The Hunter Biden laptop is real
The problem isn’t Hunter Biden – it’s Joe – as the mainstream media can somehow find out with the absurd White House intervention in young Mr. Biden’s final career as Van Gogh in grass.
In fact, the intervention looks like a ploy devised by Hunter himself, designed to draw attention to his connection to the President, publicize him and allow him, while pretending to do the opposite.
For more details, see a long story on the front page of the Washington Post on Friday. As part of the plan, a New York gallery will keep secret who pays up to $ 500,000 for its novice pieces, but of course that won’t stop the buyer from letting Hunter know who’s coming. to buy his art or to present himself later as a Hunter’s guest at a White House event.
All of this is beautifully self-evident, but even more so in light of the ridiculously detailed and well-documented Hunter Biden laptop disclosures released over the past nine months by the New York Post and the UK Daily Mail.
To avoid knowing the truth so that you don’t have to point it out, this is not a good report. This has been the approach of other media outlets, or it was until last month when Washington Post resident “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler in a hilariously neurotic article, apparently imposed solely because of his previous ingestion of Biden’s denials, some of the New York Post’s reporting ultimately confirmed.
Namely, the vice president made an “unscheduled” stop over at a dinner at a private restaurant in April 2015 where Hunter was hosting an official from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Understand: If Hunter’s role on Burisma’s board was to make the company a hot potato for Ukrainian corruption investigators, the vice president’s arrest instantly succeeded in transforming Ukraine’s politics from the administration as hostage for Burisma avoiding prosecution.
Mr. Kessler writes a phrase that would fascinate Dr. Freud: âWhen we examined it, there was less to the story than one might imagine. It never specifies who “one” is or what one “imagines”, but the Washington Post confirms the New York Post story in its entirety.
Let the dam break. The reports from the New York tabloid and those from the Daily Mail, which also owns the data from the laptop, are everything journalism aspires to be, based on contemporary documentation obtained transparently, not on someone’s memory or spin after the fact. Their reporting makes Bob Woodward’s average book look like the product of the ouija-board reporting.
Mr. Kessler and others use the excuse that the tabloids won’t share laptop data, as if they have to give their scoops to their more haughty brethren. But as Mr. Kessler demonstrates, other outlets are perfectly free to follow by going to the sources and asking questions, searching for documents. The Watergate wouldn’t have collapsed if other newspapers hadn’t followed, and sometimes corrected, the Washington Post’s revelations. Good places to start would be proof that Mr. Biden has lent the attributes of vice-presidency to Hunter’s efforts to win favor with Mexican billionaires Carlos Slim and Miguel AlemÃ¡n Velasco, or to Hunter’s use of his business income. to pay for his father’s home phone and home. -the improvement invoices.
The other media are not obliged to adopt the framing of the tabloids. They may interpret the pattern as Washington’s complexities as usual or as Mr. Biden’s indulgence towards a particularly troubled son. But ignoring a story you know to be true in the hope that your readers will believe it isn’t true is not the job our “official journals” signed up for.
It all takes on a sicker tint when you remember how the media cover-up began: when 50 former intelligence officials, led by veterans of the Obama administration, claimed that the laptop story had “all the bells and whistles”. characteristics of Russian disinformation â. They had no proof and, worse, prostituted their professional judgment. Creating a plausible fake laptop, with plausible file index, plausible time stamps, plausible browser history, thousands of plausible photos, text messages, emails and other plausible documents would be beyond the Kremlin and ridiculously out of proportion. to any goal the Kremlin could hope to achieve. achieve.
Intelligence officers knew that. They were lying to the American public to influence an election. It’s hard to imagine a Ben Bradlee or an Abe Rosenthal being part of that, or trying to pretend the laptop doesn’t exist. It’s hard to imagine them standing still in the face of government obstruction in the face of the Ashli ââBabbitt shooting or the death of Officer Brian Sicknick or the dubious Russian intelligence services that remain the open secret of the chaotic intervention by the FBI in the 2016 election.
A lot of great reporting is still produced by our big news agencies, but can you trust them when you know they are also hiding news from you? In the past, you did not start from the presumption that members of the press were conformist lickspitttles. Now you’re stuck with the default presumption that they probably are.
Copyright Â© 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8