Disinformation By Popular Demand: How The Authenticity of Hunter’s Laptop Became Immaterial

Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal involving Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of that claim by the FBI. No mainstream reporter bothered to ask the simple question of whether this was his son’s laptop and emails, including emails clearly engaging in an influence peddling scheme and referring to Joe Biden’s knowledge.  Instead, media has maintained a consistent and narrow focus. Indeed, in her interview, Leslie Stahl immediately dismissed any “scandal” involving Hunter in an interview with the President on 60 Minutes. It was an open example of what I previously noted in a column: “After all, an allegation is a scandal only if it is damaging. No coverage, no damage, no scandal.”

In her interview with Joe Biden, CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell did not push Biden to simply confirm that the emails were fake or whether he did in fact meet with Hunter’s associates (despite his prior denials). Instead O’Donnell asked: “Do you believe the recent leak of material allegedly from Hunter’s computer is part of a Russian disinformation campaign?”

Biden responded with the same answer that has gone unchallenged dozens of times:

“From what I’ve read and know the intelligence community warned the president that Giuliani was being fed disinformation from the Russians. And we also know that Putin is trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden. And so when you put the combination of Russia, Giuliani– the president, together– it’s just what it is. It’s a smear campaign because he has nothing he wants to talk about. What is he running on? What is he running on?”

It did not matter that the answer omitted the key assertion that this was not Hunter’s laptop or emails or that he did not leave the computer with this store.

Recently, Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid  wrote said the quiet part out loud by telling the media:  “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”

Let that sink in for a second. It does not matter if these are real emails and not Russian disinformation. They probably are real but should be treated as disinformation even though American intelligence has repeatedly rebutted that claim.  It does not even matter that the computer has seized the computer as evidence in a criminal fraud investigation or that a Biden confidant is now giving his allegations to the FBI under threat of criminal charges if he lies to investigators.

It simply does not matter. It is disinformation because it is simply inconvenient to treat it as real information.

228 thoughts on “Disinformation By Popular Demand: How The Authenticity of Hunter’s Laptop Became Immaterial”

  1. Daily the liberals on this site try to obviate the obvious obnoxious offensive occurrences of the offal of the Democratic Party.


    For 4 years Trump has referred to every plot by Russia as a ‘hoax’. Therefore mainstream media is now echoing back that ‘hoax’ narrative in a manner most annoying to Trump. Only this time the ‘hoax’ is coming from Russia!

    This illustrates the pitfalls of being a dismissive cynic in the field of big-league politics. Your cynicism may boomer-rang back at a point where you desperately want an open, factual discussion. And I’m not being cynical in noting this.

    Presidents set the standard for national discussion. You can’t be a dismissive cynic for more than 4 years, then DEMAND a thorough examination of your opponent days before your reelection bid. Trump is like the lying, cheating husband who suddenly wants his wife to take their marriage seriously.

  3. Hunter looks like a pedophile if the new emails are to be believed. His step-mom and Sleepy Joe knew and covered up – apparently. If you truly want to destroy the pernicious Left, you vigorously investigate pedophilia using RICO, federal task forces and “no deal” prosecution policies. Then watch the nuts fall from the tree. Most will be radical leftists though a few conservative acorns will be there, too. An old FBI Agent told me this truth in teh 80s. I dismissed it as hyperbole. I don’t dismiss it anymore. It’s why we know Epstein didn’t kill himself.

      1. There is a definite link between left leaning politics of certain homosexual priests and their personal misdeeds. Not that there were not some pervert priests who were right wingers, as there certainly were some of them too. But my next thought is not about politics, it is about a subtlety of these stories which in my thinking, contradicts the wisdom of normalizing homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle”

        One thing i have noticed is that referring to all of them as pedophiles, including those who targeted underaged teenagers, obscures a certain important distinction. A distinction which is important in law at least. There are usually different criminal penalties which adhere to sex crimes against children versus teenagers. The penalties are less for the teenagers, which relates to their greater ability to make rational choices. The children are indeed more vulnerable and deserve stronger protection under law.

