5 ms·

The premise is it was Hunter Biden’s laptop. There is no evidence of this. It’s completely impossible there could be a disinformation campaign on such a pedest

The premise is it was Hunter Biden’s laptop. There is no evidence of this. It’s completely impossible there could be a disinformation campaign on such a pedestrian political campaign. /s

herewulf 6y ago
What gets me about this is that it's always a "laptop" being discussed. Shouldn't we be discussing a hard drive? Or is the incriminating evidence on the keyboard?!
- Tabular-Iceberg 6y ago
  I’m guessing “hard drive” in common usage still refers to the big box under the desk. In that sense a laptop does not have a hard drive.
  - smolder 6y ago
    It pains me that you could be right about their reasoning for word choice. It's one of those things where the misconception rivals the truth, not too unlike sherbet being pronounced sherbert, using "literally" for emphasis, or saying "I could care less".
threatofrain 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      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 6y ago
        > 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 6y ago
        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.

The premise is it was Hunter Biden’s laptop. There is no evidence of this. It’s completely impossible there could be a disinformation campaign on such a pedestrian political campaign. /s

herewulf 6y ago

What gets me about this is that it's always a "laptop" being discussed. Shouldn't we be discussing a hard drive? Or is the incriminating evidence on the keyboard?!

Tabular-Iceberg 6y ago
I’m guessing “hard drive” in common usage still refers to the big box under the desk. In that sense a laptop does not have a hard drive.
- smolder 6y ago
  It pains me that you could be right about their reasoning for word choice. It's one of those things where the misconception rivals the truth, not too unlike sherbet being pronounced sherbert, using "literally" for emphasis, or saying "I could care less".

threatofrain 6y ago

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 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      > 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 6y ago
      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.