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That unpublished article was expertly crafted lightning rod contrarian bait.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