Hunter's Laptop - Hunter under oath says he didn't drop off laptop to DE shop.
Vox has a pretty good summary of the laptop story, including a critique of how it was handled by Twitter in 2020.
The return of Hunter Biden’s laptop
A recent New York Times story has made it the subject of discussion again.
And here’s where we come to the real dispute, which wasn’t just about whether the emails were fake or real, but about what they show. Trump allies have insisted the leaked material proves that Joe Biden was corrupt. If you think that’s what’s being covered up, of course it seems outrageous that the mainstream media wasn’t devoting more attention to it.
But that case is weak.
There were two supposed “smoking guns” about Joe Biden that conservatives touted in the materials. The first was an email the Post called a “blockbuster,” in which an executive at the Ukrainian gas company Burisma thanked Hunter for the “opportunity to meet your father” in 2015. If you’re steeped in Trumpworld lore, this was damning because of the theory that Biden had the corrupt prosecutor general of Ukraine fired to benefit Burisma, and Biden had said he knew nothing about Hunter’s Ukrainian work, but look, a meeting! (Apparently, it was a dinner at Cafe Milano that Hunter had organized, with about a dozen people.) This appears to amount to Vice President Biden seemingly going to one dinner.
The second involved a business venture that Hunter tried to set up with a Chinese energy tycoon in 2017 (after Joe Biden was no longer vice president). One email mentions that the equity split would include “10 held by H for the big guy ?” A former business partner of Hunter’s named Tony Bobulinski came forward to claim “the big guy” was Joe Biden. But a subsequent email from Hunter says his “Chairman” gave him “an emphatic no,” and a further email clarifies that the chairman is his dad.
So this amounts to Joe Biden apparently refusing some deal Hunter tried to enmesh him in. An alternative possibility is that Joe was not actually ever involved and that Hunter had just been throwing his name around. By Bobulinski’s own account, he briefly met Joe Biden the day before and after an event, and the former vice president only said vague things to him (and the proposed deal never came together in the end).
All of this was indeed covered in the press in October 2020 (I wrote about it at the time). So the real objection from conservatives is that they didn’t get the narrative they liked out of the mainstream media.
Hunter’s emails contained a whole lot of embarrassing and arguably newsworthy material about himself, and the shady foreign business interests of the son of the potential next president are certainly a worthy topic of media coverage. But as for the Biden who was actually on the ballot, there was very little from him personally in those messages (other than an exchange where he comforts his despondent, drug-addicted son). The emails didn’t dominate mainstream media because, at least so far, they didn’t have the goods.
I just learned that Vox is the news branch of the Ministry of Information of the Azov Battalion.
drummerboy said:
The laptop issue is a convenient way of finding out whether people are skeptical and judicious consumers of media, or whether they just uncritically search out that which they agree with.
There are other issues similar to this, of course, (hello Russiagate!) but the laptop is a good one because it is so easily debunked, and can so easily be shown to being distorted by right and alternative media.
e.g. anyone claiming something like "New York Times finally admit Hunter's laptop is real" (an actual NY Post headline) is basically lying, as the NYT has done no such thing. What the NYT did do, in their recent article on Hunter, is state that a number of emails that they were given were assessed to be legitimately from Hunter's email account.The NYT did not have access to the laptop, and therefore can't have anything to say about its provenance. And they didn't. (WAPO has done a similar analysis and come to similar conclusions. And the NY Post said the same thing about WAPO as the NYT.) The FBI has the laptop and while they probably know at this point whether it's Hunter's or not, that information has not been made public.
Let me be clear - I'm not saying the laptop is not Hunter's. I'm saying we don't know, and neither WAPO or NYT knows either. But at this point it's really "who cares"?
The other major point is that the emails have been read by the Times and others, and they have found nothing in the way of proof of corruption, whether it be about China, or Burisma or Joe Biden or whatever other bugaboos the right has come up with. The one area that Hunter clearly has a legal problem is with taxes - and that had nothing to do with the laptop.
