[refurb]

”that letter was still well-founded at the time”

They had zero proof it was Russian disinformation.

They just made that up despite indications the laptop was in fact authentic.

And they did that right before a Presidential election.

That doesn’t concern you? You feel that the letter was “well founded”? Founded on what? A politically convenient guess?

[archontes]

Without knowing what information they had at the time, I will say we now know that there was plenty of disinformation about it being manufactured and spread.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/04/hunter-biden-la...

Perhaps the most concerning thing is that a group of such blatantly unscrupulous people has actual political support in the US.

I feel the need to draw a parallel to Trump's refusal of military aid to Ukraine contingent upon them manufacturing an investigation of Hunter Biden, over which he was impeached.

[pessimizer]

Mother Jones has the hallmarks of a media outlet deeply connected with US intelligence.

[archontes]

I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that you suspect that they are not accurately relating the contents of Guo's whatsapp message?

If I were a betting man, I'd happily bet that they're reporting accurately, and that Bannon and Wengui were, as usual, being unscrupulous. It's not hard to see that claims of serial bullshit-peddlers that contain all the same bullshit as they always contain is bullshit. How much pattern recognition do you need?

Not only that, but the laptop turns out to be verifiable, and it goes to the FBI, which investigates. As normal. I fail to see the outrageous part.

[refurb]

That article is a most impressive whitewash that changes nothing.

The laptop was authentic yet the intelligence community and mass media closed ranks and called it Russian disinformation without any proof. Just a suspicion (as your link claims) that “something was up”.

That is a pitiful excuse for journalism. Sure, call the content “alleged”, publish rebuttals from the Biden team, whatever.

But they didn’t do that. They said “its likely Russian disinformation so not worth discussing at all”. That not journalism that’s actively shaping the story.