The New York Times Admits Hunter Laptop was Authentic and Possible Basis for Charges

There are some things that are just painful to watch. For some of us, the Bears offensive line in the last couple of years would force us to look the other way for four quick downs. For others, it is cringeworthy dancing and singing of politicians to appeal to younger voters.  However, there is nothing more painful than watching the media forced to recognize long-buried scandals related to the Biden family.

Last year, National Public Radio admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic and not Russian disinformation. It appears to have taken the New York Times even longer to move along that journalistic path of the Kübler-Ross process of grieving.

The Times has now expressly and unambiguously stated that the laptop was abandoned by Hunter Biden, contains authentic emails, and is part of the basis for the ongoing investigation of Biden by federal authorities.  Even with this admission against interests, the Times is downplaying the possible criminal charges in coverage strikingly different from its coverage of Trump officials charged on the same grounds.

For those of us who have written about the laptop for two years, it has been a constant barrage of criticism of spreading “Russian disinformation” or discussing manufactured emails.

Notably, the Biden family never outright denied that the laptop belonged to Hunter. They just kept repeating that it was Russian disinformation. It did not matter that recipients of the emails confirmed the authenticity of the messages detailing extensive influence peddling schemes by the Biden family. The Biden campaign assembled the usual list of experts to shut off debate by declaring that this was all false. It was a mantra from President Biden to a legion of reporters. As Biden stated

“There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. [F]ive former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage.”

The press ran with that account despite the early determination of American intelligence that it was not Russian disinformation.

Some were more honest, or at least forthright, than others. Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid wrote that  “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 was seized 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.

One of the most active voices spreading that disinformation was White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who repeatedly deflected questions by suggesting that those of us pushing the issue were helping Russian intelligence. She would brush off any questions by stating “I think it’s broadly known and widely known that there was a broad range of Russian disinformation back in 2020.”

Most media have not seriously pressed Psaki on those false claims. Indeed, those 50 experts have not been confronted on the falsity of that much cited letter. We have seen the same treatment with legal analysts who have pushed false accounts. When major claims are later debunked, they are quickly set aside by a sympathetic media.

The New York Times article is masterpiece in the art of burying such admissions. In the middle of the long article is this:

People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

For two years, the New York Times has been largely quiet as the Biden family sought to avoid allegations of raw influence peddling by claiming that this was all Russian disinformation. Now, it appears, the truth can be told. Note that key authenticating facts were known two years ago, it was only the ability to recognize those facts that have changed.

Indeed, some columnists are celebrating a “scandal-free” start to the Biden Administration — an accomplishment only possible with the help of obligating media. Every time new contradictions arose or evidence of windfall payments to Hunter were disclosed, the media eagerly followed President Biden to the nearest ice cream shop to discuss the scoop of the day.

Notably, the Times article strongly suggests that any prosecution of Biden would be controversial and questionable. It questions any tax prosecution because sources say he has paid off those taxes.  It does not delve into the extensive evidence of influence peddling but does address the possible charge of being an unregistered foreign agent.

“…prosecutors face a number of hurdles to bringing criminal charges, the people familiar with the investigation said, including proving that Mr. Biden intentionally violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which requires disclosure to the Justice Department of lobbying or public relations assistance on behalf of foreign clients.”

It was a strikingly different tone and analysis of FARA charges in the coverage of possible charges against Trump figures where such charges were described as “crimes of convenience” and quoted experts who predicted robust enforcement against such figures.

What is also missing in this admission is the most obvious implication. If these emails are authentic, they reveal a series of messages from Hunter on the use of some of his foreign monies to support his father and the intermixing of their funds. The emails also directly contradict President Biden’s past denials. His own Justice Department is now investigating President Biden’s family in allegations that have direct and potentially damaging impact for him personally. Yet, Attorney General Merrick Garland has ignored calls for a special counsel.

Even with the belated recognition that the emails are authentic, the media still avoids such obvious questions and the need for a special counsel. It is good to see the New York Times make it all the way to acceptance on the Kübler-Ross scale and I do not question the sense of deep grief in such a moment. However, now that we agree these are Hunter’s emails, we might want to discuss what they contain and who they implicate.