        But what else is obscured is that homosexuals, the men at least, have had a culture of ephebophilia, which goes back to ancient times. Think of the story of Zeus and Ganymede. It has since ancient times been an integral part of male homosexual culture to adore the “ephebe” the youth, not the little boy per se, but the pubescent teenager. This comes across in a survey of the disgraced priest crimes–many of the crimes were directed at boys between 12-18 years of age..

        Perhaps understanding this, we have a answer to why “homophobia” existed in the first place, ie, to help protect teenage boys from the predatory advances of old homosexuals.

        By getting rid of “homophobia,” I wonder, have we intellectually disarmed pubescent boys from a useful tool to protect themselves? contempt and disgust are indeed, useful tools in certain situations. An immediate reaction of disgust from a boy against some disgusting old pervert is likely to help keep them at bay. Whereas, an attitude of fearful “tolerance” might send exactly the wrong message in certain situations.

        Now all that being said, I rather dislike the topic as a whole. Far as I am concerned, it should be legal for consenting adult homosexuals to bugger each other at will. I think Obergefell is wrongful judicial legislation but I can live with it. and yet. At the same time I can ‘tolerate” that I am not going to “tolerate” their cultural inclinations of ephebophilia. It’s a disgusting and dangerous aspect of their culture going back a long long time


        1. Ganymede, Greek Ganymēdēs, Latin Ganymedes, or Catamitus, in Greek legend, the son of Tros (or Laomedon), king of Troy. Because of his unusual beauty, he was carried off either by the gods or by Zeus, disguised as an eagle, or, according to a Cretan account, by Minos, to serve as cupbearer. In compensation, Zeus gave Ganymede’s father a stud of immortal horses (or a golden vine).

          The earliest forms of the myth have no erotic content, but by the 5th century BC it was believed that Ganymede’s kidnapper had a homosexual passion for him; Ganymede’s kidnapping was a popular topic on 5th-century Attic vases.

          The English word catamite was derived from the popular Latin form of his name. He was later identified with the constellation Aquarius.

          Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica

          500 years of ignorance, prejudice, hate and murder, which is to say, the so-called “Abrahamic religions.”

          If one were to study formally in University or informally from a scholarly or academic source the opportunity to expunge ignorance, prejudice, hate and murder exists, for the open minded include to learn.
          dennis hanna

          1. Dennis, thanks for the additional info

            The myth of Ganymede has a life of its own, down through the centuries, as my reference to the work of Rubens suggests

            I think the Abrahamic religions have been around a lot longer than 500 years. 5000 perhaps you meant to type

            hate and all that stuff will endure even when religion does not. religion is an attempt to find meaning and create order. that said, I don’t think all religions are equal.
            not equally wrong nor equally meritorious. i know this gets me in trouble both with secularists, and various religious advocates as well

            i am open to further conversations on such subjects

          2. I have little respect for so-called “Abrahamic religions.” But they had little to do with Pol Pot and other Asian murders sprees totaling about 30M innocents. There’s no nirvana where the Abrahamic religions are absent.

    1. I ask myself how some of the richest people in this country if not the world, ensconced in Manhattan, could have known for decades that the director of the NY Metropolitan Opera was a sexual predator of teenage boys and none bothered to take any actions until end of 2017 when the story broke in the big papers finally


      “‘Everybody knew.” That’s what they said about Harvey Weinstein, and that’s what they’re saying now about James Levine—but can it be true? Not in the narrowly legal sense. As of today, nobody “knows” anything about the alleged transgressions of the Metropolitan Opera’s music director emeritus beyond the indisputable fact that, as the New York Times has reported, four men have publicly accused him of abusing them sexually many years ago when they were teenagers. According to the New York Post, which broke the initial story on Saturday, one of them went so far as to file a police report in 2016.

      I received reliable hearsay about this from a Met contractor 20 years before then. I was told not to mention it to anyone because he or she would lose his or her job if anyone knew they had he whispered about it. That was a client and this was fundamentally rumor at the time so I kept my yap shut about it. Nobody would have believed or cared had I said anything anyhow and my client definitely would have been sanctioned. And he or she said two decades beforehand precisely what the Wall Street journal said in 2017: “everyone at the Met knew.”
      I have despised New York City muckety-mucks from that moment ever since.

