Wrong. They asked Hunter Biden if it was his. He didn't deny it. But instead, every untrustworthy media institution claimed in unison that the story had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation."
Hunter Biden didn't affirm or deny it, he didn't address it at all early on.
But that's not the point. The other outlets didn't have access to the contents of the laptop, to verify and put in context the NYP's stories. The NYP isn't the gold standard of reliability, and even some of their own journalists refused to have their byline on the stories, which were full of spin.
You show your own untrustworthiness when you claim all the media said the laptop story had the hallmarks of disinfo. They mostly didn't claim that. They reported that some experts believed that. Quite plausibly, given the timing.
You are so dishonest. "Neither confirm now deny" is a spook tactic. If it wasn't his then he would have denied it. He never did, because he knew it was his. This was enough evidence for me to comb through what was published in 2020. I saw those pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack in October 2020. And you know what? I still voted for Joe. But mainstream journalists performed an act of partisanship and buried the story until after the election, forever tarnishing their reputations.
Ha, look inward about honesty. You don't say anything that remotely implies any on my part. And now read what I actually said, which you don't reply to.
No, the mainstream media didn't bury the story. It was widely covered in the US press before the election, as you implied yourself in your earlier post. NPR didn't cover it except online, though.
It wasn't widely covered before the election, it was completely buried. The original newspaper that reported it was literally banned from Twitter. A bunch of CIA spooks disinformed the media outlets by pre-bunking the story, which they then erroneously labeled "Russian disinformation." There was evidence of Hunter Biden smoking crack that was reported before the 2020 election, and every single Democratic partisan thought it was Russian disinformation, thanks to outlets like NPR and the New York Times and the Washington Post. And none of them have ever apologized for intentionally misleading their audiences for political gain.
If you want me to take you seriously, say "Hunter Biden smoked crack, took pictures of himself smoking crack, and those pictures are legitimate evidence of his crack addiction."
Again, the media didn't label it Russian disinfo. Again, they reported what a group of experts said about that. No, there wasn't any intentional misleading, apart perhaps from what the NYP was doing, which even some of its own journalists refused to put their byline on. The experts said what they believed was probable, and it was reported that way.
The story was banned from Twitter for one day, on the basis of being hacked material. The ban was lifted the next day. It was all over Twitter and social media in general.
No, the story wasn't buried, as I already pointed out to you. You can easily verify that yourself. These are only the results that Google has dated, there are no doubt also undated ones:
Hunter smoking crack was never the heart of the story. The NYP repeatedly claimed their secret stash of emails showed Joe Biden was complicit in Hunter's corruption. That wasn't true.
You can't state the true information that I asked you to state, so I can't take you seriously. You don't care about the truth. You care about what makes your preferred political party look good.
Here's Glenn Greenwald's reporting, at the time, that The Intercept refused to publish ahead of the election. It has all of the proof and sources that I need to stand by everything I've said, although I don't need proof for myself: I lived through this period and was consuming relevant media on this subject as it was happening. I remember it vividly.
Nowhere in that article does it say the laptop is disinfo.
further, this isn't even a primary source. This is an idiot on a blog stating that other media sites specifically did not say it was "russian disinfo", but rather republished and quoted a letter which also did not say the laptop was russion disinfo. (Maybe you should read that letter? Here it is: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 read it. Everyone who whines about this should)
Maybe... seriously, maybe read the article before you link it?
The FBI wasn't sharing their info with news orgs, and neither was NYP. They had no way to know the story was well founded until later.
Wrong. They asked Hunter Biden if it was his. He didn't deny it. But instead, every untrustworthy media institution claimed in unison that the story had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation."
Hunter Biden didn't affirm or deny it, he didn't address it at all early on.
But that's not the point. The other outlets didn't have access to the contents of the laptop, to verify and put in context the NYP's stories. The NYP isn't the gold standard of reliability, and even some of their own journalists refused to have their byline on the stories, which were full of spin.
You show your own untrustworthiness when you claim all the media said the laptop story had the hallmarks of disinfo. They mostly didn't claim that. They reported that some experts believed that. Quite plausibly, given the timing.
