↓
 
Home » The NY Times wakes up from its long and refreshing slumber and decides that Hunter Biden’s laptop is for real after all

The NY Times wakes up from its long and refreshing slumber and decides that Hunter Biden’s laptop is for real after all

The New Neo Posted on by

Fancy that:

The New York Times has released a major report on Hunter Biden detailing the authenticity of his now-infamous laptop and confirming details about the ongoing criminal investigation into Joe Biden’s son.

As for the question “why now?”, I think the answer might be found in that phrase “ongoing criminal investigation into Joe Biden’s son.” That investigation certainly doesn’t seem to have been fast-tracked, does it? But my guess is that the Times is now trying to get ahead of the story.

Back in October of 2020 the MSM and social media outlets insisted that the Hunter laptop was bogus and not worth any attention. All of those who relied on that and shrugged it off – and their numbers are legion – or never even heard about it at the time because the blackout was so pervasive, should be outraged now. Absolutely outraged and questioning so much of what they hold dear in the political sense.

I predict that will not happen, except for a few isolated people.

Here’s what the NY Post has to say about it today, in an editorial with the bitter title “Now that Joe Biden’s president, the Times finally admits: Hunter’s laptop is real” [emphasis mine]:

In the heat of the presidential race of 2020, the Times never missed a chance to cast doubt on the laptop, saying the information was “purported” and quoting a letter from former Democratic officials who claimed — with no evidence — that it was Russian disinformation.

Why was it unsubstantiated? Because of willful ignorance and the Times’ curious lack of curiosity…

Now we’re 16 months away from the 2020 election, Joe Biden’s safely in the White House, and the Times finally decides to report on the news rather than carry the Biden campaign’s water. And they find that hey, Hunter Biden’s business interests benefited from Joe Biden’s political status to a suspicious degree. Perhaps this is a topic worthy of examination.

How did the Times “authenticate” the laptop? It doesn’t say. Unlike The Post’s reporting, which detailed exactly how we got the files and where they came from, the Times does a hand wave to anonymous sources. No facts have changed since fall 2020. They knew the laptop was real from the start. They just didn’t want to say so.

You may recall that the NY Post was the paper that took the revelations seriously and published stories about the laptop. For its pains it was banned for a while from Twitter, and its reporting was discounted and squelched. The Post gets the last laugh, but I’m afraid it’s a hollow one, because Biden came to power anyway – and the rest, as they say, is history.

Comments

The <i>NY Times</i> wakes up from its long and refreshing slumber and decides that Hunter Biden’s laptop is for real after all — 27 Comments

  1. This is a CYA story. They’re admitting it, because 1) indictments may well result from its contents and 2) now, when questioned in 2024, they can say, “Oh, we reported on it when we were sure of the material. We had to be careful, you know.”

  2. Well, I guess the Dem-Media-Complex won’t be able to easily characterize any future GOP Biden impeachment efforts as entirely baseless. After all, it’s the NYT saying it, and in Liberal Land nothing is real until the NYT deems it to be so.

    But of course the Hunter Laptop story is just one of many possible impeachable offenses for a new GOP majority House to choose from next year. It’s a veritable target rich environment.

  4. I wonder if this is the spin up to the removal of Joe. To fit the timeline I am expecting they what him gone on or shortly after January 21st, 2023. That will put Kamala in for the full 2 years you can have and still run twice on your own.

    I think they may be delusional enough to think she would be a good candidate.

  5. Martin:

    I think they know she’s a poor candidate. But they don’t really have anyone else. And they figure they can pull her across the finish line.

  6. This story and Brandon’s ridiculous statement about “Everybody knows someone who has naked pictures…” suggest to me that Putin has some serious material about to come out. This sounds like a “spoiling attack” just before major bad news arrives. Maybe something about Joe showering with his daughter or some other perversion. If Putin has something, now is the time. It would be a good response to the “war criminal” nonsense. If bombing civilians was a war crime, the USAAF and the RAF would both be candidates. Ignoring Korea and Vietnam, of course.

  8. I would guess the Biden’s will never recognize Hunter’s illegitimate child, since he claims he has no memory of the incident which created her.

  9. Kate–

    I’m betting Hunter’s father has no memory any longer of the incident that created Hunter.

  10. Pa Cat, that’s entirely possible. 🙂 The Biden family appears to have some major personal problems.

  11. Glenn Reynold’s quotes Michael Walsh on reading between the lines: the Ruling Class Oligarchs have decided it’s time to let Xi-den go!

    Yup. My thoughts exactly. Them’s the marching orders. Let’s watch the State Media cheerlead this outcome, now.

    Kamala, get your coronation glam heels polished.
    https://instapundit.com/510066/#respond

  12. Just as they’ve been editing Kamala “GAFFE” Harris, they’re going to have to start editing “POTUS” and likely keep it up till the cows come home.

    Might as well start with this:
    “…He’s the smartest meth addict I know…”.

  13. I still think you can bet the house Hunter isn’t going anywhere near a courtroom yet alone a jail.
    Much like the ” Here’s how we frauded the nation vote” after it was done knowing no one was going to do anything about it and they were free and clear laughing all the way.