      Since this is all out in the open I have no hesitation to tell this now, as I am writing under a fake name and the source is unnamed, and if you consider that there were probably at least 500 people working on Met productions at the time, I have no fear that anyone will guess. I wouldn’t confirm it if anyone did.

      I would add that there was a police report made by a victim of Levine’s back in the 70s. No prosecution occurred.


        1. They claim to be. from their wiki:

          The New York Post, established on November 16, 1801, as the New-York Evening Post, describes itself as the nation’s oldest continuously published daily newspaper.

          1. Kurtz, I think, “continuously published daily” is the operative phrase you left out. Anonymous Picayune wanted to make himself relevant.

            1. this is why i am always posting links. and when I dont then i gotta go back and do it to justify myself. see that’s how trolls keep us busy. i should have ignored the reply and saved myself three minutes.

              1. Kurtz, this blog is dealing with some seriously ill posters like Anonymous the Pretender and PaintChips. You can feel their anger and hatred, something we don’t see much of on the conservative libertarian side.

      1. Everybody did not know. The only people who had reason to know anything were Levine himself, anyone he seduced or hit on, and anyone they told. No clue why you’d assume the Met’s donors would know squat. The Met’s trustees more likely, but still below even odds for any one of them. I imagine something must have filtered up to Anthony Bliss, but if you don’t know what the social networks are around the Met, you’re not going to be sure of that either.

        1. I didn’t assume anything. I was told. And if a nobody like me could hear in 1997 then you can be sure the important somebodies had heard it too. And before then most likely, far back as 87,, see below

          As to who knew: surely you realize that the big donors are courted by the companies who have them to backstage parties and give them personal access to the marquee names?

          Gossip is part of the currency in trade.

          As for the trustees, the big donors earn a vote in naming them. This is not all that different from other big nonprofits such as universities. donors know plenty.
          The Met has an executive committee, managing directors, and honorary directors. I don’t know what they knew but you have the opening paragraph of the Wall Street Journal which says everyone knew. I am just a nobody, but the Wall Street journal is a somebody. Don’t worry about what I say, think about what they said.


          Dumont also reached out to classical music blogger Greg Sandow, who told her he had been contacted by three men in past years purporting to have been abused by Levine, one of them being the alleged victim.

          “The rumors of [Levine’s] alleged abuse have been widespread for decades and in my experience they seemed to be widely believed inside the classical music field though I’ve never heard anyone cite anything specific,” Sandow told the police.

          Sandow declined to comment to The Post.

          Levine himself acknowledged existence of these rumors in a 1987 New York Times article about management changes at the Met, but seemed to dismiss them.

          He said 10 years earlier the Met’s general manager “called me about reports of a morals charge in Pittsburgh or Hawaii or Dallas. Both my friends and my enemies checked it out and to this day, I don’t have the faintest idea where those rumors came from or what purpose they served.”

          1. One of Levine’s accusers was 16 a the time he had homosexual contact with him and at the time 16 was the age of consent in Illinois where it happened, related to the Ravinia music festival north of chicago. that was 86 and the rumors apparently first emerged in that time frame, according to the NY Post, though the man did not report it until 2016

            wikipedia details claims from Levine’s teenage boy victims going back to 68


            1. The NYC social scene is filled with rumors where many are true but no one wants to put in jeopardy their social position.

    1. Anonymous, unable to directly attack the President, repeats the same claim over and over again. A woman after 25 years concocted a claim of rape without proof. At the time, did she scream or document the rape? No. What did the salespeople say, and what about the security cameras? It’s an untrue allegation unproven and made against many men to sell a book.

      Democrats promote this type of behavior to advance their political aims while foolish people lap it up and repeat it, hoping it will make them look more intelligent than they are.

      1. Her claim doesn’t ring true.
        In part it reads “in the fall of 1995 or spring 1996”
        This sounds like she’s trying to remember when she bought a pair of shoes or stopped at a bar for drinks.
        I have done work with rape victims and everyone of them remembered the exact date they were attacked even if it was 30 years later.