165 thoughts on “The New York Times Admits Hunter Laptop was Authentic and Possible Basis for Charges”

  1. Why the sudden interest in the Biden family’s well known history of corruption and influence peddling? Many see a strong parallel to former progressive darling Andrew Cuomo, who was quickly deposed once he was no longer useful to the Democrat party. But in Biden’s case, the Democrats are grappling with a serious succession problem. One that is not easily solved in time for the 2022 midterms.

    Disastrous progressive policies have led to foreign policy debacles in Afghanistan and Ukraine, an unchecked immigration crisis at the southern border, runaway inflation and energy prices that can no longer be dismissed as ‘transitory,’ a crisis of violent crime in American cities, wildly unpopular forced vaccination programs, and a backlash against the progressives’ maniacal focus outrageous and divisive identity politics. The Democrats realize that they are in for a shellacking in the midterms. On top of that, Joe Biden’s increasing mental and physical decline can no longer be hidden from the American people. Soon, it may no longer be taboo to say the name Tara Reade.

    But if Biden is deposed, then what? Kamala Harris, chosen as a political prop despite her spectacular flameout in the Democrat’s 2020 primaries, has proven to be a complete disaster as Vice President. Next in line: Nancy Pelosi. Nothing more needs to be said.

    Observers recognize that the Democrats are grappling with a serious crisis within their ranks. The NYT article is a signal that Joe Biden has outlived his usefulness to the Democrat party. The long knives are coming out. But they have nobody to replace him.

    1. I don’t disagree with what you wrote about the apparent lack of depth in the Democrat Party. And you may be right about the NYT motivation for publishing this story a year and a half late.

      However, my guess is the investigators into the Biden family corruption either have enough to indict someone (Hunter?) or they are getting very close. Leaking to the New York Times serves two purposes: it prepares the NYT readers for the potential of a bombshell indictment and it is an attempt to try to prevent either Merrick Garland or Joe Biden from squashing it.

      1. “[M]y guess is the investigators into the Biden family corruption . . .”

        Perhaps. And perhaps this:

        The NYT is acknowledging the truth *now* as a political calculation, to help the D’s in the midterms. Biden’s poll numbers are, quite properly, in the tank. So the Left’s brain trust figures: “We need to distance the party from the president. So, unleash the hounds.”

  2. Tomorrow, Turley *may* post a comment about the following Fox lawsuit against Smartmatic:

    “Fox News sues voting company in counter to defamation claim”

    But before you Trumpists get your hopes up, you had better read this:

    “Judge: Tucker Carlson comments may hurt Fox News in defamation lawsuit”

    I doubt Turley will mention this new Fox lawsuit since there is a news blackout on Fox primetime about these defamation lawsuits (not unlike the MSM ignoring the Hunter scandal). Up to now, even our own intrepid legal analyst has self-censored ALL coverage of these defamation lawsuits (apart from one passing mention months ago). It’s understandable that Turley would not wish to bring to our attention the humiliating fact that the network for which he serves is being sued for bad faith advocacy journalism.

    1. Jeff, pre discovery I would not like to bet on an outcome of the Smartmatic suit against Fox. But with proper odds I will venture a wager. And out of court settlement does not count. As a lawyer you know litigating may be more expensive than an adverse outcome of a civil trial. But if this case goes to verdict, I will take a chance today to bet on Fox. Any amount you want to the charity of your choice. Not more than 4 figures. My wife would kill me if she knew I bet more than that.

      1. Paul,

        Let’s wait to see if this lawsuit goes to trial before we make a bet. I got a feeling that it will settle out of court as most of these suits do. I just wish that Turley had not seen fit to bury his passing mention of these 2 much more significant defamation lawsuits against Fox in a post headlined by the comparatively insignificant lawsuit brought by Project Veritas. Damnit, I just wish Turley could be forced to account for his hypocrisy in denouncing the conduct of others which he himself does as well.

  3. Young,

    Liberals have nothing for which to apologize to you Americanized Nazi Trumpists. We do have to apologize to the world, however, for Trumpism.

