[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That unpublished article was expertly crafted lightning rod contrarian bait.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.