This op is really quite ridiculous, upon re-reading. Primarily, that the laptop issue is "so easily debunked", and anyone claiming the "New York Times finally admits Hunter's laptop is real" "is basically lying".
The NYT reported "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."
That information is not enough for a reasonable person to conclude that Hunter's laptop is real? What do you need exactly - the serial number of the laptop matched to receipts with Hunter Biden's signature?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
The laptop issue is a convenient way of finding out whether people are skeptical and judicious consumers of media, or whether they just uncritically search out that which they agree with.
There are other issues similar to this, of course, (hello Russiagate!) but the laptop is a good one because it is so easily debunked, and can so easily be shown to being distorted by right and alternative media.
e.g. anyone claiming something like "New York Times finally admit Hunter's laptop is real" (an actual NY Post headline) is basically lying, as the NYT has done no such thing. What the NYT did do, in their recent article on Hunter, is state that a number of emails that they were given were assessed to be legitimately from Hunter's email account.The NYT did not have access to the laptop, and therefore can't have anything to say about its provenance. And they didn't. (WAPO has done a similar analysis and come to similar conclusions. And the NY Post said the same thing about WAPO as the NYT.) The FBI has the laptop and while they probably know at this point whether it's Hunter's or not, that information has not been made public.
Let me be clear - I'm not saying the laptop is not Hunter's. I'm saying we don't know, and neither WAPO or NYT knows either. But at this point it's really "who cares"?
The other major point is that the emails have been read by the Times and others, and they have found nothing in the way of proof of corruption, whether it be about China, or Burisma or Joe Biden or whatever other bugaboos the right has come up with. The one area that Hunter clearly has a legal problem is with taxes - and that had nothing to do with the laptop.This op is really quite ridiculous, upon re-reading. Primarily, that the laptop issue is "so easily debunked", and anyone claiming the "New York Times finally admits Hunter's laptop is real" "is basically lying".
The NYT reported "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."
That information is not enough for a reasonable person to conclude that Hunter's laptop is real? What do you need exactly - the serial number of the laptop matched to receipts with Hunter Biden's signature?
"appears to have come"
wow. that's pretty damning. worthy of a Pulitzer if you ask me.
Smedley said:
This op is really quite ridiculous, upon re-reading. Primarily, that the laptop issue is "so easily debunked", and anyone claiming the "New York Times finally admits Hunter's laptop is real" "is basically lying".
The NYT reported "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."
That information is not enough for a reasonable person to conclude that Hunter's laptop is real? What do you need exactly - the serial number of the laptop matched to receipts with Hunter Biden's signature?
NYT has a cache of files, and people familiar with that cache of files and the investigation have said that cache of files is real.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
The laptop issue is a convenient way of finding out whether people are skeptical and judicious consumers of media, or whether they just uncritically search out that which they agree with.
There are other issues similar to this, of course, (hello Russiagate!) but the laptop is a good one because it is so easily debunked, and can so easily be shown to being distorted by right and alternative media.
e.g. anyone claiming something like "New York Times finally admit Hunter's laptop is real" (an actual NY Post headline) is basically lying, as the NYT has done no such thing. What the NYT did do, in their recent article on Hunter, is state that a number of emails that they were given were assessed to be legitimately from Hunter's email account.The NYT did not have access to the laptop, and therefore can't have anything to say about its provenance. And they didn't. (WAPO has done a similar analysis and come to similar conclusions. And the NY Post said the same thing about WAPO as the NYT.) The FBI has the laptop and while they probably know at this point whether it's Hunter's or not, that information has not been made public.
Let me be clear - I'm not saying the laptop is not Hunter's. I'm saying we don't know, and neither WAPO or NYT knows either. But at this point it's really "who cares"?
The other major point is that the emails have been read by the Times and others, and they have found nothing in the way of proof of corruption, whether it be about China, or Burisma or Joe Biden or whatever other bugaboos the right has come up with. The one area that Hunter clearly has a legal problem is with taxes - and that had nothing to do with the laptop.This op is really quite ridiculous, upon re-reading. Primarily, that the laptop issue is "so easily debunked", and anyone claiming the "New York Times finally admits Hunter's laptop is real" "is basically lying".
