Ah yes. The definitely real story of a man abandoning his laptop at a repair shop (which apparently had no way to contact him to pick up said laptop?), where once the laptop was abandoned the shop owner (rather than wiping and selling the computer) read through his emails and found some definitely real incriminating evidence that was super believable? It should tell you something that even Fox wasn't willing to run the story at first.
> His father flew him on Air Force 2 to China to make private equity deals.
Shouldn't have happened if he was doing business there. Also, again, where is your proof? I Googled it but all I could find was a claim Trump made while campaigning:
"We have found no evidence to contradict that, and Trump hasn’t provided any. We also found no evidence that Joe Biden used his position as vice president to enrich his son."
But considering Trump's son in law was doing this while in office:
”In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.”
The google bubble strikes again? Maybe it's only showing you what you want to see. Try DuckDuckGo it seems less prone at ideologically memory holing news stories.
> Come on, wake up and smell the coffee. The business partner Bobulinski also considered it to be meaning Biden in an interview in mainstream media.
Again, this is not proof. You clearly want this to be true, therefore you don't need evidence. I can't "wake up" as you have, because I don't have the motivation to believe it the way you do. True things are awarded the title of true because they can be proven, with evidence. Not because they confirm the beliefs you already held.
Whoever Bobulinski is, you are quoting his public statements, which aren't under oath, where there is actual penalty for lying. He did sit with the FBI, but then he made a tour of right wing media making unrelated statements (as far as we know), which makes this a politically motivated PR campaign, nothing more. If he had given the FBI something to act on, they would have done so. They have no qualms about influencing elections:
> ”In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.”
Right, he was on the plane. That's what is confirmed. You made specific accusations that appears to have come from Trump himself, which it goes without saying is not a trustworthy source. Who confirmed nature of the "deals" he made? What were they, when did they occur, and how do we know Joe Biden was involved? Actual evidence please.
Regardless, it has raised questions about conflicts of interest and impartiality. Its a broader problem than just the Bidens or democrats, we see this shit under every president. The whole US political system is steeped in this corruption and influence peddling.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, and is in a pond with a bunch of other ducks, do we really need a court case to prove its a duck?
Do you not see how this is editorializing? They refuse to cover story having to do with the son of the Democratic candidate. And they pretended the story was not real.
1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.
2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.
> 1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.
This is a complete assumption on their part if that happened. Instead of researching and taking time to assess the finding, they assume foul play. Why does it happen conveniently when the Democrat Joe Biden would suffer from investigating this clearly? Why would they assume it was stolen? Why would they assume it was Russian disinfo? Do you not see the clear profile of ideological politicing at play here? It's all conveniently explained away and meanwhile they get to keep playing politics and pretending to be bipartisan.
> 2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.
So being a cocaine addict is newsworthy when it's the Trump kids but not when its a Biden kid?
>So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.
Strong disagree. This is exactly the thing that muckraking should uncover. Again, if this was about a Trump kid, everyone would want to know and investigate it. Including you and me.
This is quite a terrible take, considering the story has been proven to be true. Your sarcastic tone really annoys me since the media spent half a year, pretending the story wasn’t real.
I fully stand behind the NPR on this. I think the Hunter Biden laptop story is and was a distraction, and that the lives of family members of politicians should be off-limits for news coverage, positive or negative until they themselves insert themselves into the political arena. Let's face it squarely: the only reason why this story was blown up as much as it was was because it was used to damage his father politically, not because there was anything of substance there.
The lives of family members of politicians and government employees should be completely on-limits for news coverage, provided that could be newsworthy, because using one's family is one method of laundering corruption.
Let's say for example you need a permit approved by the CITYNAME Department of Buildings. CITYNAME is slow to process permit applications, but it is common knowledge that using a particular expeditor consulting company actually helps to get your permit approved quickly. It would definitely be newsworthy if that consulting company was owned by a spouse, sibling, parent, cousin, etc. of someone in the building department. I personally know someone who was not able to open up a store in a city I lived because the inspector literally said something was deficient and recommended some local company nearby to "fix it" for approximately $50,000.
It is a similar reason why working in an investment bank, at least in the US, you have to agree that both you and your close family members must agree to trading restrictions so as not to pose a conflict of interest with any of the bank's clients. If such a restriction was not in place, then it would be easy to just pass insider information to your spouse or brother and have them make money based on news that is about to be announced.
Yes, using one's family can be used to launder money. But it can also be used to smear others. And because of that some prudence is required. And since all of the facts on that particular case have come out by now - or at least, given the ones that did come out without knowing whether or not that is exhaustive - I'd say the NPR made the right call.
It is unfortunate that the news would have been too close to the election, so I have some understanding why some news organizations handled the story they did.
I liken this to the Google, and other tech companies, interviewing process. It is better to miss out on a good hire, than hire (or elect) someone that was a false positive for good. So based on reasonable doubt or suspicion, a story like this should cause anyone connected to be considered not a good choice for government employment anywhere since it could cause the US to be taken advantage of by any relevant other countries.