  4. Uh oh. It must be that time for the Fake News media to assist the Establishment with the take down of Biden. The orders are in. That train is leaving the station. Here we go.

  5. Where is our apology for:

    1. Russia hoax that destabilized the nation for years
    2. Hilary lying about her illegal servers
    3. the media lying and claiming Trump called racists “very fine people”, by cutting out the part where he said “and I’m not talking about the Neo Nazis who should be condemned totally”
    4. Joe Biden’s Ukraine quid pro quo
    5. lying about the veracity of Hunter Biden’s laptop
    6. the false claim that Trump was antisemitic when the man has Jewish family, Jewish friends, and was the staunches ally of Israel in recent history

    The list goes on and on, but the gist is that Democrats keep accusing conservatives of what they, themselves, have done.

    1. KAREN,

      The ‘Russian Hoax’ was no hoax. Trump was still praising Putin right up to the invasion of Ukraine. Even after the invasion, Trump was ‘jokingly’ admiring Putin’s power to kill opponents.

        1. Paul Manafort, who worked with the 2016 Trump Campaign, passed private polling data to Russian agent Kilimnik, which could be used by Russia in the troll farms that helped depress turnout for Clinton.

          Roger Stone, who worked with the 2016 Trump Campaign, was in touch with Russian agent Guccifer 2 re: the release of DNC data hacked by Russia.

          Trump publicly called for Russia to commit crimes to benefit him in 2016.

          Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump, via the troll farms and via the hack and dump of DNC data.

          The only “dumb” people here are the ones who pretend there was a “Russia hoax.”

      1. Anomaly,

        Karen listed six items of contention. It is really sad that the best response that you can offer is a swing and a miss on the first item.

    2. Unlike Republicans, Commie/Dems don’t apologize–ever.

      When they say “by any means necessary” they mean it.

      1. Young,

        “ Unlike Republicans, Commie/Dems don’t apologize–ever.”

        Really? When have republicans apologized? Can you give us an example?

      1. UpstateFarmer,

        Those ATF violations are rarely enforced thanks to the NRA ironically. Plus the ATF is underfunded thanks to republicans in congress.

  6. I urge everyone to read the actual Time article — I found it more objective and thorough than JT’’s piece.

  7. Should the NYT and other media which denied and buried the Hunter Biden laptop scandal have to declare this as a multi million dollar campaign donation to Joe Biden?

    1. Karen S – I think it is an in-kind donation. They owe a lot of back taxes. 😉

  8. NY Post Editorial:

    Now that Joe Biden’s president, the Times finally admits: Hunter’s laptop is real

    “First, the New York Times decides more than a year later that Hunter Biden’s business woes are worthy of a story. Then, deep in the piece, in passing, it notes that Hunter’s laptop is legitimate.

    “People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, [Devon Archer] and others about [Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma] and other foreign business activity,” the Times writes. “Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.”

    Authenticated!!! You don’t say. You mean, when a newspaper actually does reporting on a topic and doesn’t just try to whitewash coverage for Joe Biden, it discovers it’s actually true?

    … In the heat of the presidential race of 2020, the Times never missed a chance to cast doubt on the laptop, saying the information was “purported” and quoting a letter from former Democratic officials who claimed — with no evidence — that it was Russian disinformation. As recently as September 2021, the Times called the laptop “unsubstantiated” in a news story.

    Why was it unsubstantiated? Because of willful ignorance and the Times’ curious lack of curiosity. Hunter’s business partner Tony Bobulinski came forward immediately after The Post’s reports and confirmed that the emails bearing his name were legitimate. The Bidens didn’t even deny it was true! They just deflected, with the media’s help, saying it was a dirty trick or not a story. Mostly, the press just ignored it.

    Now we’re 16 months away from the 2020 election, Joe Biden’s safely in the White House, and the Times finally decides to report on the news rather than carry the Biden campaign’s water. And they find that hey, Hunter Biden’s business interests benefited from Joe Biden’s political status to a suspicious degree. Perhaps this is a topic worthy of examination.”

    IOW: the 2020 Election was rigged, as we all have said for over a year.

