Jump to content

Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Smoking gun?

I'll let others comment first.

The New York Times reported in March 2022 that since 2018 Hunter Biden and possibly others had been under investigation by federal prosecutors in Delaware, with a grand jury convened to subpoena and hear evidence. The investigation examined payments and gifts Biden or his associates had received from foreign interests and whether Biden had violated the law by not registering as a lobbyist under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The Times reported it had acquired emails that were authenticated by people familiar with them and the investigation that appeared to come from a laptop belonging to Biden. One April 2014 email, written by Biden to his business partner as their work with Burisma was about to begin, noted that his father, then the vice president who would soon visit Kyiv, should "be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands." The email also stated that Burisma officials "need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot intervene directly with domestic policymakers, and that we need to abide by FARA and any other U.S. laws in the strictest sense across the board." Biden wrote that his father's visit "could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation. We need to temper expectations regarding that visit." He also wrote that his employer, the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, could help Burisma through "direct discussions at state, energy and NSC." Other emails showed Biden and his business partner discussing inviting foreign business associates, including a Burisma executive, to attend an April 2015 dinner in Washington, where the vice president would stop by.

Katie Benner; Kenneth P. Vogel; Michael S. Schmidt (March 16, 2022). "Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues". The New York Times. soibangla (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Is "smoking gun" your WP:OR? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this more Russian disinformation? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
One might wonder why Burisma officials "need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot intervene directly with domestic policymakers, and that we need to abide by FARA and any other U.S. laws in the strictest sense across the board" and "what he will say and do is out of our hands" weren't email excerpts prominently mentioned earlier. soibangla (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
All that I meant in my edit is that we shouldn't use terms like "smoking gun" unless sources do. This information should be integrated, yes. We can await the results of the investigation to know more. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


I dislike the use of the term 'smoking gun' but we clearly need a sentence or more including new info from the New York Times that came out yesterday. I tried adding a line about it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1077668273 But this was reverted because I apparently need to "establish relevance." Obviously the fact that Hunter is under investigation for FARA violations, and that this investigation includes his work for Burisma, is patently and obviously relevant to the article, so much so that I have hard time seeing how someone could think otherwise. I'm happy to hear any opposing views. TocMan (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How is it relevant to the first sentence of the lead? soibangla (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The fact that you're still titling the page "conspiracy theory" shows unbelievable bias.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's allegations that led to a federal investigation based entirely on evidence found in the laptop that the NYT now says is verified. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
My understanding of the right-wing/MAGA "understanding" of what happened is that (1) Hunter did Bad Things with Burisma and (2) Joe was involved too. Based on the investigation into Hunter potentially violating FARA and not paying his taxes, (1) might actually be correct in some form. Nothing regarding (2) is proven or even necessarily under any investigation. If Hunter did introduce Joe to a Burisma partner, it certainly wouldn't make Walter Shaub happy, but having a meeting isn't enough to prove crime, otherwise all those Trump people who were deemed "too stupid" to collude with Russia would be in jail right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Lol the entire first paragraph of this entry is now basically a lie.
Oh, and Russiagate was a hoax that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, and the people who pushed it were CONVICTED for it. Keep pushing baseless conspiracy to "own the cons". That's so very mature and intelligent and not at all every bit as juvenile and pathetic as you claim MAGA people are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24rhhtr7 (talk • contribs) 10:03, March 17, 2022 (UTC)
Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)#Indictments shows all the people indicted and convicted for the Trump-Russia nonsense. What Clinton people were convicted of doing anything? Stick to facts, they help. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
A Clinton campaign lawyer. Is that close enough for you? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
My mistake. He's only been indicted to date. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I love how it never occurs to somebody like you that some of us are sane centrists who are sick and tired of the worst of the left and right acting like middle schoolers and dragging the rest of us into it. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is "dragging" you to this talk page. You can edit other articles on Wikipedia that don't concern the things in American politics you don't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This sorry excuse for a Wikipedia page and the nonstop propaganda and nonsense from people on the left and their blind followers is what dragged me to this talk page.

