Remember the 'Laptop from Hell', the one that Hunter Biden allegedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop and never returned to claim?
The same laptop that contained e-mails describing a proposed business deal with a Chinese energy company and setting aside 10 percent for the “big guy.”
The same laptop that caused Twitter to ban links to the original explosive story from the NY Post, and completely lock the newspaper out of its Twitter account, about 3 weeks prior to the election?
The same laptop story that NPR said, just yesterday was "was discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations" (and since had to issue a correction)?
Yeah, that laptop.
Well, in an interview that's scheduled to air on CBS Sunday Morning, Hunter Biden says . . . that Laptop "could be" his laptop:
Hmph. To be clear, he certainly doesn't out right admit the Laptop is his, but he sure doesn't deny it was his either. And I've never met a person in my life that bought a very expensive laptop and then forgot it disappeared one day.
More than anything, Hunter's admission that the laptop could be his laptop, exposes how unabashedly partisan and disgusting our media has become and how their unholy union with big tech has done untolds amount of damage to the dissemination of information.
Remember when more than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter saying this laptop was Russian disinformation? Then, instead of, you know, investigating the story themselves, the media just relied on this statement from - former, not current - intelligence officials and despite the fact that the acting Director of National Intelligence said it wasn't Russian disinformation?
Yeah, that was bad.
It was bad and it provided Biden's campaign to go on television and say things like this:
AND it allowed Joe Biden to go on national television, during the second presidential debate, two weeks before the election, and say this:
Why didn't they just go ask Hunter if the laptop was his, he would've told them it "cloud be", right? But the Biden campaign didn't, because they didn't have to tell the truth, because they knew the media wasn't going to investigate or call ask them tough questions like . . . "why hasn't Hunter Biden come out and said the contents of those damning e-mails are completely false?" He didn't say those e-mails were fake and probably never will - I wonder why?
If the media DID cover this story the way the should have - the way they are charged to do by the public and their own code of ethics - the public might have seen the Biden family in a different light. One that exposed them for being the swamp creatures they have been for decades, rather than the soft-spoken, grief-riddled, stuttering Catholics that media portrayed.
When people talk to me about the election being "rigged" I don't think that any vote totals were literally changed in order to help Biden win. I do, however, believe that media collusion to bury some stories (Biden) and while amplifying others (Trump) had a real impact and the media's refusal to ask and demand answers to REAL questions had a real impact.
How many votes change if more people heard objective news on this story?
How many votes change if people heard someone ask Joe Biden if would cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline?
How many votes change if people heard Joe Biden's answer on how the filibuster was a "relic of Jim Crow"?
Would it have been enough to change the outcome of the election? We will never know, but it could've and it's a disgrace that this is a legitimate question worth asking.
So, yeah, if you want to talk about intellection interference, look first to our broken media industry and their coordinated effort to bury information from the American public in an effort to try and effect the outcome.
Happy Good Friday. God Bless America.