  9. Maybe the press and the media should go back to being held liable for their transgressions just like the rest of us. Maybe losing many multimillion dollar verdicts might refocus their efforts to discover the truth. Somehow I don’t think the Founders intended that a press pass would give you a license to liable and defame a public person just because they are public. Might serve to lower the heat of public discourse if we truly had to stop and think about what we are about to say or write. Also “expert witnesses” have liability.

    1. By not reporting honestly on the Hunter Biden laptop story, The New York Times, other mainstream media outlets, and Big Tech influenced the 2020 presidential election.They denounced and hid the story. Could an honest account of the story changed things? We will never know. But we cannot allow this to happen. If so, we are as bad as Russia.

  10. Turley says:

    “The New York Times article is masterpiece in the art of burying such admissions. In the middle of the long article is this….”

    Here’s another masterpiece of burying an admission. Here is the headline of a Turley post:


    More than *halfway* down his long post, Turley buried this “little” item:

    “Over at Fox, the network is facing lawsuits by the company Smartmatic as well as a $1.6 billion lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems over the coverage of allegations of fraud and election tampering made by Trump lawyers.”

    Turley did not mention that he is a legal analyst employed by Fox. Which no doubt explains why he did not dare analyze the merits of Smartmatic’s allegations contained in its pleadings. Instead, he merely quoted from them at length.

    Look, I don’t fault Turley criticizing the NYT. I just know a hypocrite when I see one.

  11. More slop for the faithful. I agree, Turley: “There are some things that are just painful to watch”–like watching your credibility evaporate by becoming an alt-right pundit by spinning facts and shoveling innuendo while providing little of legal substance backed up by actual facts. The authenticity of the laptop was questioned because it came via now-disgraced and suspended attorney Rudolph Giuliani, and was used in an effort to try to derail Biden with salacious allegations against his son after Biden kicked Trump’s ass in the debates. So much for Joe being “senile” or “demented”–polls proved he is better at thinking on his feet and responding to questions than Trump. Knowing now about Giuliani’s willingness to lie even to federal courts, any sensible person would question his word that some Delaware computer shop owner said Hunter Biden left it there, especially given the timing of the disclosure. But, even if the hard drive belongs to Hunter Biden, where is the proof of any crime having been committed, and where is there any proof that Joe Biden was involved? Where’s the proof that ALL of the emails, especially any showing any alleged criminal activity are genuine? Even Turley has to admit: “If these emails are authentic”. In fact, recent case law says that unless there is a chain of e-mails between two parties, the contents of which at least one party can validate, e-mails can’t be authenticated and therefore admissible as evidence because it can’t be proven that the owner’s computer wasn’t hacked. You don’t provide any proof of any crimes, Turley, and you are supposed to be good at laying out elements of a crime. You also don’t admit you don’t have proof of any actual crime being committed. And, is “influence peddling” a crime? Might depend on how one defines “influence peddling”–right? But, as we know, Turley, that’s not the reason for this piece, now isn’t it? Unless you KNOW with certainty that all e-mails are genuine and that they PROVE that crimes were committed, speculating about them proving the elements of a crime is nothing but raw punditry.

    In sum, today’s piece is just another attack on non-Trump media, on the Biden family and his administration, and you even threw in some pathetic effort to defend Trump. And, as the responses from the faithful show, your assignment today was a success. They now believe that someone has the goods on the Biden family, and that mainstream media lie and cover up for the Biden administration. none of which is the case at all. Your attempted victory lap is seriously premature.

    But, even more importantly, the Times did admit that it had erred in earlier reporting, something your employer and the failed presidential candidate it supports has never, and will never do. Instead of praising the Times for journalistic integrity, Turley attacks it. More punditry and more proof of your lack objectivity, hence the steady evaporation of your credibility. You’re well on your way to being another Giuliani or Tucker Carlson.

        1. We should all meet up somewhere. I want to see if she is a she. I want to see who dares.

            1. I´ll believe it when I see it. I would never hit a girl so she should have no fear showing up.

  12. I am surprised that so many people do not understand that something can be true and still be Russian disinformation. I mean, we have seen so many instances of this phenomenon that it cannot be denied. Just the other day, for example, we learned that anyone who states that the U.S. has numerous bio-weapons labs in Ukraine, which Victoria Nuland admitted is true, is nonetheless spreading Russian disinformation. In fact, many have even said that those who spread this particular misinformation (truth) are essentially committing treason.