I'm not talking about Wikipedia. I'm talking about five years of nothing but the nonsense of people like you EVERYWHERE in media and in society in general all to "defeat Trumpism". 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Five years? This conspiracy theory was hatched two years ago. Stick to talking about this page. I do think it was wrong for Trump to withhold aid to Ukraine until they set up a sham investigation of his political opponent. He was impeached for it. One would think that current events would demonstrate the significant impact of that behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I do think it was wrong for Trump to withhold aid to Ukraine until they set up a sham investigation of his political opponent. This didn't happen. Trump initially blocked but later released the $400 million in aid which was not predicated on the opening of any investigation. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
"Initially blocked" = withheld. Withheld aid approved by Congress, no less. He did release it, but withholding it for even a minute was illegal. And yes, the aid was predicated on the investigation. As soon as Zelenskyy asked for more javelin anti-tank missiles, Trump responded I would like you to do us a favor, though.[1] That "favor" was investigate the Bidens. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you have literally any proof this even happened? Any whatsoever? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Lol it's been the same nonsense for five years. I'm sure you're active on the Steele Dossier and other "orange man bad" pages as well.
And yes by all means show how little you know about the situation in Ukraine and who interfered way before Trump was even anywhere near the White House. Your other baseless conspiracy theories haven't been embarrassingly false or anything. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure you're active on the Steele Dossier and other "orange man bad" pages as well. For what it's worth, when I began to read through this talk page I remembered the names of at least 1 of the editors here from several years ago on the "Russiagate" article - one of the only other talk pages I've read, as the factual basis for the writing in that article was borderline absurd and clearly biased. The pattern of behavior was similarly contemptible then as it is now - it would seem that a very small number of politically motivated editors systematically bias an article to the point of absurdity and then us hollow, smarmy attempts at justifying it by quoting Wikipedia chapter and verse as though it's not completely obvious that the article has no factual basis in light of new evidence. Hunter Biden's laptop was not tampered with Russia or any foreign power - there is literally no factual basis for that claim at all. And yet a huge number of comments above mine from a handful of commenters who should know beter are repeating this speculation over and over again. These are supposedly seasoned veterans of Wikipedia with years of history and thousands of edits who are deliberately derailing this discussion: 100% of the relevant reporting on this subject indicates that both this laptop and its contents are genuine. Any speculation regarding the laptop being tampered with are completely irrelevant to this article unless and until reliable evidence is produced to support the claim. The quotes above from the NYT, CNN, the Guardian, etc. are US Law Enforcement sources confirming that the laptop and its contents including the hard drive and its contents belong to Hunter Biden. That is the essence of what is being reported, and for this article not to recognize that fact is a violation of NPOV 2600:4040:129D:5600:9C92:4A16:8B1C:D630 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The articles provide some relevant confirmation of vague information from a source that was obtained and mishandled by a number of people who actively sought, and continue to invite, any type of help from Russia. The fact that Russia has been involved in disinformation campaigns, cyberspying, hacking is a well-known fact. Given those facts, the veracity of any claims or pieces of information has to be questioned. Furthermore, wikipedia is intended as a place to record information, not a potential catalyst for further disinformation. A number of valid questions have been raised and the editors are coming to a consensus, albeit through a somewhat confrontational process at times. In the end, it doesn't serve anyone well to cast aspersions or labels on people who are either waiting to verify certain information before it is published or attempt to maintain this platform as a neutral forum for information. No need for cynicism. ILMostro (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I worked on Trump-Russia articles and this one. You certainly are entitled to edit as an IP, but if you posted with a registered handle and provided some diffs to illustrate what you mean, I'd be happy to address them. Feel free to bring it to my Talk page. But I'm not inclined to have a discussion about this with one unaccountable drive-by phantom after another making vague, unsubstantiated allegations about a cabal of partisans. soibangla (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Break

