[nemothekid]

Did the Hunter Biden story ever have any legs? As far as I can tell:

1. A grown man, who was not running for president, was doing drugs.

2. He was hired by company to try and gain favor with the White House, which backfired when the White House decided to act against their interest anyways (in other words the guy running for vice president didn't give the company a sweetheart deal because his son was on the board).

Why do people try so hard to force this story?

[Stupulous]

I think the original story was pretty unimportant. But the suppression of the story demonstrated that twitter was willing to manipulate the narrative against the truth, which is consistent with what the right had been saying.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they Streisand effected it into public consciousness. Politics is a bullshit fight. Nonstories get media attention all the time, pushed by status quo narrative manipulators that everyone is okay with. But they turned a nonstory into a story here by covering it up (perhaps with good intent). I think that is what the parent is talking about.

[ttt0]

Why did people try so hard to censor this story?

[colinmhayes]

Because people are idiots and would be swayed by hannity sound bites even though the story has nothing to do with Joe?

[ttt0]

Damn, that's a wild thing to say in response to a censorship of a true story. I mean seriously, why even bother having democracy and free speech at this point. How does that make you any different from a dictator that's censoring any story that's unfavorable to him, even if it's something petty and of no significance?

[hntroll666]

If that's what you really think, I guess it's an indication of how well the story was suppressed. Does the part where Hunter explained that the long-standing arrangement was for Joe to get half of the loot ring a bell?

[nemothekid]

>Does the part where Hunter explained that the long-standing arrangement was for Joe to get half of the loot ring a bell?

Again, it doesn't matter? Joe ultimately decided remove the corrupt prosecutor that was helping Burisma. He fucked over Burisma, and their "investment" into Hunter.

Burisma may have tried to pull some nepotism by hiring Hunter, Joe ultimately said "no thanks, Jack", and fucked over Hunter. So the story is... Joe Biden doesn't take bribes?

Given how inconsequential, or rather how the whole story paints Joe in a good light, the media suppression probably has to do more with the fact that the contents of Hunter's laptop were so obviously hacked and Giuliani painted an incredibly elaborate story to try and prove how he "legitimately" got these documents.

[ttt0]

> Hunter's laptop were so obviously hacked

It wasn't hacked, that crackhead left his laptop in a repair shop and just forgot about it.

> Joe Biden doesn't take bribes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xXx0yUvSw

[nemothekid]

>It wasn't hacked, that crackhead left his laptop in a repair shop and just forgot about it.

This story is deranged and the fact that you believe it with 0 critical thinking really makes me doubt that you are looking at this whole situation critically. It's strangely suspicious that all the leaked documents clearly point to signs it was an iCloud hack (a la the fappening) instead of a laptop dump.

But fine, lets say it's true.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xXx0yUvSw

Again, what does this have to do with Hunter? The description is wrong, Wikipedia has an explanation of this[1].

Viktor Shokin was not properly investigating Burisma. Biden fired the prosecutor. This fucked over Burisma who was paying Hunter. As a result Joe Biden didn't personally benefit from Burisma.

What did Joe Biden do wrong here? He clearly acted against the "corrupt" wishes of Hunter. Please articulate with words instead of linking YouTube videos.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin#Failure_to_prope...

[esperent]

If true it would further a false narrative that they want to push.