    1. You are wrong about the bio-WEAPONS labs in Ukraine. From Vox:

      Debunking fakes in partnership with Facebook

      According to the information spread on the Internet, allegedly the United States has admitted the existence of its biolaboratories in Ukraine. To prove this, users refer to a speech by Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs: “There are biological research laboratories in Ukraine. We are currently concerned that the russian militants may take control of them. We are working with the Ukrainian side to ensure that the materials of biological research do not fall into the hands of russian forces.

      However, Victoria Nuland did not claim that there are American laboratories in Ukraine. Her words were taken out of context.

      This fake and other misinformation related to biolaboratories in Ukraine have already been debunked by independent foreign factcheckers from Myth Detector,, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Dispatch. VoxCheck also talked about this widespread fake as part of the monitoring of russian disinformation.

      Hearings in the Senate

      On March 8, 2022, the US Senate held hearings on the response to russia’s aggression against Ukraine. During them, Senator Marco Rubio asked Victoria Nuland whether Ukraine has biological or chemical weapons. The Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs did not claim that Ukraine had such weapons. Instead, she only said that there are laboratories in Ukraine whose materials could become dangerous in the hands of the russian aggressor. She also did not say that the laboratories belonged to the United States.

      Rubio’s second question was about russian propaganda: he said russia was constantly trying to accuse Ukraine of developing weapons of mass destruction. The senator then asked Nuland if she was 100% sure that any use of biological or chemical weapons in Ukraine would be linked to russian provocations. The Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs replied that only russia could use such weapons.

      Laboratories in Ukraine
      “Secret US Biolaboratories in Ukraine” is a myth of Russian propaganda. There is no evidence that there are American laboratories in Ukraine. However, there is cooperation between Ukrainian and American institutions.

      Since 2005, the United States has been helping to modernize Ukrainian laboratories, conduct research, and improve safety culture to prevent outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases through the Biological Threat Reduction Program. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, these laboratories were involved in monitoring the situation with the new coronavirus. During the entire period of cooperation, the United States has invested about $200 million for the development of 46 laboratories and medical institutions in Ukraine.

      These institutions are not involved in the development of chemical or biological weapons. On the contrary, the United States has initiated a program to prevent the development of such weapons. The fact is that the Soviet Union had its own biological weapons program. After its collapse, dangerous biological materials remained on the territory of Ukraine. The U.S. program aims to ensure that these materials are not stolen or used for non-research purposes. Until 2014, the program also extended to russian laboratories.

      As laboratories study viruses and bacteria, the materials of their work can be used by the russian aggressor for provocations. That is why US officials discussed the danger of laboratories coming under russian control.

      VoxCheck Team

      Ms. Nuland’s comments were taken out of context: what she said is that if the Russians took over, the Russians could convert these bacteria and virological labs into bio-WEAPON labs.

    2. “the U.S. has numerous bio-weapons labs in Ukraine, which Victoria Nuland admitted is true”

      No, she said that there are “There are biological research laboratories in Ukraine.” She did NOT say that those labs produce weapons. They aren’t weapons labs.

  13. Lefties don’t care. They won and have moved on. The ends justify the means and what are you going to do about it?

  14. How long will the state of our “justice” system be abused this way? Are there no longer any heroes that believe in our constitution? Who will stand up if NOT you?

    1. That won’t change a thing. As long as we have 750,000 citizens per Rep we are beholden to the zillionaires and the media and parties they control. The end result is inevitable. If we had one rep per 30,000 citizens then us little people could wrestle back control.

      1. If there were one rep per 30,000 people, there would be over 10,000 Reps in the House. Not sure how you think that’s manageable.

        1. Really? There are more registered lobbyists in DC than that. Throw in all the Congressional staffers and you are over 100,000. Let the committee staffers stay in DC and the rest stay in the respective states to vote and be closer to their constituents. That is not difficult in the least. Stop pretending otherwise.

          1. What do you mean “committee staffers”? Staffers are not Representatives, and all Representatives in the House serve on House Committees.

