NYT: Late to the Party

[Jolly]

Wouldn't surprise me.

[George K]

Greenwald:

McCarthy: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/almost-two-years-after-2020-election-the-new-york-times-discovers-hunter-biden-laptop-and-corruption-investigations-are-real/

If you are really industrious, you can dig 20 pages into the A section of today’s New York Times and find a 1,700-word news story by three of its top reporters, relating that the Justice Department’s investigation of President Biden’s son, Hunter, is not merely a tax-matter. Turns out that prosecutors are probing his penchant for cashing in on his father’s political influence, through payments by overseas entities for which he did not register as a foreign agent.

It was impossible to stifle a laugh this morning, then, upon noticing that the Times’ deeply interred mention of the laptop includes the claim that the Hunter emails “were obtained by the New York Times.” The paper also helpfully links to another of its reports which, even after being updated in September 2021 (i.e., five months after Hunter himself conceded that the computer “absolutely” might be his), continued to question the authenticity of the computer that “purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden” and to spout the “concerns over Russian disinformation.” (See also Isaac Schorr’s report, noting that the Times was still labeling the Biden laptop story “unsubstantiated” in September 2021.)

There are other laugh-out-loud aspects of the new Times reporting. Take the lede-burying headline, which begins “Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill” — probably the least relevant detail in the story but one that gets heavy emphasis — before acknowledging that a “Broad Federal Investigation Continues.” We are reminded that, after the election of course, Hunter grudgingly acknowledged being under a tax investigation. As I’ve pointed out, that was no revelation at all — it had long been public knowledge that liens were placed on some of Hunter’s property holdings for non-payment of taxes. The Times now informs us, however, of the supposedly salient fact that Hunter has recently paid his back-taxes . . . though the paper subsequently concedes that this has no legal bearing on the question of whether he committed tax fraud and that such payments are more relevant on the matter of sentencing than guilt.

[Horace]

Sometimes one must lie and manipulate for the good of humanity. Unfortunately, only the truly virtuous seem to understand this.

[LuFins Dad]

@Axtremus More Misinformation for those uneducated slobs that supported the Republican party.

[Jolly]

Cretins.

[George K]

So, here's the tin-foil hat stuff...

DNC knows that this stuff on the laptop is real, and they always have. They managed to suppress it in October of 2020.

NYPost has an editorial:

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.

There’s never any shame with these 180s. Sorry that we wrote a “fact check” that turned out to be bull! Sorry we wrote a piece claiming something wasn’t a story and you were stupid for thinking so!

Twitter banned us for supposedly publishing “hacked materials” that weren’t hacked. The company’s CEO apologized, but by that point they had accomplished what they wanted. Like The Times, they cast enough doubt to avoid making their preferred candidate look bad.

Readers of The Times have discovered in March 2022 that Hunter Biden pursued business deals in Europe and Asia, and may have leveraged his father’s position as vice president to do it. Hunter also may not have properly registered with the government nor declared all his income. All legitimate topics of discussion about a presidential candidate’s family, no?

Readers of The Post have known this since October 2020. We also have a much better sports section. We’ve authenticated it.

So, the question is this: Why is the New York Times releasing this story now?

One blog speculates: "Why is the NY Times suddenly reporting the Hunter Biden corruption probe with such zeal? One would start to speculate that the word has gone out from somewhere that the Hunter Biden lever might be useful in prying President Biden from office before he dooms Democrats in 2024."

I have no idea how that plays out...

[Mik]

That's what it sounds like to me but weakening an already limping presidency at this time of global crisis is a huge mistake.

[Copper]

@Mik said in NYT: Late to the Party:

That's what it sounds like to me but weakening an already limping presidency at this time of global crisis is a huge mistake all part of the plan.

[Jolly]

@Mik said in NYT: Late to the Party:

That's what it sounds like to me but weakening an already limping presidency at this time of global crisis is a huge mistake.

They. Don't. Care.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:

So, the question is this: Why is the New York Times releasing this story now?

The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:

The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.

Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.

Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is impeachable interesting.

[Copper]

@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:

impeachable

It is unlikely the Big Guy could be found competent to stand trial.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:

@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:

The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.

Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.

Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is impeachable interesting.

I meant an indictment of the son.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:

@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:

The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.

Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.

Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is impeachable interesting.

There’s no question that Biden will be impeached if/when the GOP wins the house. It’s simply a question of what the charges will be. IOW, which handful of spaghetti is most sticky.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:

There’s no question that Biden will be impeached if/when the GOP wins the house.

Interesting comment on a number of levels. I take it you assume the GOP will win the house. Probably a safe bet today, unless something dramatic happens in the next 8 months.

It’s simply a question of what the charges will be.

Indeed. "High crimes and misdemeanors?" That bar was set pretty low with the impeachment of Trump a few years ago regarding his alleged Ukraine involvement. If having your son sell influence because of your position, I'd guess that's a bit of a higher bar.

However, can a president be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" which occurred BEFORE he was president? I don't know, but I'd guess no. Biden, like Trump, is a ham sandwich when it comes to indictment impeachment.

Will the Senate vote to convict? If the GOP wins the senate, they still have a heavy lift - they have to convince at least 14-16 Democrats to convict.

IOW, which handful of spaghetti is most sticky.

If the evidence is strong enough, if the spaghetti sticks enough, do you think they have a case? I'd say that, right now, it's way too early to say. Let's see what comes out in the next year or so.

[Jolly]

Right wing rags?

Turned out they were right

Now, it's glaringly apparent that The Grey Lady decided to squash a really hot story, in order to effect election fraud. Because isn't that the bottom line?

[George K]

@Jolly it ain’t beanbag.

[Jolly]

True.

But "The Paper of Record" should do better.

Note, they still haven't said how they finally came to verify the information. The New York Post did and was banned by Twitter, anyway.

[George K]

I want to know who the 50 or so "intelligence experts" who debunked this are.

And when will Twitter ban the New York Times?

[George K]

@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:

I want to know who the 50 or so "intelligence experts" who debunked this are.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

Clapper
Hayden
Panetta
Brennan
Morell

and a bunch of others whose names I don't recognize.