        1. Dawn, if you really work with rape victims, then you should know that they don’t all remember the date and may forget other details.

          1. Read again. I said I have done work with. I didn’t say I now work with them, but the women you are talking about who don’t remember are usually victims of rape drugs or physical trauma or or something like that. This woman did not claim Trump drugged her or beat her senseless. I applied my experience with women with similar details as hers.
            Her narrative doesn’t ring true.

            1. The court has ordered Trump to be deposed and to give a DNA sample. The court doesn’t care whether it rings true to you.

      2. Allan, stop lying. She didn’t report it to police at the time, but she did tell other people at the time, and the reason that she’s gotten a court order for a DNA sample is to test it against the DNA on the dress she was wearing.

        You claim it’s untrue because you don’t want it to be true. Your imagination about it is totally irrelevant to the legal case. Trump was ordered by the court to give a DNA sample and be deposed, and he’s trying to get out of it by having the case transferred to the DOJ as the defendant.

        1. Anonymous the Pretender, you call another a liar, but perhaps that designation belongs to Carroll. You say: “she did tell other people”. What are their names, and where are their affidavits?

          You say, “You claim it’s untrue because you don’t want it to be true.” No, I claim it untrue because of all the factors mentioned. Having you repeat the accusation makes it sound untrue as well since you are the type of person that these smears look towards when they create them. Nothing you have said offers proof, and everything you have said can be a creation by one interested in selling a book.

          When the book is past its prime, and Trump becomes a private figure, this complaint will disappear unless Trump decides to sue her.

          1. Allan, I called you a liar because you lied when you said “A woman after 25 years concocted a claim of rape without proof,” when you cannot possibly know that it’s concocted or that there is no proof. The DNA on her dress may be proof, and Trump is fighting a court order that he provide a DNA sample to test it against. Carroll telling Carol Martin and Lisa Birnbach contemporaneously is also evidence. They are not required to submit affidavits. Trump can have them deposed, just like Trump has been ordered by the court to be deposed. He’s fighting that in court too.

            What you imagine will occur has no effect on how this proceeds.

            Notice how absolutely nothing you’ve said addresses Judge Kaplan’s ruling. You’re trying to distract from the DOJ’s attempt to take over the case and Judge Kaplan’s ruling against them.

            1. 25 years to make a claim and then make such a claim when selling a book using a high profile target and the ‘me too’ notion. Add to that not being able to remember if it was fall or spring 1995 or 1996. Lacking corroborating evidence makes one completely discount anything she says. She lost her chance to be open and now wants to use baseless claims to sell her book while revealing claims involving other men.

              That might satisfy you and others that lack critical thinking skills, but it shouldn’t stop thinking people from demanding excellent proof before accepting that what she says could be true. Until then, it is libelous and slanderous.

              1. If Carroll is lying, Trump should welcome the chance to say so under oath in his court-ordered deposition, and he should welcome the chance for his lawyers to depose Carroll, Martin, and Birnbach.

                Instead, Trump is fighting his court-ordered deposition and fighting the court order to produce a DNA sample.

                1. Too destructive to the Presidency.

                  It’s hard to believe that there are some people that cannot understand why he cannot and should not. That is what separates thinking people from those unable to think.

                  1. Do you also think that Clinton v. Jones was too destructive to the Presidency?

                    The SC ruled unanimously that “Deferral of this litigation until petitioner’s Presidency ends is not constitutionally required”.

                    1. You are very shallow in your discussion and in your conclusions. The SC had more to say than you seem to recognize. There is nothing for the SC to decide at this time.

                      It is my opinion that the plaintiff has to show more to take this charge seriously and if it seems like the claim is not serious, frivolous or political then yes this type of claim can be destructive to the Presidency. We are a long way off from anything going to the SC.

        2. If DNA on a dress PROVES rape there is another case involving a President that needs to be revisited in the press ASAP.

          1. Dawn, DNA doesn’t prove rape, but it it’s Trump’s semen, it would prove that Trump was lying when he said “I’ve never met this person in my life”, which is relevant to her defamation case.