They didn't just pass on the story, they put out negative commentary about it by calling it a distraction without even bothering to explain how they arrived at that.
> The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.
>I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible.
You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble.
>I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart.
Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though.
>See my first point.
Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation.
>I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.
> the only reason why this story was blown up as much as it was was because it was used to damage his father politically, not because there was anything of substance there.
Have you reviewed all of the information contained on said laptop? How can you state an opinion and present it as a fact? Do you have any data or evidence that the data contained within the laptop was compromised or had “lack of substance?”
Right you haven’t. You present your opinion as fact as you have throughout this thread. I’d ask that YOU please stop pushing your opinion as fact when it is just your opinion.
The burden of proof justifying posting stolen materials from the laptop belonging to the family member of a politician is not on the person asking if this is in bounds, it is on the person defending obvious muckraking.
The people making the claims about the laptop are the ones that need to provide evidence. To date, nothing of substance has been released from the laptop (which has supposedly been in the possession of the parties making the claims for at least 3 years) that validates any of the claims that have been made about the laptop, Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden.
> To date, nothing of substance has been released from the laptop (which has supposedly been in the possession of the parties making the claims for at least 3 years) that validates any of the claims that have been made about the laptop, Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden.
The evidence is there for anyone to view it. Just because the media doesn’t seem interested doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be interested. Just because the media doesn’t report on it doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting story.
Here is evidence from the laptop. Sure we can poke holes and say there was no “chain of custody” but if CoC didn’t matter for an election ballots why does it matter here? Just take an unbiased view of the data. Disregard the source and form you own opinion. Without actually looking at the data anything said is an assumption.
Again I may not like the source but I don’t tend to shoot the messenger.
That is not evidence. What is the crime that has supposedly been committed and what is the evidence that supports that accusation?
Dumping the contents of a laptop and then shouting conspiracies isn't the same as making a claim and then providing evidence for it.
The media doesn't seem interested because there's nothing there. If there was, Fox News, Breitbart, and all the others would be all over it and pushing it daily.
The media seemed to care when the narrative was 51 IC members says the laptop has “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Hell every network ran with that lie and bullshit. Even twitter was involved and we can see the fallout within the twitter files. Some retracted. Some updated when the laptop and data was deemed “authentic”.
It wasn't a lie, though. The supposed smoking gun wasn't there. That's still a classic earmark of a Russian disinformation operation. You take something real and apply something false to it. The laptop may have been real but that doesn't mean that the supposed crimes and other conspiracies surrounding it were real.
That's how I know it's BS and you can't dispute it. The laptop and data can be authentic all day long. You still can't name a crime that it shows evidence of.
Nope it was definitely a lie. Corporate journalist along with their connections in our intelligence institutions colluded to tarnish and bury the story before an election before it had a chance to be assessed properly. I understand not believing the story to begin with and even believing that there was no incriminating content within the laptop (other than Hunter’s dysfunctional life), but there was definitely a campaign to bury the story so that it would not affect Joe Biden’s chances of being elected. The campaign was to call it Russian disinformation. Do you at least admit this much?
No... not at all. If that was true, then why didn't FOX News, Breitbart, or any of the other right-wing media outlets show evidence of these supposed crimes? Why would FOX News bury the story to not affect Biden's chances of being elected? That doesn't even make any sense.
Do you think those 51 IC member would have called it a Russian Disinformation Operation of the laptop was Don Jr? Well I guess that narrative wouldn’t work, since the Democrats have been pounding the drum that Trump was a Putin “puppet”.
I don’t even need to pontificate how the media would have handled it. They would have dug through all the “evidence” and try to find more “crimes”.
The fact is the IC community and Media colluded to bury the story. There was no interest other than the fringe to actually dig through it.
Hell the FBI has been sitting on the laptop for YEARS. It’s not hard to see how these institutions favor one party over another. Time and time again.
> It was not a lie. Unless you can prove that any of these claims are true, it wasn't a lie.
You can keep downvoting me. It’s okay.
Hunter admitted to his drug addiction. Hunter lied on the background check when purchasing a fire arm. The FBI attempted to strong arm the Gun Store Owner after Hallie took Hunters illegal firearm and dumped in a trash can at a supermarket.
There’s plenty of evidence of Hunter’s drug problems and evidence of illegal cocaine usage (unless cocaine and crack are legal and I missed it) Yet no formal charges.
I wonder why?
President Joe Biden conceded that his son Hunter lied on a government form when he purchased a handgun in October 2018—a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The younger Biden was a crack cocaine user at the time, as recounted in his 2021 memoir Beautiful Things. Yet he answered no to this question on ATF Form 4473: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
Hunter Biden's laptop is a non-story unless you really care about penises for some reason. Or Russian disinformation. What exactly was the laptop supposed to prove?