The NYT reported "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."
That information is not enough for a reasonable person to conclude that Hunter's laptop is real? What do you need exactly - the serial number of the laptop matched to receipts with Hunter Biden's signature?
"appears to have come"
wow. that's pretty damning. worthy of a Pulitzer if you ask me.
There's reasonable skepticism and judiciousness, and there's undying loyalty to the blue team.
I'm afraid your media consumption is parked in the latter camp.
Smedley said:
This op is really quite ridiculous, upon re-reading. Primarily, that the laptop issue is "so easily debunked", and anyone claiming the "New York Times finally admits Hunter's laptop is real" "is basically lying".
The phrase "New York Times finally admits Hunter's laptop is real" isn't a conclusion supported by the passages you quoted from the article. Whether one calls it "lying" or something else is beside the point.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
The laptop issue is a convenient way of finding out whether people are skeptical and judicious consumers of media, or whether they just uncritically search out that which they agree with.
There are other issues similar to this, of course, (hello Russiagate!) but the laptop is a good one because it is so easily debunked, and can so easily be shown to being distorted by right and alternative media.
e.g. anyone claiming something like "New York Times finally admit Hunter's laptop is real" (an actual NY Post headline) is basically lying, as the NYT has done no such thing. What the NYT did do, in their recent article on Hunter, is state that a number of emails that they were given were assessed to be legitimately from Hunter's email account.The NYT did not have access to the laptop, and therefore can't have anything to say about its provenance. And they didn't. (WAPO has done a similar analysis and come to similar conclusions. And the NY Post said the same thing about WAPO as the NYT.) The FBI has the laptop and while they probably know at this point whether it's Hunter's or not, that information has not been made public.
Let me be clear - I'm not saying the laptop is not Hunter's. I'm saying we don't know, and neither WAPO or NYT knows either. But at this point it's really "who cares"?
The other major point is that the emails have been read by the Times and others, and they have found nothing in the way of proof of corruption, whether it be about China, or Burisma or Joe Biden or whatever other bugaboos the right has come up with. The one area that Hunter clearly has a legal problem is with taxes - and that had nothing to do with the laptop.This op is really quite ridiculous, upon re-reading. Primarily, that the laptop issue is "so easily debunked", and anyone claiming the "New York Times finally admits Hunter's laptop is real" "is basically lying".
The NYT reported "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."
That information is not enough for a reasonable person to conclude that Hunter's laptop is real? What do you need exactly - the serial number of the laptop matched to receipts with Hunter Biden's signature?
"appears to have come"
wow. that's pretty damning. worthy of a Pulitzer if you ask me.
There's reasonable skepticism and judiciousness, and there's undying loyalty to the blue team.
I'm afraid your media consumption is parked in the latter camp.
You really don't read very well. I have not said, nor am I claiming, that the laptop is not real.
I'm saying that for all that's been written about it, there is not definitive proof that's been made public. Until someone leaks from the FBI, we won't really know.
To quote myself:
anyone claiming something like "New York Times finally admit Hunter's
laptop is real" (an actual NY Post headline) is basically lying, as the
NYT has done no such thing.
I repeat, the NYT did no such thing, because they don't know.
Take the phrase "appears to have come" as your evidence in a trial and see how far you get.
Ultimately this is about the emails that were uncovered from the authenticated cache that came from the laptop that may or may not have been Hunter's.
I see no denials from the Biden camp about the authenticity of the emails or the ownership of the laptop itself.
The story has moved forward with the generally accepted premise that the emails are real and what, if anything, does the information in those emails mean. That's what people are debating and that's what will be interesting going forward.
You can focus on the lack of definitive proof that the laptop is in fact Hunter's but everyone, including the Biden camp, has moved on from that point.
And, go blue team.
Smedley said:
Ultimately this is about the emails that were uncovered from the authenticated cache that came from the laptop that may or may not have been Hunter's.
