At the height of the presidential race pitting former Vice President Joe Biden against then-President Donald Trump, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was given a laptop. It contained scabrous information, incriminating Hunter Biden and his father, the Democratic candidate, Mr. Biden.
Mr. Giuliani promptly brought the laptop to the attention of The New York Post. The Post authenticated it and validated its content, interviewing the owner of the computer-repair shop where Hunter dropped the laptop off as well as various associates of Hunter who appeared on the computer’s hard drive.
The editors of The New York Post figured they had a copper-bottom story of corruption by Hunter and possibly of corruption with the Democratic presidential candidate. Hunter was caught colluding on the laptop with deep-pocketed Chinese and Ukrainian tycoons. Worse still, on the laptop he claimed he would be giving his father — “the Big Guy” — a cut of the cash that was changing hands.
The laptop turned up in September 2020 and by October there should have been an enormous story following up on The New York Post’s reporting. But outside of the conservative media it was a non-story. Now The Post says “the story was censored by social media companies at the behest of the Democratic Party. Mainstream media outlets — including the [New York] Times — attacked or ignored the Post’s revelations.”
The Biden campaign claimed the story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign — another instance of Mr. Trump supposedly colluding with the Russians. What is more, over 50 intelligence community adepts signed a letter, claiming The Post story had “the classic earmarks of a Russian disinformation operation.” These intelligence community adepts really have it in for Mr. Trump. I wonder why? They are not supposed to be so partisan, are they?
Now, The New York Times has published a story — 17 months after The Post published its story — that the Hunter Biden laptop exists and the evidence that The Post has published is true without mentioning The Post by name. That is to say, The Times validated The Post’s story 16 months after the Big Guy won the presidency.
The Times seems to be admitting to participating in a vast cover-up. Why would it? Does it think that its readers only know what appears in The New York Times? Apparently, the news is not news until The Times says it is. Nowhere in The Times’ long and tedious report of the Hunter Biden story is The Post mentioned, though The Times’ story is basically using The Post’s reportage.