  14. I think they know she’s a poor candidate. But they don’t really have anyone else. And they figure they can pull her across the finish line.

    They have plenty of other people. Now look at the vote totals in 2020 before the Clyburn maneuver. Democratic voters aren’t interested in accomplished people. It’s a reasonable wager the fundraising apparat isn’t either. Look who they voted for: an old Trotskyist who babbles about ‘the rich’, a sketchy law professor notable for publishing a dubious book contending someone else is responsible for your financial problems, a random member of Congress most notable for abusing her staff; another stuffed toy out of claw machine at the Democratic Party pizza place, a gay dude who claims to speak seven languages and put in eight years as a perfectly business-as-usual mayor of a small city; and the demented husk of one of the stupidest and most corrupt characters the Democratic Party has produced in the last 50 years.

    This is who they want. Andrew Yang or Michael Bloomberg or Tulsi Gabbard they do not want.

  15. Art Deco:

    Quite a rogue’s gallery.

    Yes, they have people. Are any of them more attractive candidates than Harris?

  16. All fine and dandy, but we’re getting really off-track here with irrelevant side issues like merit and ability, talent and intelligence, experience and reliability when what we REALLY SHOULD be doing is staying as realistic as possible.

    NONE OF THOSE SO-CALLED ALTERNATIVES ARE BLACK WOMEN.

    QED.

  17. There is a Grand Jury sitting in Wilmington looking at how Hunter Biden makes his money.

  18. But my guess is that the Times is now trying to get ahead of the story.

    The fanfare before the anointment of the Kamala!

    And with another turn or two of the screw, the K can be discarded in favor of the Pelosi, who can lead the screeching Progressives into their oh-so-permanent triumph despite loss of the Congress.

  19. NONE OF THOSE SO-CALLED ALTERNATIVES ARE BLACK WOMEN.

    Neither is Willie’s ho’.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if Gov. Stacey Abrams (D-Diabetes) competed quite well in a Democratic Party donnybrook. We shall see.

  20. Art Deco, while it’s certainly true that the Dem Party might have hilariously low standards for their potential candidates, it’s a whole other thing to try to sell one of those misfit toys to the greater electorate. Let’s just say that their appeal is more… “selective”, to paraphrase Spinal Tap’s manager.

    Of course one of those cretins may be less unlikable than Kamala Harris, I really don’t know. To me it’d be like choosing between falling off a ladder or playing tetherball with a hive of africanized bees.

  21. “while it’s certainly true that the Dem Party might have hilariously low standards for their potential candidates, it’s a whole other thing to try to sell one of those misfit toys to the greater electorate.” Nonapod

    Bidet receiving the largest number of popular votes ever… argues otherwise. Proof positive that they can ‘elect’… anyone.

  22. It is a sad commentary on what used to be (many, many years ago) a media that was proud of its role of reporting the news in a manner devoid of favoritism. Those days are gone forever, replaced by the dishonest partisanship and lack of journalistic integrity that the New York Times of today so clearly exemplifies.

  23. }}} Absolutely outraged and questioning so much of what they hold dear in the political sense.

    Given that the “Democratic” Party has openly, legally, and unquestionably acked that they are, in no sense, required to be even in the least manner “democratic”, and the massive noise of crickets that followed, this is about as likely as they finally getting outraged about that NOW.

    https://thewashingtonstandard.com/dnc-just-admitted-legal-right-rig-2016-primaries/

  24. @ quiet conservative > “It is a sad commentary on what used to be (many, many years ago) a media that was proud of its role of reporting the news in a manner devoid of favoritism. Those days are gone forever, replaced by the dishonest partisanship and lack of journalistic integrity that the New York Times of today so clearly exemplifies.”

    Good place to slip in this story of a “liberal left” sort of changer, a former NYT employee and reporter at other outlets, plus one of her posts directly on point.
    She’s not Red-pilled yet and ready to register as a Republican, but at least she’s willing to call out her former colleagues.

    https://jennyeholland.substack.com/p/lies-and-the-lying-liars-who-tell/comments?s=r
    2021 April

    It reminded me of another classic, The New York Times headline from last year: “The number of people with the virus who died in the US passes 300,000.” The story did not tell me the number of people with eyeballs who died, but it’s probably more than 300,000 so I’m wondering when we are going to start a crusade to protect us from those fiendish orbs which almost all people who die are found to have.

    For contrast, The New York Times used this phrasing, in 1991, about AIDS deaths: “Last year, 31,196 Americans died of AIDS.”

    And that, children, is how we used to do it, before the lying liars took over.

    https://jennyeholland.substack.com/p/the-nyt-and-me-a-sad-story-of-disillusionment?s=r
    2021 April

    Like most people in their 40’s, my life has been marked by ups and downs and personal and professional defeats. But more unusually, mine are entwined with the world’s most famous brand in news and one of its most damaging scandals.

    That scandal is just one of many scandals detailed in a new book by American author and essayist Ashley Rindsberg, The Gray Lady Winked. The book dives into the overlooked history of misdeeds and misrepresentations by The New York Times in its writing, as journalists like to say, the first draft of history. A mutual friend put Ashley in touch and he sent me advance copy of the book in late 2020, a year in which my own view of the paper had shifted dramatically from admiration and implicit trust to shocked dismay.