I see no denials from the Biden camp about the authenticity of the emails or the ownership of the laptop itself.
The story has moved forward with the generally accepted premise that the emails are real and what, if anything, does the information in those emails mean. That's what people are debating and that's what will be interesting going forward.
You can focus on the lack of definitive proof that the laptop is in fact Hunter's but everyone, including the Biden camp, has moved on from that point.
And, go blue team.
yes, it's about the emails. I mention that in the OP.
there's nothing in the emails, or haven't you noticed that part?
and my focus is not the lack of definitive proof. My focus is how the right wing and alternative media are distorting this story, trying to turn it into something that it's not.
I think I've been kind of clear about this.
Well as I indicated earlier in this thread, whether there's "nothing" in the emails remains to be seen.
I know you know everything there is to know about this situation, and have already stated definitively there's nothing to see here, move along folks.
But with all due respect, I'm going to reserve judgement and wait to see how it plays out with the DOJ probe, rather than take your word for it.
Sure more may come out. Who knows?
But that, again, is not my point. Which you keep on missing.
And I assume my repeating it again won't matter, so I won't.
of course people should wait to form conclusions until an investigation is complete. Not for nothing, but the people on the "blue team" are the ones doing exactly that. It's the right wingers who have already decided that there is something nefarious in the Hunter Biden files.
and once again, if there really is some kind of "smoking gun" in those files, why haven't any of the people on the right who had possession of them released it? That alone is reason to be very skeptical. A lot of hand waving about a "laptop from hell", but no release of anything incriminating. And this is coming from people who lie about virtually everything.
anyone who's believing that there's a good chance those files contain something damning about Joe Biden is pretty gullible. There's always a chance that some overlooked file contains something really bad for Joe. But at this moment a skeptical news consumer isn't believing that it's very likely.
drummerboy said:
Sure more may come out. Who knows?
But that, again, is not my point. Which you keep on missing.
And I assume my repeating it again won't matter, so I won't.
OK so going back to your op your point seems to be the NY Post's headline, if taken literally, was inaccurate as indeed nobody has fully verified ownership of the physical laptop.
But you seem to be singular in your weird focus on this, as everyone else, including the DOJ, the media, and the Biden camp has moved on to the content of the authenticated emails -- examining, investigating, alleging, defending, whatever.
And your point is obscured by your certainty that there's "nothing" in the emails.
In journalism that's called burying the lede.
ml1 said:
of course people should wait to form conclusions until an investigation is complete. Not for nothing, but the people on the "blue team" are the ones doing exactly that.
Declaring "there's nothing in the emails" is waiting to form conclusions until an investigation is complete?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Sure more may come out. Who knows?
But that, again, is not my point. Which you keep on missing.
And I assume my repeating it again won't matter, so I won't.
OK so going back to your op your point seems to be the NY Post's headline, if taken literally, was inaccurate as indeed nobody has fully verified ownership of the physical laptop.
But you seem to be singular in your weird focus on this, as everyone else, including the DOJ, the media, and the Biden camp has moved on to the content of the authenticated emails -- examining, investigating, alleging, defending, whatever.
And your point is obscured by your certainty that there's "nothing" in the emails.
In journalism that's called burying the lede.
Why are you so certain that there IS something damning in the emails? The smart and logical course is generally to assume something does not exist until evidence is presented that it does exist. And in this case, as I've mentioned a few times already, a skeptical person would be suspicious that the likes of Rudy Giuliani who apparently possessed the files has not presented any evidence of anything nefarious. So far if a person was betting their own money on whether or not Joe Biden is somehow implicated in those files in something illegal or unethical, the smart money would be on "nothing"
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
of course people should wait to form conclusions until an investigation is complete. Not for nothing, but the people on the "blue team" are the ones doing exactly that.
Declaring "there's nothing in the emails" is waiting to form conclusions until an investigation is complete?
the present tense is important. To date, there IS nothing in the emails. At some future point someone might find evidence in the emails and make it public.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Sure more may come out. Who knows?
But that, again, is not my point. Which you keep on missing.
