> As far as I can tell, the current “consensus” is that the Hunter Biden laptop, while real, can’t prove any unethical behavior on the part of the president. C

> As far as I can tell, the current “consensus” is that the Hunter Biden laptop, while real, can’t prove any unethical behavior on the part of the president. Completely immaterial. Polling shows that -- despite the guilt or involvement of President Biden -- many Americans would have changed their votes had they thought the story was real or been exposed to the story. That's dangerous. There is no requirement that one ignore the possibility of crime when voting. Americans can base their vote on whatever criteria they want. Biden doesn't need to be indicted or convicted in order for Americans to decide the evidence is too much to vote for him. So yes, if facebook and twitter's actions led to people not having the information that would have changed their vote and perhaps changed the election results (we can never know), then it is extremely concerning why the information was censored.