Facts are stubborn things, John Adams said, but not as stubborn as the New York Times.
Despite federal prosecutors, investigative journalists and forensics analysts all confirming that Hunter Biden’s laptop is the genuine article, the Gray Lady remains desperate to tear it down.
The latest broadside is an article published Wednesday, “Hunter Biden’s Laptop, Revealed by New York Post, Comes Back to Haunt Him.”
So far, so good.
Then we get to the subhed, which echoes language in Katie Robertson’s dispatch: “Many claims about the laptop’s contents have not been proved, but it played a role in the prosecution of Mr. Biden over a firearm purchase.”
Many claims?
Name one bit of the laptop that has been proven WRONG!
The article mentions our first story from the laptop, in October 14, 2020, which shows Hunter working to arrange a meeting between a Ukrainian energy official and his father.
Vadym Pozharskyi was an adviser to the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which was paying Hunter Biden $83,000 a month.
In May 2014, Pozharskyi emailed Hunter, asking for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
Then, in April 2015, Pozharskyi writes another email: “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”
This correspondence is real and verified.
The messages contradict Joe Biden’s frequent insistent that he “never” spoke to his son about business.
They show the son of the sitting vice president of the United States being paid by foreign clients for his supposed influence.
So what does “never proven” mean?
Only that Joe Biden claims he didn’t do anything wrong.
But a denial is not the truth.
You can believe that it was perfectly fine for Joe Biden to let his son run around the world signing contracts with Chinese, Kazakh and Ukrainian clients, his only skill being his last name.
You can claim, as business partner Devon Archer said, that Hunter was merely selling “the illusion of access.”
But that’s a political argument. It is not “never proven.”
After years of breathlessly reporting innuendo and the activities of minor charlatans as a great Russian conspiracy — for which it shockingly won a Pulitzer — The Times has moved the goalposts.
It’s not enough if — as multiple sources now confirm — Joe Biden dropped by a dinner where Hunter was entertaining clients. It’s not enough for Hunter to threaten a Chinese official — as happened — saying “I’m sitting here with my father” and he’ll be disappointed if I don’t get paid.
The appearance of impropriety is not enough.
Only if Joe Biden is photographed holding a sack of cash is Hunter’s laptop worthy of coverage.
And even then, The Times would frame it as “Republicans pounce.”
But that’s not the way voters think.
This is a scandal of ethics, and that’s the way it will be judged.
Joe Biden doesn’t need to be charged with a crime, or even impeached, for voters to see what’s on the laptop and believe he acted inappropriately.
The Times’ denialism is such that when it mentions that The Post’s coverage was gagged by social media, “Conservatives said those reactions were evidence of liberal censorship.”
Just conservatives?
How is not censorship that Twitter locked our account?
We’re curious why this article was published at all. Did it start as a mea culpa and get lost along the way?
More likely, it’s meant to reassure its liberal readers.
Yes, the laptop was used to convict Hunter Biden, but rest easy: We’ll try our damnedest to make sure it doesn’t become a bigger deal.