            You don’t sound like someone who has worked with rape survivors.

            1. You’re wrong. Intresting though you have already made a judgment on that from a few words that don’t meet your notion of what a person who has worked with rape survivors should sound like.

              1. I expect people who’ve worked with rape survivors to take allegations seriously and not make flip dismissals.

                1. I do take allegations seriously.
                  And I also take seriously the damage they can do to a man’s life when they are used as a weapon for payback, extortion or any number of other reasons.
                  You seem to think an allegation should be accepted at face value and never scrutinized or verified. Just go straight to the guilty verdict and punishment.
                  You might change your mind if you ever get accused of a rape you didn’t commit.

                  1. No, Dawn, I don’t think that rape allegations should be accepted at face value. I do think that if a court orders a man to provide a DNA sample and appear for a deposition, then they should occur. That’s far from a guilty verdict and far from punishment. If you think that a court-ordered DNA sample and deposition should be ruled out, why? But if you agree that they’re appropriate, then we’re on the same page.

                    1. Dawn, you are reasonably correct and Anonymous as usual is talking soundbites. Why should anyone appear for a DNA sample without adequate proof and a claim that seems to be motivated politically and to sell a book? I haven’t seem evidence to first prove the dress is real and that there is DNA on the dress or if that DNA would be meaningful. She is selling a book during the election season so she wants publicity whether anything she says is true or not.

                    2. Allan, this might come as a surprise to you, but the judge doesn’t care what evidence you’re aware of and whether you’re convinced that the judge’s court order is justified..

                    3. You get very confused so tell us which court order you are talking about.

                      You don’t think it is important to know if the dress is real? OK. You are screwed up to begin with so you can remain so.

    2. Carroll made an outlandish claim cribbed from a Law & Order episode which aired in 2012. Partisan Democrats will swallow anything.

        1. I’ll take a bite at that. It’s a ruling that if upheld, runs the danger of allowing the critical office of the Presidency to be derailed by private lawsuits.

          The interests of the government and people of the United States must be shielded from frivolous private lawsuits like this
          let this one go forward and then in the next term whichever POTUS could face 10, or a 100 such

          this is a danger even if the merits of the defamation case against Trump were strong. And they are NOT strong. More so then to dismiss

          there are times when private wrongs from the distant past, even if believed, are too small as weighed against the interest of the nation as a whole. this is such a time

          1. In Clinton v. Jones, the SC already ruled that a sitting president has no immunity from civil litigation in federal court for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. That’s the basis for the Zervos v. Trump suit that’s slowly proceeding.

            The lower courts have also ruled that a sitting president has no immunity from civil litigation in federal court for acts done while in office and unrelated to the office. You think that a president should be able to defame private citizens while in office without any consequences. So far, the courts don’t agree with you.

    3. oh the clever lawfare contrived by the President’s adversaries, and the feckless, willing cooperation of the vaunted Article III blackrobes. What a pathetic spectacle that one is.

  4. Meanwhile, Turley is silent about the deeply inappropriate fact that Trump is using two Supreme Court justices in his campaign commercial. No current SC Justice should appear in a campaign commercial.

    Turley is also silent about yesterday’s SC ruling on WI ballot counting and the errors in Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. For example, Kavanaugh ruled AGAINST the six-day extension for Wisconsin to accept ballots postmarked by Election Day and cited an article by NYU law professor Rick Pildes, but Pildes said states SHOULD extend postmark deadlines. Kavanaugh cited a concurrence in Bush v. Gore, even though that ruling stated that it should not be used as precedent and even though the concurrence was not a majority opinion.

    1. Anonymous, take note of how you ran away from the discussion at hand and then concluded the experts were wrong about a different issue. You didn’t include reasonable proof even though you are known to be not credible.

  5. Turley deliberately avoids mentioning that no one has been able to verify the NY Post story including Fox News. Last week, Turley linked a Fox News report which he claimed substantiated his narrative that the FBI confirmed the laptop & emails were authentic. It didn’t. The report said “It is unclear, at this point, whether the FBI investigation is ongoing or if it was directly related to Hunter Biden.” It describes the laptop & harddrive as “purportedly belonging to Hunter BIden.” In other words, nothing has been confirmed. Turley’s impatience is clearly getting the best of him. His non-stop speculation about Hunter Biden in the closing days of the 2020 campaign is the real story here.