You are so dishonest. "Neither confirm now deny" is a spook tactic. If it wasn't his then he would have denied it. He never did, because he knew it was his. This was enough evidence for me to comb through what was published in 2020. I saw those pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack in October 2020. And you know what? I still voted for Joe. But mainstream journalists performed an act of partisanship and buried the story until after the election, forever tarnishing their reputations.
Ha, look inward about honesty. You don't say anything that remotely implies any on my part. And now read what I actually said, which you don't reply to.
No, the mainstream media didn't bury the story. It was widely covered in the US press before the election, as you implied yourself in your earlier post. NPR didn't cover it except online, though.
It wasn't widely covered before the election, it was completely buried. The original newspaper that reported it was literally banned from Twitter. A bunch of CIA spooks disinformed the media outlets by pre-bunking the story, which they then erroneously labeled "Russian disinformation." There was evidence of Hunter Biden smoking crack that was reported before the 2020 election, and every single Democratic partisan thought it was Russian disinformation, thanks to outlets like NPR and the New York Times and the Washington Post. And none of them have ever apologized for intentionally misleading their audiences for political gain.
If you want me to take you seriously, say "Hunter Biden smoked crack, took pictures of himself smoking crack, and those pictures are legitimate evidence of his crack addiction."
You're not reading what you reply to.
Again, the media didn't label it Russian disinfo. Again, they reported what a group of experts said about that. No, there wasn't any intentional misleading, apart perhaps from what the NYP was doing, which even some of its own journalists refused to put their byline on. The experts said what they believed was probable, and it was reported that way.
The story was banned from Twitter for one day, on the basis of being hacked material. The ban was lifted the next day. It was all over Twitter and social media in general.
No, the story wasn't buried, as I already pointed out to you. You can easily verify that yourself. These are only the results that Google has dated, there are no doubt also undated ones:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hunter+biden+laptop&sca_esv=725efba4277893af&rls=en&cs=0&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:10/15/2020,cd_max:11/3/2020&sxsrf=ACQVn08VTTqbOAndmTSEq70xVmsWIL_ACg:1713372402072&filter=0&biw=946&bih=915&dpr=2
Hunter smoking crack was never the heart of the story. The NYP repeatedly claimed their secret stash of emails showed Joe Biden was complicit in Hunter's corruption. That wasn't true.
Look inward.
You can't state the true information that I asked you to state, so I can't take you seriously. You don't care about the truth. You care about what makes your preferred political party look good.
Hey, do you have links to any actual proof?
I have links showing that not a single member of the "left wing media" stated that the laptop was Russian Disinfo.
It's not hard to find.
Just look on the "left wing media"
I'll give you 5$ if you can find a single instance of mainstream media stating that the laptop *is* disinformation.
Washington Post: "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation - even if they probably aren't."
Pretty much sums up the mainstream media's ethos in the entire Trump era, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-biden-laptop-disinformation/
Wow. That's an opinion piece, and not one by WaPo.
You're clearly more interested in preserving your politics than truth. Your choice, it's the common choice.
"Even though they probably aren't"
Are you fucking stupid?
Here's Glenn Greenwald's reporting, at the time, that The Intercept refused to publish ahead of the election. It has all of the proof and sources that I need to stand by everything I've said, although I don't need proof for myself: I lived through this period and was consuming relevant media on this subject as it was happening. I remember it vividly.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored
You continue to amaze. I gave you a Google link that shows a wide array of coverage of the story before the election. You ignored it and ran away.
Now you admit that something the Intercept did is all the evidence you need.
You believe whatever your politics dictate, with not the slightest interest in truth.
Nowhere in that article does it say the laptop is disinfo.
further, this isn't even a primary source. This is an idiot on a blog stating that other media sites specifically did not say it was "russian disinfo", but rather republished and quoted a letter which also did not say the laptop was russion disinfo. (Maybe you should read that letter? Here it is: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 read it. Everyone who whines about this should)
Maybe... seriously, maybe read the article before you link it?
You really can't read. Amazing resistance to plain fact.