  15. I have been reading and writing on this blog long enough to remember when our leftist fellow posters declared that RussiaGate was for real. Then The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico Magazine admitted that RussiaGate was a hoax devised by the Clinton campaign. Then our same fellow posters tried to tell us that CRT was not being taught in our schools. Google “Anti Racist Baby. Next they told us that they weren’t teaching ten year olds about sex. Google “Lawn Boy”. They have stuck with the story saying that Hunter’s laptop is just Russian disinformation. Now however just like they did with RussiaGate The New York Times is saying they got it wrong and Hunter’s laptop is his and is not Russian disinformation. It takes no imagination to understand that all this propaganda is equal to election tampering. They new that all their falsehoods would be used against Donald Trump and they knew that they were presenting all these lies to prevent his re-election. How much financial value can be placed on their efforts. Assuming many millions of dollars of in kind campaign contributions would certainly not be out of line. As to our fellow commenters on this blog who furthered these lies there should be no mercy found in the rubbing of their noses in it.

    1. TiT says:

      “The Washington Post and Politico Magazine admitted that RussiaGate was a hoax devised by the Clinton campaign.”

      You are a damnable Trumpist liar!

        1. When TURLEY says it WAS a “hoax,” I’ll believe it. Until then, I’m trusting Turley- an unreliably sourced dossier a hoax does not make.

          1. Cmon Jeff you know that the entire narrative about Trump being controlled by Russia was based on the Steel Dossier. Even now you admit that the Dossier has been discredited. Yahoo gave it to Comey and Comey gave it to Trump. The Dossier was all we heard about for five years and you and your leftist friends bought it hook line and sinker. You’ve bitten into that hook and you can’t let it go. Even the dumbest fish learns to fell the barb and back away. But not JeffSilberman. Jeff will be back tomorrow just waiting for someone else to reel him in and he’s going to like it.

            1. TiT,

              I just posted this comment elsewhere, but I will copy it here so you will definitely see it:

              I don’t deny that the Steele Dossier had unsubstantiated information. We always conceded that it could be Russian disinformation, but given Trump’s inexplicable pro-Putin public statements, his apparent favoritism for Russia understandably raised FBI suspicions.
              The ultimate question in all of this is whether the events leading to the Meuller investigation were made in good faith or, as Trumpists would have you believe, bad faith. So far, there is no evidence that the investigation was made in bad faith but, rather, dutifully (despite the fact that the investigators held Trump in the greatest contempt as was their privilege). And the investigations of the investigators did not establish that they violated their oaths of office in allaying their suspicions notwithstanding their personal distaste for Trump.

              Turley has never suggested that these investigations were made in bad faith however misguided and fruitless they have been. Given the dangling of pardons by Trump and the lies told by Manafort,, Mueller was not able to find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy. So be it. Unfortunately, Turley sums up the Mueller Report as indicating “no collusion” with Russian operatives which is bogus, for there was collusion between Manafort and his Russian partner though not provably criminal.

              1. “but given Trump’s inexplicable pro-Putin public statements…”

                Give me a break. One of the main reasons I(and others) supported Trump is because I could see that our real foe is China. That we should be drawing Russia into our circle. That the WORST thing we could do is follow the idiot neo-cons and push Russia into China´s orbit. That you find that inexplicable speaks to your lack of knowledge and intelligence. And so here we are…well done moron. There can be no reconciliation now. You have thrown our lot in with the neo-cons and neo-libs and our children will suffer the consequences if they should live long enough.

                1. Putin is a ruthless dictator who has assassinated some of his political rivals, imprisoned other rivals, is committing war crimes, is arresting people in Russia simply for speaking out against the war, …

                  Only a fool suggests that the US has a single “real foe.” Both Russia and China are real foes.

                  Shame on you to make excuses for Putin. Disgusting.

                2. Is it possible the USA could have more than one foe? China AND Russia?

                  You are correct. There is no reconciliation with Putin, a putative war criminal.