    1. “. . . no one has been able to verify the NY Post story . . .”

      I think what you mean is that no one in the mainstream media wants to verify the NY Post story.

    2. Racey:

      It’s been verified in the WSJ’s Kim Strassel to name just one using a retired Naval officer WHO WAS ON THE EMAIL CHAIN. Too bad no such strenuous journalistic requirement was put on the Steele Dossier canard.

  6. Ha. Let me know at what point Hunter is running for president, Turley. And even if he were, how does this differ than the Hillary email sham? Time to get relevant and start addressing children of presidents who are truly corrupt and will most likely be facing tax and insurance fraud charges after a certain ‘administration’ begins to count toward the formal end of its reign of idiocy and incompetence….

    By the way, your willful ignorance toward examining the legal implications of the current administration’s lack of a synchronized plan for dealing with covid is staggering. In fact, it puts you in accomplice territory for the hundred or so thousand needless deaths that have taken place on this administration’s watch.

    1. The part of Joe Biden knowing about what Hunter was doing and getting a cut of the money isn’t material to Joe Biden running for President?

      1. Unproven…

        And even if it were proven, the Trump family has demonstradedly proved that profiteering from the office is basically a non starter in the realm of this discussion. I don’t personally like that this has become precedent…, but it clearly has.

        1. You say it’s unproven but there are corroborating witnesses. Their sworn testimony could be sufficient proof in a court of law if Hunter and or Joe were charged with violating the “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” which is cognizable claim under these allegations

          Moreover that is sufficient “proof” to easily meet the weak standards of NYT or Wapoo who often are quoting unnamed sources. here we have a named source who was a partner in the scheme. The neglect of this story by the lying fake news is a historic low. This is Turley’s point about this farce which continues to go unrecognized by Joe’s cheerleaders and the mainstream fake news.

          1. Kurtz, the same media ignored the Steele Dossier in 2016.

            “The founders of Fusion GPS have described how they did not hide the fact that they were researching Trump and Russia: “Fusion and Steele tried to alert U.S. law enforcement and the news media to the material they’d uncovered …” and their office became “something of a public reading room” for journalists seeking information. In September they arranged a private meeting between Steele and reporters from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, ABC News, and other outlets. The results were disappointing, as none published any stories before the election.[56]

            Jane Mayer has described how, in “late summer, Fusion set up a series of meetings, at the Tabard Inn, in Washington, between Steele and a handful of national-security reporters. … Despite Steele’s generally cool manner, he seemed distraught about the Russians’ role in the election.” Mayer attended one of the meetings. None of these news organizations ran any stories about the allegations at that time.[21]…”


            We know you’re spoiled by having BS stories run up the flag against Trump’s opponent just before the election so he can be handed another EC victory but it’s not happening this time.

            1. hmm, i sure caught wind of it fast. well, that’s 3-4 years ago, how about attention to a matter relevant today

              and we’re gonna see about who wins, real soon. you can stay home and relax. Trump voters will be marching to the polls on election day. VICTORY AWAITS!

    2. That is a pretty dumb statement, flat out! Hunter Biden’s whole body of work revolves around taking advantage of his last name. Joe Biden flat out lied when he claimed he never talks to Hunter about his overseas business. He, in fact, knows all about Hunter’s influence peddling and these e-mails show how it works, Old corrupt Joe gets his cut but Hunter holds it for him so his fingerprints are on it. The idea “Hunter is not running for President, ” is the dumbest statement ever because Joe and Hunter are a package deal, elect Joe and corrupt Hunter comes with the package. So next time find a relevant point, not something you just heard over at MSNBC.

    3. And, yet, the corruption-laden laptop and emails continue to remain real. As does the media’s complicity in squelching that corruption.

  7. If the local news channels would air Bidens gaffs his ratings would drop like a lead balloon. He’s unfit for public office.

