The Big Guy's cut. It helps answer how a liflong congressman is purchasing multiple homes on a $200k/year salary.
The real scandal is the squelching of conservative sppech in the public square.
Is this your answer to my question? The Hunter Biden Laptop scandal was about...what?
If you don't understand how the Trump campaign floating a story that they refused to provide required verification for was an attempt at propoganda was not about "squelching conservative speech", you're...something, man. Definitely something.
Let's be clear. The laptop story was an attempt to seed the news cycle with the appearance of a Biden scandal. Reporting on it was all the Trump campaign hoped to see happen.
That would add a lot more context to the situation. Do you happen to have a good article about the journalists trying to validate the story but being refused access?
We talked about it back when it was actually new on the board, too. You can probably find threads with more. Again, even Tucker Carlson dropped the story once he tried to get the information from Rudy.
Thanks for digging that up. Certainly adds more context to the situation.
"I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness." -Joseph Smith
Is this your answer to my question? The Hunter Biden Laptop scandal was about...what?
There were emails on the laptop that implicated President Biden was getting a cut from Hunter's influence peddling for Burisma in the Ukraine. Biden also threatened to get a prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma.
A question for you Honor, why did the New York Times come out and admit yesterday, albeit very tacitly buried in paragraph 24, that the this story of the Hunter Biden laptop was not "Russian Disinformation," as so many left wing pundits labeled it at the time?
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Is this your answer to my question? The Hunter Biden Laptop scandal was about...what?
There were emails on the laptop that implicated President Biden was getting a cut from Hunter's influence peddling for Burisma in the Ukraine.
You skipped a few steps. You’ll need to show if, where and when Hunter was receiving what, for what influence peddling. Then, show how Dad was involved.
From the article you linked to:
In the email, Hunter Biden indicated that the forthcoming announcement of a trip to Ukraine by Vice President Biden — who is referred to in the email as “my guy,” but not by name — should “be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands.”
A question for you Honor, why did the New York Times come out and admit yesterday, albeit very tacitly buried in paragraph 24, that the this story of the Hunter Biden laptop was not "Russian Disinformation," as so many left wing pundits labeled it at the time?
Because in 2020 it wasn't clear what was going on since access to the information was being withheld by the administration. But that was reported as unknown nor the primary reason for the story not setting fire to the Biden campaign before the election as the Trump campaign had hoped it would.
The issue, ajax, was that the laptop did not contain information that mattered to the election regardless of what you may have heard. And the Trump campaign's aim was to see it take over the news cycle to create the narrative you already believe in that Biden was abusing the office of VP.
Here are quotes from the article I shared above that are from October 30, 2020 so you can see this story you linked to in the OP is disingenuous when it makes it sounds like the story was being repressed as a political maneuver with which the media was complicit.
Trump and his allies say there is evidence of corruption in emails and documents allegedly found on a laptop belonging to Democrat Joe Biden’s son.
...
But the Wall Street Journal and Fox News — among the only news organizations that have been given access to key documents — found that the emails and other records don’t make that case. Leaving aside the many questions about their provenance, the materials offered no evidence that Joe Biden played any role in his son’s dealings in China, let alone profited from them, both news organizations concluded.
...
The lack of major new revelations is perhaps the biggest reason the story has not gotten traction, but not the only one. Among others: Most mainstream news organizations, including NBC News, have not been granted access to the documents. NBC News asked by email, text, phone call and certified mail, and was ultimately denied.
And, although no evidence has emerged that the documents are the product of Russian disinformation, as some experts initially suggested, many questions remain about how the materials got into the hands of Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who has met with Russian agents in his effort to dig dirt on the Bidens.
U.S. intelligence agencies have informed the White House that Giuliani has been in contact with alleged Russian intelligence agents. The FBI has been looking into whether the Russians played any role, and no official has ruled that out.
At the same time, dozens of former intelligence officials have said the story has the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation. After the election interference of 2016, the news media is especially wary of doing anything to further an effort by a foreign government to intervene in a presidential campaign.
Another factor tamping down coverage of the story is that there isn’t much new in what the laptop documents appear to reveal. The allegation that Hunter Biden has traded on his family name has been thoroughly explored in previous news stories, including a lengthy New Yorker investigation last year in which Robert Weissman, the president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, said, “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Hunter’s foreign employers and partners were seeking to leverage Hunter’s relationship with Joe, either by seeking improper influence or to project access to him.” Reports published while the elder Biden was still vice president raised ethical questions about the Burisma deal.
While the question of whether Joe Biden enabled his son to profit from the vice president’s influence is relevant to the presidential campaign, issues of balance and proportionality also come into play.
