With respect, I think you're missing the point. What is the author's main critique? The author is stating that the CIA, the "liberal-wing of the corporate med

With respect, I think you're missing the point. What is the author's main critique? The author is stating that the CIA, the "liberal-wing of the corporate media", and Big Tech companies conspired to suppress and censor information that was politically damaging to their preferred candidate. Even if that information was verified to be correct. According to the article, the authenticity of the laptop's information was verifiable. > "From the start, the evidence of authenticity was overwhelming. The Post published obviously genuine photos of Hunter that were taken from the laptop. Investigations from media outlets found people who had received the emails in real-time and they compared the emails in their possession to the ones in the Post's archive, and they matched word-for-word." The counter point would be that the "intelligence community" declared it a Russian disinformation campaign. But, as the author notes, they did so without evidence. > "in their words — “we do not know if the emails are genuine or not,” and also admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.”" You don't have to take the author's word for it. You can read the statement issued by former intelligence officials which is linked in the source. > "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case." The assertion or "concern" that the laptop is Russian disinformation has never had any evidence to support it. And yet that was sufficient to completely censor the story on facebook and twitter. So with all the said, let's recap your points. > 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered" through the repair shop. There is no evidence for this. > 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic misinformation technique. There is no evidence for this. > 3. If either 1. or 2. was true, was it through the intelligence efforts of Russia or the like. Again, no evidence. So why was it censored?