After months of denial and censorship, main stream media is finally admitting that Hunter Biden’s laptop is a real thing. But will it really matter?
On This One Thing We Can Agree
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
5 Comments. Leave new
It will matter when the Republicans force investigations plural after they gain control of the House and Senate. If the Biden corruption is proved, it will be bigger than Watergate. Nixon was paranoid, but no one caught him taking kickbacks — that was Spiro T. Agnew. It will be Donald Trump’s longest political rally yet. Certainly more compelling TV than the Jan 6 going-nowhere seminar.
The dems have very few arrows in their quiver. Patrick Leahy could drop dead any day now, their leadership is a cabal of Clintonian goofs whose remaining in office will simply energize the Republican base and depress democrat turnout.
Yes, it is mighty embarrassing for Hunter at the very least, and he could end up in jail. Is that what you mean by “a real thing”?
The worst I’ve seen on Joe from this story is that Hunter promised someone access to Joe and, at some later time, Joe stopped by the guy’s table for a moment to say “hi” to someone else. Is that the “real thing” you are talking about? If not, if there’s a different “real thing” that implicates Joe, what is it and where would I find an article in main stream media that is “finally admitting” it?
Check out the New York magazine piece called something like “the sordid story of Hunter Biden’s laptop.” All the details are in there. It looks like Joe was receiving major kickbacks.
Thank you for the reference to The Sordid Saga of Hunter Biden’s Laptop, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop-investigation.html. It is very long and almost exclusively about the drug addict, Hunter. (If there is an actual “real thing” with respect to Joe, couldn’t they have a found a faster way to discuss it?) The possibilities for improper behavior by Joe that I see in this article are: Joe may have met with Vadym Pozharskyi and Hunter claimed credit for arranging it; and Hunter rants about having to “pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years” and similarly, and these comments are interpreted as meaning that Joe was intentionally benefiting financially from Hunter’s illegal behavior. Do I have it right that these, especially the latter, are what you are describing as “Joe was receiving major kickbacks”?
Yes, Lee, you have it right. Although it’s certainly possible that Hunter in his drug-addled condition was making things up about having to pay half of his income to his father, it seems probable that he was talking about some thing real considering the fact that he never expected this information to become public.