        2. JeffSilberman, I provide a source from The New York Times admitting that the Dossier was a lie and you call me a liar. Now you try to downplay the Dossier and how it was used by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party during and after the 2016 election. I leave it up to the readers of this blog to decide who is the actual deceiver. Maybe if your mother would have given you a swift slap on the butt when you lied things might have been different. Alas we have the JeffSilberman of today.

        3. The Russia investigation wasn’t “based on the Steele Dossier, liar.

          As AG Horowitz noted,
          the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos “suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous re lease of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama).” The FBI Electronic Communication (EC) opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation stated that, based on the FFG information, “this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia.” We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

          The Special Counsel’s investigation grew out of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The Steele Dossier played a role in some of the Special Counsel’s investigation, but nowhere near its entirety, as should be clear to anyone who reads the Special Counsel’s report or any related reports (Horowitz’s, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report, …).

          1. Anonymous, you left out the part where the Crossfire Hurricane folks said that Carter page was a treasonous foreign spay which allowed a FISA warrant to monitor his activities. He was the the linchpin in the Crossfire investigation. You also left out the part where Clinesmith pleaded guilty because he said that Paige had never worked for the CIA and then it was found out that Paige had been a CIA source. Even in an atmosphere where everybody gets off Clinesmith was found guilty. The Crossfire investigation used a lie to set up a member of the Trump campaign and Trump himself to be spied upon. You hated it when Nixon spied on the Democratic Party but you love it when the Democrats spy on the Republican Party. It’s easy to recognize a partisan hack when you smell one.

            1. No, Carter Page was not “the linchpin in the Crossfire investigation.”

              Manafort passing polling data to Kilimnik did not involve Page. Flynn knowingly making material false statements to the FBI and being an unregistered foreign agent did not involve Page. Roger Stone coordinating with Guccifer 2 did not involve Page. Trump publicly asking Russia to commit crimes on his behalf did not involve Page.

              Yes, Clinesmith pleaded guilty. So did Flynn. Neither of which make Page “the linchpin in the Crossfire investigation.” He was not, you’re simply a liar. You lie about me just like you lie about the investigation. You are sniffing yourself.


    “Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts: (1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations, (2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and (3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors.”

    – NIH NLM

    NIH National Library of Medicine

    doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.03.041. Epub 2008 Apr 28.
    James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: faces the consequences
    Jason Malloy

    PMID: 18440722 DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.03.041


    Recent comments by the eminent biologist James Watson concerning intelligence test data from sub-Saharan Africa resulted in professional sanctions as well as numerous public condemnations from the media and the scientific community. They justified these sanctions to the public through an abuse of trust, by suggesting that intelligence testing is a meaningless and discredited science, that there is no data to support Dr. Watson’s comments, that genetic causes of group differences in intelligence are falsified logically and empirically, and that such differences are already accounted for by known environment factors. None of these arguments are correct, much less beyond legitimate scientific debate. Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts: (1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations, (2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and (3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors. The media and the larger scientific community punished Dr. Watson for violating a social and political taboo, but fashioned their case to the public in terms of scientific ethics. This necessitated lying to the public about numerous scientific issues to make Watson appear negligent in his statements; a gross abuse of valuable and fragile public trust in scientific authority. Lies and a threatening, coercive atmosphere to free inquiry and exchange are damaging to science as an institution and to scientists as individuals, while voicing unfashionable hypotheses is not damaging to science. The ability to openly voice and argue ideas in good faith that are strange and frightening to some is, in fact, integral to science. Those that have participated in undermining this openness and fairness have therefore damaged science, even while claiming to protect it with the same behavior.

  17. Joe Biden – Fifty-two years of abject corruption.

    Certainly, that was the plan of the American Framers and Founders, right?

    Get elected and die there as an integral component of the rational dictatorial – the “swamp” in the Deep Deep State.

    Never endeavor in private enterprise; never create one dollar of wealth.

    Remain in office for 52 years, in virtual perpetuity, enjoying the prosperity of influence peddling and money laundering.

    Of course, the whole thing is one colossal, corrupt debacle created by the likes of Joe Biden.

    1. George, wasn’t one of Bidens campaign slogans in 2020 something like, if I get elected I’m going to clean up this mess. After 52 years helping to create it.

Comments are closed.