And I assume my repeating it again won't matter, so I won't.
OK so going back to your op your point seems to be the NY Post's headline, if taken literally, was inaccurate as indeed nobody has fully verified ownership of the physical laptop.
But you seem to be singular in your weird focus on this, as everyone else, including the DOJ, the media, and the Biden camp has moved on to the content of the authenticated emails -- examining, investigating, alleging, defending, whatever.
And your point is obscured by your certainty that there's "nothing" in the emails.
In journalism that's called burying the lede.
Why are you so certain that there IS something damning in the emails? The smart and logical course is generally to assume something does not exist until evidence is presented that it does exist. And in this case, as I've mentioned a few times already, a skeptical person would be suspicious that the likes of Rudy Giuliani who apparently possessed the files has not presented any evidence of anything nefarious. So far if a person was betting their own money on whether or not Joe Biden is somehow implicated in those files in something illegal or unethical, the smart money would be on "nothing"
Show me one time where I've expressed certainty that there is something damning in the emails.
Just one time.
I'll wait.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
of course people should wait to form conclusions until an investigation is complete. Not for nothing, but the people on the "blue team" are the ones doing exactly that.
Declaring "there's nothing in the emails" is waiting to form conclusions until an investigation is complete?
the present tense is important. To date, there IS nothing in the emails. At some future point someone might find evidence in the emails and make it public.
Slicing the baloney pretty thin there.
A reasonable person who reads "There's nothing in the emails" reads: nothing exists in the emails.
"Nothing's come out as of now (but it's possible something might come out later)" is your personal translation. Perhaps DB meant to say that or would amend to say that, but it's not what he said.
Smedley said:
Slicing the baloney pretty thin there.
A reasonable person who reads "There's nothing in the emails" reads: nothing exists in the emails.
"Nothing's come out as of now (but it's possible something might come out later)" is your personal translation. Perhaps DB meant to say that or would amend to say that, but it's not what he said.
you may call it "baloney" but if this was a jury trial, no evidence at this time woulds mean a not guilty verdict.
and while you have not expressed "certainty" there's evidence of wrongdoing in the emails, you haven't to my knowledge acknowledged that to date, nothing has in fact been exposed that provides evidence of Joe Biden doing anything wrong.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Slicing the baloney pretty thin there.
A reasonable person who reads "There's nothing in the emails" reads: nothing exists in the emails.
"Nothing's come out as of now (but it's possible something might come out later)" is your personal translation. Perhaps DB meant to say that or would amend to say that, but it's not what he said.
you may call it "baloney" but if this was a jury trial, no evidence at this time woulds mean a not guilty verdict.
and while you have not expressed "certainty" there's evidence of wrongdoing in the emails, you haven't to my knowledge acknowledged that to date, nothing has in fact been exposed that provides evidence of Joe Biden doing anything wrong.
Well the lack of evidence to date is assumed and a given. if there were evidence, it would be dominating the news cycle, and depending on what the evidence was, the talk would be of resignation or impeachment or whatever.
But to make you happy, here goes:
I, Smedley, acknowledge that nothing has in fact been exposed that provides evidence of Joe Biden doing anything wrong.
I also acknowledge it rained this morning.
Relatedly, this in WaPo today:
He makes a good argument IMO.
Yeah yeah I know, Thiessen is the worst, he's a hack, etc. I've heard it all before, so if that's all you have, no need to repeat.
Instead, try stripping away your preconceived notions about the author and engage the words on their merit (or lack thereof).
ETC Author is Thiessen, not Will, but same principle applies.
Smedley said:
Relatedly, this in WaPo today:
He makes a good argument IMO.
Yeah yeah I know, George Will is the worst, he's long past his shelf life, etc. I've heard it all before, so if that's all you have, no need to repeat.
Instead, try stripping away your preconceived notions about the author and engage the words on their merit (or lack thereof).
Two thoughts:
1. The author isn't George Will
2. Clarence Thomas is a judge. Judges recuse from cases. Joe Biden is a President. President's don't "recuse" from their jobs.
