapping factor coloring the release of the Post story was the investigation into Trump’s effort to leverage Ukrainian aid to damage Biden the previous year.

Giuliani was central to that effort. In late 2018, he began exploring the idea that Biden, as vice president several years before, had improperly tried to influence Ukraine to block an investigation of Burisma, a company for which Hunter Biden served as a board member. This story, promoted by an investigator targeted for termination by the U.S. government, was later debunked, but it seemed a promising line of attack. On April 1, 2019, a writer linked to Giuliani named John Solomon wrote the first of several stories about the allegations.

On April 12, the laptops were dropped off at Mac Isaac’s repair shop. Mac Isaac is legally blind and was not able to identify Hunter Biden by sight. One of the laptops, though, bore a sticker for the Beau Biden Foundation, an organization dedicated to Hunter’s late brother. At some point in the middle of this month, Hunter Biden left Burisma’s board. Presumably he was by that point aware that questions were being asked about his role. If not, it became very clear on May 1, when the Times elevated the Burisma question in its coverage.

In the meantime, Volodymyr Zelensky had been elected president of Ukraine, and efforts to pressure him to announce an investigation into Biden began. In early May 2019, Giuliani planned a trip to Ukraine to dig up information that might damage Biden — a plan that was covered in the press. After broad outcry, he scrapped the trip. But the signal was sent: Giuliani was seeking information deleterious to Biden.

On Dec. 9, 2020, President-elect Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden said the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware was investigating his tax affairs. (Video: Reuters, Photo: Reuters)
Later that month, someone in Kyiv was approached about buying Hunter Biden’s emails. This was not reported until Oct. 21, 2020, a week after the Post’s story about the laptop.

“The two people who said they were approached with Hunter Biden’s alleged emails last year did not know whether any of them were real and they declined to identify who was behind the offers,” Time’s Simon Shuster wrote. “ … The two people said they could not confirm whether any of the material presented to them was the same as that which has been recently published in the U.S.” At least one, though, said the material in the Post was “familiar-looking.”

It’s not clear what this was or what the source was. It could have been from Biden’s business partners in Ukraine. It could have been from a hack of Biden’s account; his primary email address was an Apple iCloud account, meaning that emails and photos probably sat online where hackers might be able to access them. In mid-September 2019, the other person who spoke with Shuster was offered similar material.

When the Post first reported on its possession of material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, it shared a PDF of an email included in that material. That PDF carried metadata indicating that it was created on Oct. 10, 2019, meaning that either it was created on a machine that had the wrong date set or that it was created after the laptop came into Mac Isaac’s possession.

It’s possible that Mac Isaac himself created the PDF, as the beginning of the impeachment investigation into Trump for his interactions with Ukraine had begun the previous month. Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Bender reported in his book “Frankly, We Did Win This Election” that Mac Isaac, hearing Hunter Biden come up as part of the impeachment investigation, asked his father for advice on the laptop. Eventually, a connection was made to the FBI and, on Dec. 9, the FBI appeared with a subpoena for the laptop and for a hard drive. It’s not clear what was on that hard drive, though it may have been a backup made by Mac Isaac.

At the time, incidentally, Giuliani was in Ukraine looking to dig up dirt disparaging Joe Biden. That included meeting with a member of the Ukrainian parliament who was later sanctioned by the Treasury Department as a Russian agent.

In spring 2020, Joe Biden secured the Democratic presidential nomination.

At some point, Giuliani came into possession of the material from the laptop. The Daily Mail reported in December 2020 that the material was turned over to Giuliani’s lawyer no later than May of that year. According to Bender’s conversation with the lawyer, Robert Costello, that didn’t happen until August — purely by chance.

“In August 2020 — on a whim, as Costello described it to me — he asked Giuliani’s assistant to keep an eye out for any strange political tips coming into the email boxes for Giuliani’s various companies. Costello had a couple of dozen emails within a few days, including one from J.P. Mac Isaac,” Bender wrote.

We do know that by September 2020, Stephen K. Bannon, another ally of Trump’s, was bragging about having it. On Sept. 28, he gave an interview with a Dutch television network hyping his possession of the laptop.

There were already strange rumblings about Hunter Biden at the time. Earlier that same month, someone was passing around a lengthy dossier of allegations about Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China, created by a nonexistent entity. That document was shared, among others, by an employee of the Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui.

Guo is also the owner of the boat on which Bannon had been arrested for fraud in August 2020. After the Post report on Hunter Biden’s laptop, the Daily Beast uncovered claims promoted by outlets linked to Guo focused on a Hunter Biden laptop.

“3 hard disk drives of videos and dossiers of Hunter Biden’s connections with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have been sent to Nancy Pelosi and DOJ,” one tweet read. “Big money and sex scandal!” That was published Sept. 28, the same day as Bannon’s interview with Dutch TV. Similar allegations had been made days before.

The first time the Post saw the material was on Oct. 4. By Oct. 11, Giuliani had handed over the entire duplicated contents of the hard drive and the newspaper began debating how to handle it.

The Times would later report that this was contentious even at the conservative publication. Fox News had already passed on it, apparently in part because of the questions about provenance. A number of Post employees questioned whether the paper had done enough to vet the material. Speaking to the Times, Giuliani insisted that this was exactly why the Post was given all of it: “either nobody else would take it,” he said, “or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

After the story came out, the Post didn’t share the material with other outlets for them to do their own investigations. In other words, coverage necessarily depended on taking the Post’s word for things, which is by itself a disincentive for other outlets.