    This is is an essay that details my disillusionment with the Times as well as my personal experiences at the place: a sad story in three parts.

  25. @ OBH > that WE post was from May 2017 about DNC shafting Bernie in the 2016 primary, and I was hoping for something new on 2020 (other than the old post where the Democrat media admits they “fortified” the election).

    However, this will do.

    Make no mistake, the DNC admitting to having the right to rig the 2016 democratic primary is just the tip of the iceberg. f this goes to trial, America will see even more of the dark underbelly that is the American election process.

    Why am I not surprised that it did NOT go to full trial.

    https://medium.com/the-jist/the-dismissed-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-explained-85f7a5c26574
    2017 September

    Over the past year, there has been a group of Bernie Sander’s supporters fighting a class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC), alleging that the DNC had committed fraud by taking donations in a “rigged” primary battle. Part of the lawsuit claimed that the DNC illegally favored Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over Sanders and were in violation of the DNC charter as a result.

    The judge assumed that the allegations were true but dismissed the case on the grounds that the supporters who felt defrauded should redress their grievances through “the ballot box” — by voting out DNC leadership in internal elections. It was revealed by WikiLeaks emails from the DNC hack that under the guidance of the now scandal-ridden former chairperson of the DNC, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, the party leadership had shown high levels of favourability towards Hillary Clinton and that they quashed the campaign of Bernie Sanders to make sure she won the nomination.
    …
    The DNC representatives argued that there was no right to have a fair and open primary and that they could simply have chosen the candidates as a committee and given that candidate to the people,

    Appeals were still in process 2 years ago; no idea what happened after that.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2020/04/02/dnc-fraud-lawsuit-plaintiffs-petition-supreme-court/

    The suit showed that not only did the Democratic Party view its own bias as protected by the First Amendment, but that it also considers its chartered promise of impartiality the equivalent of the kind of political campaign promise that political figures make and break on a routine basis. In a response brief, DNC representatives claimed that the DNC had no established fiduciary duty “to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent.”

    Defense counsel also claimed that Sanders supporters knew the process was rigged.
    …
    As Jared Beck recognized in his book “What Happened to Bernie Sanders,” the outcome of the legal proceedings in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit should not overshadow the value of what has already transpired in the suit’s litigation process. Beck writes: “Because the case was dismissed on preliminary grounds and well before proceeding to the merits – and because appellate courts rarely reverse cases – it is unlikely that my client’s claims will ever be tried before a jury.”

    The sentiments expressed by the party’s own defense counsel indicate that the DNC sees the democratic process in its nomination procedure as meaningless, with the real decisions determined by party insiders. Establishment media has hardly held them to account. DNC cheerleaders in the corporate press have not only ignored the fraud perpetrated by the DNC in 2016, but some have argued that “Too Much Democracy is Bad for Democracy.”

    Drowned in the white noise of constant Covid-19 coverage, the latest development in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit is critical not only in terms of understanding a snapshot of election history, but in providing clarity regarding current and future presidential elections.

    From Senator Joe Biden’s primary victories in states where he failed to so much as open a campaign office, to consistent disparities in exit poll data compared with official vote-counts that repeatedly favored Biden in the official result, the DNC Fraud Lawsuit stands as pivotal evidence of the DNC’s real attitude towards its donors and primary voters.

    Regardless of the legal outcome in this case, the proceedings have already served as invaluable evidence of the rot in the democratic system in the United States.

  26. AF: Excellent point on the similarity between the Democrats’ 2016 SHAFTING of—ENEMY!— Bernie Sanders and their shafting of—ENEMY!!!—Trump, AND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, in 2020.

    While—AND THIS IS THE CRUX—feeling ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED in so doing.

    This cannot be stressed enough.

    (It’s as though the Sanders “incident” was their Munich Pact…. It gave them, they most certainly felt, the “green light”…and they then decided to continue the criminal subterfuge with Russiagate, with the stolen election the icing on the toxic cake.)

    And people talk about Putin….
    …without realizing that “Biden” and Putin are essentially two peas in a pod.

    File under: “What is TRUTH?”

  27. Regarding the NYT recently transforming into a rag that lies, Ashley Rindsberg has written a well-researched book, “The Gray Lady Winked” that may cause you to rethink that view. (You can use neo’s amazon link to pick up a copy.)

    I’ve heard two interviews with Mr. Rindsberg and he makes a strong case for the paper being untrustworthy in many important areas and outright lying to support a preferred narrative throughout its history.

    The reviews are worth a read, but this one outlines some of the major events the book addresses:

    The Times has been wrong about so many important stories. Or they tell great stories, they’re just not true. The Holocaust, Ukrainian Famine, Hitler, Castro, Ngo Dinh Diem, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So how are we supposed to believe the NYT on Trump, Biden, and Global Warming? This book carefully documents the background info on the NYT’s past misinformation, which very much resemble what we’re seeing from them today. Well written, too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