Smedley said:
Relatedly, this in WaPo today:
He makes a good argument IMO.
Yeah yeah I know, Thiessen is the worst, he's a hack, etc. I've heard it all before, so if that's all you have, no need to repeat.
Instead, try stripping away your preconceived notions about the author and engage the words on their merit (or lack thereof).
ETC Author is Thiessen, not Will, but same principle applies.
the opening paragraph is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. couldn't read further.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Relatedly, this in WaPo today:
He makes a good argument IMO.
Yeah yeah I know, Thiessen is the worst, he's a hack, etc. I've heard it all before, so if that's all you have, no need to repeat.
Instead, try stripping away your preconceived notions about the author and engage the words on their merit (or lack thereof).
ETC Author is Thiessen, not Will, but same principle applies.
the opening paragraph is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. couldn't read further.
THAT's the open-minded drummerboy that we all know and love.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Relatedly, this in WaPo today:
He makes a good argument IMO.
Yeah yeah I know, Thiessen is the worst, he's a hack, etc. I've heard it all before, so if that's all you have, no need to repeat.
Instead, try stripping away your preconceived notions about the author and engage the words on their merit (or lack thereof).
ETC Author is Thiessen, not Will, but same principle applies.
the opening paragraph is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. couldn't read further.
THAT's the open-minded drummerboy that we all know and love.
sorry, but if you can't tell his analogy is crazy stupid from his opening, I can't help you.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Relatedly, this in WaPo today:
He makes a good argument IMO.
Yeah yeah I know, George Will is the worst, he's long past his shelf life, etc. I've heard it all before, so if that's all you have, no need to repeat.
Instead, try stripping away your preconceived notions about the author and engage the words on their merit (or lack thereof).
Two thoughts:
1. The author isn't George Will
2. Clarence Thomas is a judge. Judges recuse from cases. Joe Biden is a President. President's don't "recuse" from their jobs.
Yes that is addressed. The column is not seriously suggesting Biden will or should recuse himself from stuff. It's pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of wigging out over Ginni Thomas while at the same time believing the business dealings of Biden family members isn't worth a thimbleful of concern.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Relatedly, this in WaPo today:
He makes a good argument IMO.
Yeah yeah I know, Thiessen is the worst, he's a hack, etc. I've heard it all before, so if that's all you have, no need to repeat.
Instead, try stripping away your preconceived notions about the author and engage the words on their merit (or lack thereof).
ETC Author is Thiessen, not Will, but same principle applies.
the opening paragraph is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. couldn't read further.
THAT's the open-minded drummerboy that we all know and love.
sorry, but if you can't tell his analogy is crazy stupid from his opening, I can't help you.
That's your trademark bailout line. Old and tired.
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Relatedly, this in WaPo today:
He makes a good argument IMO.
Yeah yeah I know, George Will is the worst, he's long past his shelf life, etc. I've heard it all before, so if that's all you have, no need to repeat.
Instead, try stripping away your preconceived notions about the author and engage the words on their merit (or lack thereof).
Two thoughts:
1. The author isn't George Will
2. Clarence Thomas is a judge. Judges recuse from cases. Joe Biden is a President. President's don't "recuse" from their jobs.
Yes that is addressed. The column is not seriously suggesting Biden will or should recuse himself from stuff. It's pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of wigging out over Ginni Thomas while at the same time believing the business dealings of Biden family members isn't worth a thimbleful of concern.
there is no inherent hypocrisy because the two situations are not even fecking remotely comparable.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but one of the worst problem that conservative thinkers have is making analogies. They are horrible at it, and this is a perfect example.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
after two years of shouting about this laptop from people on the right, I still haven't seen any evidence that implicates Joe Biden in anything. Shouldn't a person be suspicious that after this much time with the laptops' contents in the possession of people like Rudy Giuliani, no one has released anything that suggests Joe Biden was doing anything unethical on behalf of his son? If there was some actual evidence of wrongdoing on Joe Biden's part, why would they been keeping it to themselves?