After the story published Oct. 14, media outlets tried to assess its credibility, without luck. Mac Isaac gave a lengthy, odd interview to reporters that same afternoon in which he repeatedly gave evasive answers and appeared to change his explanations for how he knew whose laptop it was and how it got to the FBI. In the days that followed, the Time and Daily Beast reports reinforced questions about how the material was obtained and how it was being used explicitly to aid Trump’s campaign. – Washtington Post

I am not going to go through all of the claims made in this section. However, very little of it has any relevance to whether Hunter Biden’s laptop was authentic. And this appears to be slanted context that is designed to lose the readers in unrelated items. As I said, the information I read from the laptop immediately seemed accurate when I reviewed it, and the more information one reviewed, the more authentic it seemed. It also contained large amounts of private photos that are not publicly available. The number of combined emails and texts was in the hundreds of thousands. It is impossible that any of this “context” presented by the Washington Post had anything to do with the story being censored. I found the material very persuasive, and I only have had access to a tiny fraction of the laptop’s contents. Furthermore, the origin of the laptop is not as complicated as the Washington Post implies as is explained in the following quotation.

No one actually proved The Post’s reporting was wrong. Media outlets showed up at the doorstep of the computer repairman who had gotten the laptop, and he confirmed it. People who exchanged e-mails with Hunter Biden attested to their accuracy in the days and weeks that followed.

Only after the election was safely over did Hunter tacitly admit the laptop was his. Last year, a Politico reporter confirmed that the laptop’s materials were real. And now, the coup de grace: The Times said it’s “authenticated” material from the laptop. – New York Post

The only reason Mac Isaac sent the laptop to anyone is that it appeared to contain large amounts of documented criminal activity. This is something Isaac explains in the following interview.

Many Democrats do not care if the information on the laptop is true. Many Democrats have fought back at Issac’s store, which ended up having to be closed. Issac’s concern was both on the topics of national security as well as large flows of money. The mistake Issac made is taking the laptop to the FBI. Issac should have simply published the information on the laptop. The FBI did nothing with the laptop, suppressing the contents, and then losing or faking losing the laptop. 

The Story is Unclear?

Even today, the full story isn’t clear. Is the story straightforward — Mac Isaac obtained a laptop, thought it might be relevant to national politics and then found only one taker, Giuliani, for the material?

This brings up another question, why didn’t any other media entity want to follow the story. If Isaac had given me a copy of the data on the laptop, I would have immediately gone to work verifying in the connection of the laptop to Hunter Biden, investigating the contacts, and publishing the information in addition to adding analysis in a large number of articles.

Complicated Questions?

Was the material reportedly circulating in Ukraine the same stuff? Nonexistent? Obtained from an iCloud hack independently? Did Guo learn about the laptop from Bannon, with mentions of the material in September following from there? It is of course always easy to ask infinite questions when you’re skeptical, but that the answers to this aren’t known now reinforces the reasons for skepticism 18 months ago. – Washtington Post

I have a far more important question — was the laptop Hunter Biden’s and is what is the content of the laptop. This entire quote is more obscuration. The laptop came to a repair shop.

And secondly, nothing explained in this quote “reinforces reasons for skepticism 18 months ago?” What does explain it is that establishment media and Big Tech have ties to the Democratic Party and they wanted to keep Trump from being re-elected and they continues to suppress the information long after they knew the laptop was authentic.

Cover Up Increased the Importance of the Contents of the Laptop?

The reticence to aid possible Russian interference probably had one unintended effect: It made the contents of the drive itself as reported by the Post seem more important than it would likely have been considered otherwise. But that is a subject for a different article. – Washtington Post

The content of the laptop was and is explosive. And if it had been allowed to be investigated, the contents would have been a major story for months — if the US had an independent media system.

Conclusion

The establishment media have covered up hunter Biden’s corruption, and Democrats that have been able to follow the Kushner story found it to be corruption. However, when faced with indisputable information contained in Hunter Biden’s laptop that most likely would have changed the outcome of the electoral college (though perhaps not the popular vote) they created a fake story about it being Russian disinformation. This change in election outcome is explained in the following quotation.

A study conducted by The Polling Company and published in the Media Research Center (MRC), found that approximately 17% of 1,750 Biden voters in swing states would have changed their voting intentions with less biased media coverage. – El America

The ideas that the laptop was Russian disinformation, that emails cannot be verified through their content, that other content like personal photos and other data could not be used to verify that laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that the laptop took 1.5 years to verify, or that the FBI can’t find a laptop given to them are all a joke and a complete concoction. And it shows that US intelligence, the FBI, Democrat-aligned media, and Big Tech are all liars. All of these entities were wrong, and they were all wrong in the same direction, and they were all wrong on something that was obviously true. This looks like collusion. And after they finally had to admit the laptop was real, they covered up the cover up, but stated that the cover up and creation of a false Russian conspiracy was justified.

None of these entities have any history of providing honest or accurate information, so the Hunter Biden laptop story is just another nail in their credibility coffin. At least it should be, for anyone who cares about what is true over tribal affiliation and who pays attention to the important details.