Trump, according to the same good government advocates who have criticized Hunter Biden, is ethically challenged when it comes to appearing to use the power of his office to enrich himself and his family. David Farenthold of The Washington Post has used federal and other records to calculate that the federal government has spent at least $2.5 million on food and lodging at Trump properties since Trump took office. Earlier this month, Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska who is up for re-election, told supporters that Trump’s family “has treated the presidency like a business opportunity.”
Yet stories about Trump’s children and their business dealings are not dominating the news cycle in the days before the election, because they have already been covered, just as the Hunter Biden story has been covered. (Trump’s tax information, on the other hand, has been covered extensively by The New York Times, because the secret tax data obtained by the newspaper revealed important new information about his tax payments and his business dealings.)
Joe Biden, Democrats, and the establishment media claimed that Hunter Biden’s authenticated ‘laptop from hell’ was “disinformation” and “propaganda” from Russia amidst the 2020 presidential election season.
Despite the reporting of now-Breitbart’s Political Editor Emma-Joe Morris, who broke the story of Hunter’s laptop for the New York Post in the fall of 2020, Biden and his allies were quick to discredit the authenticated laptop as having “no basis” and being a “disinformation” campaign from Russia. Among those who discredited the story include then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, and now-White House press secretary Jen Psaki.
On Wednesday, the New York Times finally admitted that Hunter’s laptop was authenticated in a report that Hunter paid an outstanding $1 million tax bill to the IRS to evade a conviction.
It took until paragraph 24 for the New York Times to finally admit this wasn't Russian disinformation. In the meantime Facebook successfully shielded candidate BIden by banning the New York Post from publishing the story and upholding Biden's lies demonstrated in the video clip. With the Democrat government is pressuring Facebook to toe the Democrat narrative and party line, one has to ask if the first amendment means much. How are we that different from the people in Russia in what information we're allowed to consume and point out? The first amendment of the Constitution is indeed hanging by a thread.
Didn’t Biden deny the laptop this in a Debate with Trump? I seem to remember that, but could be wrong.
Didn’t Biden deny the laptop this in a Debate with Trump? I seem to remember that, but could be wrong.
He never denied the existence of a laptop. He denied there was any substance to the outrageous claims Trump was making about what the laptop proved.
Here we see yet another Ajax thread begin as a cut and paste from Breitbart, and it gets debunked instantly. Ajax is batting .000 in over a decade of blindly relying on Breitbart/Shapiro as a reliable source of information. And he shows absolutely zero interest in admitting poor judgment or even that his arguments are bogus. Evidence be damned. All he cares about is the juicy headlines that say things he wants to be true. He doesn't have the integrity to actually verify any of these claims. He comes here so people like honor get to do his homework for him. Intellectual laziness is one thing, but not accepting the education you just recieved and continue to repeat the same debunked nonsense at a later date, is his Modus Operandi that makes him insufferable.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
It took until paragraph 24 for the New York Times to finally admit this wasn't Russian disinformation. In the meantime Facebook successfully shielded candidate BIden by banning the New York Post from publishing the story and upholding Biden's lies demonstrated in the video clip. With the Democrat government is pressuring Facebook to toe the Democrat narrative and party line, one has to ask if the first amendment means much. How are we that different from the people in Russia in what information we're allowed to consume and point out? The first amendment of the Constitution is indeed hanging by a thread.
Didn’t Biden deny the laptop this in a Debate with Trump? I seem to remember that, but could be wrong.
That's kinda the problem, Markk. Certain media outlets flooded the zone with so much stuff that none of us should expect to remember even crucial details correctly.
Personally, I don't recall the laptop itself being important, other than the story about how it got to Rudy Guilianni rather than its actual owner was never clear and pretty odd sounding. What was important is whether the things Guilianni claimed were on the laptop were actually there. He said all kinds of things, which Fox and Breitbart reported incessantly. Except they weren't true -- there were no e-mail produced that provided evidence of corruption or any other wrongdoing by Joe Biden. Zero. And, as pointed out upthread, even Fox backed off the story because there was no there there.
So, the Brietbart story in the OP is a pretty disingenuous attempt to snatch a little victory from the jaws of defeat. Breitbart was 100% wrong in the many stories it promoted about what actually was on the laptop. Because there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden on the laptop, "authentication" of the laptop is a nothing story today. Literally millions of words were written about that laptop. Cherry picking something one guy said once and then trying to claim that NYT is trying to bury something that is a complete non-story at this point is Breitbart trying to hide its own egregious inaccuracies in its own coverage.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
