[threatofrain]

Hunter Biden's laptop is an incredibly awful story.

Fox reporters claimed to have obtained the hard drive, then lost it due to conspiracy from the delivery company, then found it, and now refuses to show the contents because Hunter Biden is a down and out man, and it's so sad to kick a remorseful man trying to turn his life around.

This is the story according to Fox, and specifically Tucker Carlson — that we cannot see the evidence because Tucker Carlson feels sorry for Hunter Biden's low fortunes.

[refurb]

I’m sorry? Specific content of the laptop was released, the Biden team was asked if it was authentic and the answer was “no comment”. Why would they do that if it was fake news?

[threatofrain]

And what content was released? Tucker Carlson specifically stated that kindness for a "pathetic" man was his reason for not releasing "damning" criminal evidence to the public.

Where would the Intercept go with that story, not getting to see any evidence, and having the story end on Tucker Carlson saying he won't publicize evidence on corruption? And that the FBI has no comment? What would The Intercept do with No Comment?

That's the vulnerable position that Glenn Greenwald would've placed the publication with the bet to jump on the Hunter Biden story with zero access to evidence. Greenwald wanted the Intercept to go all-in with him.

[refurb]

Have you read the article Glenn wrote that was never published? I’m curious what part exactly you’d call dishonest or unworthy of publication? Glenn does write in an emotional way, but what I like is he tends to exhaustive reference and source his data points.

You nicely danced around my comment that none of the content from the laptop has been denied by the Biden team.

That’s relevant, no?

[threatofrain]

> none of the content

What Is The Content? Why the teasing?

Sean Hannity said there was evidence of crime that would destroy the Bidens and the Democrats. Tucker Carlson said he will not publish. Guliani is now mute. Enough with the teasing.

> What would The Intercept do with No Comment?

Truly, all the news agencies around the world are failing to report on the urgency of No Comment.

[Terretta]

That unpublished article was expertly crafted lightning rod contrarian bait.

He calculatedly spun two ‘sides’ very differently and held the ‘evidence’ to different standards, including specifically omitting multiple source facts inconvenient to his spin while seeming to invite them.

Example, from the top level article today:

> In the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, The New York Post obtained that laptop and published a series of articles about the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, China and elsewhere.

‘Obtained’? Really? That word is doing a lot of work there. It’s not false, but really? Everything he writes now is like this — no precise word is dishonest.

His schtick is super well done, imperceptible to or even hotly denied by smart anti-mainstream readers. He’s very good.

[anextio]

How the laptop was "obtained" is actually a separate story from the content of the laptop, if the content is real.

Given that the content HAS been verified as real, then bringing up the circumstances of how the laptop ended up in the NY Post's hands is simply an irrelevant diversion designed to muddy the waters.

> That word is doing a _lot_ of work there.

What work is it doing? If the content is real, what circumstances of the obtaining could possibly change opinions or analysis made *solely about* the content?

Nobody denies there were political machinations and obfuscations about the laptop's journey, involving political adversaries of Joe Biden, but that story is a separate one from analysis of the laptop's contents.

[Blahah]

What a strange take. If someone made up a story about me and then someone else asked if it was true, I'd tell them to get lost, not validate the ridiculous attempt at shaping a narrative by engaging with it. It's very very common to "no comment" every false story, because engaging (even with a denial) creates legitimacy for the falsehood.

[refurb]

No. This is not a reasonable approach whatsoever and is not what is typically done.

If someone says “are these emails real?” you say “no”. Case closed.

[Blahah]

Unless I knew the emails existed I would say "I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not interested in talking about it." But more succinctly, with just two words maybe. Something along the lines of "no comment". It's not possible for someone to have made even a cursory glance the history or ubiquity of the phrase "no comment" and honestly claim that it's either not a reasonable approach or not typically done. This just silly.