  8. Tony Bobulinski will be on Tucker Carlson tonight. What a concept, he will be given an opportunity to actually make his case.

  9. I’m starting to wonder if you speak Russian but seriously is this really more pressing that Trump’s cosy relationship with Putin and the rest of the world’s great dictators or his support for anti government “militias” or his down playing of Covid 19 or the Republican’s enabling of his dictatorial behavior. But if we want to talk about Scandals how about the number of Trump administration “children” and other relatives who are employed in seriously important and lucrative positions starting with Ivanka and Jared! Oh, I know they are Republicans and anything thing they do is just fine.

      1. They are not fake. This is precisely the lie that the fake news advances with the false claim of disinformation.

    1. You seem to misunderstand how foreign policy works. There are evil leaders in the world. This is not the Paleolithic Age where people lived, for the most part, in groups geographically isolated from each other and had no need to engage outside their immediate community. Interacting with leaders one would just as soon avoid in the interests of national security is documented throughout human history. You may certainly disagree with a course of action a given President, that doesn’t make it either “wrong” or illegal.
      As for downplaying COVID-19, it honestly didn’t matter what the President said, since governors had executive authority in the shaping of their respective states’ responses. At the time of this writing, there is still NO ‘settled science’ regarding the virus, although there are certainly authoritative hypotheses.
      Define dictatorial behavior, and relate it to a true abuse of the President’s Constitutional authority or powers.
      As for Ivanka and Jared, they are not paid government employees, and they are the President’s children. If he wants to consult them, fine. It’s up to him to decide whether their advice is worth following. It has nothing to do with them being Republicans. You might just as well make the argument that consulting the First Lady is outside the pale. As for their outside income, if it wasn’t illegally obtained, it’s nobody’s business but theirs.

      1. Of course it matters what the President says and does. He isn’t the only one with power, but he also isn’t powerless, and there are some powers that only the President has.

        Ivanka and Jared are official WH employees. They’ve also benefited financially from Trump being President, via patents, loans, and so forth.

      2. Tell us, Mistressadams, did the governors of the various states know what Trump knew back in January/February, as proven by the Woodward tapes? Did they know it was 5Xs deadlier than the flu, that it was highly contagious, and that it is spread via respiratory droplets? No, they not only didn’t know this, Trump lied about it, downplayed the risk, made false predictions, all of which prevented them from knowing it and taking steps to save lives, so trying to shift blame away from that fat slob you admire so much won’t work. Had they known the truth, it is unlikely we’d have the deaths and positive case rates that are setting world records.

        Trump has “handled” COVID like he has handled everything else in his pathetic life: ignore the negative, lie about things being positive, pretend to be a self-made billionaire, despite being supported by his father well into his forties, and taking 6 business bankruptcies, lie about Hydroxychloroquine, lie about the proximity of a vaccine, while bullying scientists to take short cuts that ignore scientific protocols for safety and efficacy, and now, lie about “turning the corner”, despite the fact that positive cases are setting new daily records. When the real scientists don’t back up your lies, go on the attack–call them the “Deep State”, sideline them, like Drs. Fauci and Birx, and get an unqualified doctor with no public health, epidemiological or infectious disease qualifications to go along with the phony message you want to send, based on politics, not science. Oh, and he tries to take credit for the British doctor who came up with the idea of using Dexamethasone for severe lung inflammation, which has cut the death rate. It’s a good thing the Brits don’t hate us—yet–but 4 more years of Trump could definitely change that. Not only does Trump have no reason to take credit for the lower death rate, the doctor who came up with this isn’t even an American–he is British.

        Being a Fox News disciple, you wouldn’t know what real scientists actually say. Maybe you should tune in and hear what Dr. Vin Gupta, a pulmonologist with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation of the University Washington has to say. Or, maybe, you’d like to read the editorial written in the New England Journal of Medicine, which endorsed Joe Biden–this publication has never before endorsed any politician. They have plenty of criticism for your fat hero and his abdication of responsibility in handling the pandemic. There is “settled science” about the only way to avoid getting sick and dying from COVID, which is all we have now, since there is no vaccine and no proven treatment–mask-wearing, social distancing, avoiding large crowds, especially indoors, frequent hand-washing and quarantining positive cases and their contacts. Trump and now Pence, who has 5 staffers testing positive, refuse to follow, lead by example, or even approve of these guidelines. That’s the only way to avoid getting sick and possibly dying–prevention. There are no proven therapeutics nor is there a vaccine, and there may not be one until sometime next year. When Trump and his minions say otherwise, they are lying. And, here’s some other science for you: the long-term effects of COVID are not known, but some victims have heart damage, including people in their 20s and 30s without a prior history of heart disease.

        And, you look foolish when your refer to a former stripper and soft-core lesbian porn star as a “First Lady”. She’s no lady.

        You want “dictatorial behavior” to be defined? OK, how about firing government officials who won’t go along with your lies or kiss your oversized ass, like–Jeff Sessions, Sally Yates, Mattis, Brennan, Coates, Lt. Col Vindman…the list is too long. How about tear-gassing peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square for a photo-op? How about bullying the FDA for “emergency approval” of Hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma, both of which turned out to be duds? How about refusing to respond to valid subpoenas for documents and witnesses, and then claiming you were “exonerated” when you concealed evidence, daring Congress to start a Constitutional battle? How about trying to leverage aid approved by Congress for political purposes? The list is too long.

        1. long lists of duds and misfires against Trump all of which serve to illustrate how Democrat leadership and their cheerleaders all fail to address the proof of the allegations against Hunter and Joe of Foreign Corrupt Practices.

          ignore, distract, deny

          you will notice that a substantive denial here of the authenticity is still lacking from the Biden campaign. their “denials’ such as were late in coming, were actually not denails, rather carefully worded distractions lacking any refutation of the core facts

        2. “This is not a major threat to the people of the United States…”

          – Dr. Anthony Fauci, January 21, 2020

          1. Sorry–that dog won’t hunt. He didn’t know then what we know now, and has refuted this. There was concern about a shortage of PPE then, too, which would have left hospitals and first responders without PPE. Fauci has made clear that he was wrong, but that doesn’t excuse Trump. Your fat slob hero never claimed to have relied on anything Dr. Fauci said when he decided to lie to the American people, as he admitted to Bob Woodward. You’ve been listening to Kellyanne too much. Trump is still lying. TRUMP LIES–AMERICANS DIE.

        3. Natacha: “Trump has ‘handled’ COVID . . .”

          And if your kleptocrat were president, we’d all be safer in leper colonies.

          “. . . 5Xs deadlier than the flu . . .”

          For which age groups and pre-existing conditions?

    2. Justice Holmes is clearly suffering from an overdose of Rachel Maddow. But if the shoe was on the other foot,, he’d be screaming for a special prosecutor.

  10. Turley is lying again. The FBI has not issued a “direct refutation” of Biden’s claim that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation. As with the FBI investigation into Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election, they are following long standing policy to not comment on investigations and especially ones during an election – that is unless you’re Hillary Clinton.

    Since that was in Jonathan’s 1st sentence, there is no point reading the rest of his BS.

    1. It’s always interesting how the troll farms don’t start to appear until after the legitimate posters have populated the thread a bit. It’s almost as if they need the time to craft their contrived nonsense and then seek to push the legitimate comments out of view. They really aren’t fooling anyone.

    2. He is not lying, actually you are the liar Joe. Or you are too dense to get it. Because you won’t read what you dont like. Ostrich.

      1. Kurtz, you’re wrong and depending on whether you know the facts or not, possibly lying too.. I read the FBI letter.

  11. Excellent summation.

    If Biden wins as the benefactor of years of left wing propaganda disguised as news, how can the election be considered legitimate?

  12. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said: “We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have communism.”

  13. Another example of the fundamental dishonesty of the MSM – and also most Dems, who do not want to be embarrassed by facts.

  14. I am not surprised. Is anyone in the Main Stream Media bubble going to call out the WaPo??? These people live in their own little insular world and I still wonder why any sane white person would vote for this, and vote for Democrats.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Leave a Reply