I'm reopening this discussion which was prematurely closed. The current article regarding the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory mixes a few different theories and narratives. One I have been trying to dispel for years is the narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop stuff was Russian disinformation. There was never any evidence for this, but that did not stop Democrats and the Social Media networks from blacklisting any mention of it days before an election, which I think is a major scandal. That narrative needs to be immediately dispelled and corrected in the article. The emails are legit, even if they are not supporting the "conspiracy theory" narrative that Biden did anything wrong. I hope we can all at least agree on that. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What was more scandalous? Twitter suppressing links to a dubious and unconfirmed story a week before an election, or the Director of the FBI opening a dubious investigation a week before an election? I don't know what the "major scandal" is there; suppressing that story didn't violate the First Amendment, since that relates to government actions, not what private companies do. Based on what I've read, it seems the emails are indeed legit, but we did not know that in October or November 2020. Given who was pushing that laptop, skepticism was valid. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't dubious, and funny how you don't see the Russian collusion disinformation in the same light.
And explain how the investigation into Hunter was dubious or even the one into Hilary for that matter. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There was nothing dubious or unconfirmed about the story, which was original reporting by the NY Post. The scandal was the narrative invented by Natasha Bertrand's now infamous but evidence free story based on former officials opinions. This narrative was taken by the tech companies on whose platform much modern communication occurs, and with open encouragement by Democrats and other media outlets, suppressed and blocked. We had no reason not to believe the story in October 2020 and November 2020, and nothing has changed in the meanwhile except finally the NYT acknowledging the situation (and why are they only reporting on it now?). If everyone's minds weren't already made up a long time ago this would be a major blow to journalistic integrity. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
We have tons of reason not to believe the NY Post story. The whole story, including the chain of custody of this laptop is absurd. (That NBC News article is from October 2020 btw, so the claims that this story was "suppressed" by the media are also absurd.) And I don't blame those 50 intelligence officers who, after witnessing Russian disinformation in the 2016 campaign, feared that this was Russian disinformation in the 2020 campaign. The pendulum swings. This is why we need to wait for the investigation to progress, to see if Hunter is charged with anything or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu even the NY Times admits today the laptop contents are real as purported.
Working outwards from the laptop contents have proven to be real as now all media outlets that walk in lockstep with NYT now claim. The conspiracy claim is that hunter biden did sell influence in exchange for employment and deals that are public and are in an entire series of books.
In provenance, the laptop was left abandoned or was hacked or was stolen is external to the laptop contents. By the standard no recipient of the emails could point out, non existing, editing or omission. For email that is the journalistic standard of the day for reporting. By the NY Times standards of the trump campaign 2016 and steele dossier reporting by the NY Times reporting of the laptop contents was self confirming.
That media bias was in play, repressing supporting evidence available to all serious reporters for 2 years. The laptop should have begun a look at the hunter biden business dealing but for so many the disinformation claim stopped all work. That twitter repressed the reporting is a very valuable nugget in what Big Tech was during the 2020 elections.
This article now breaks to some sub article on the 2020 campaign. Very much like Steel Dossier, the media bias in reporting, or lack of confirmation evidence in dismissal is the true subject of the article that the editors should rightly be credited with covering in fine detail.
Ill give it a few days and
Re Title Suggestion -
"Reaction to Hunter Biden Laptop and the Biden family - Ukraine fact pattern, As dismissed by the Mainstream US and foreign media."
For support Simply read.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-nyt-now-admits-the-biden-laptop?s=w
Hunter biden and Joe Biden other connections to eastern europe are biographic in nature and highly referenced in Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and Ukraine Corruption. Those articles will be expanded with investigation that now might also get coverage. This article is a testament to how much in the main stream direction without supporting facts wiki editing can go. Loopbackdude (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say the laptop contents aren't real. I was talking about the story as we knew it in 2020, when all we knew was people who pushed misinformation and disinformation were pushing an unverified laptop story days before the election. And I will not read Glenn Greenwald's Substack. He left The Intercept because he couldn't tolerate editors editing his pieces to make them factually accurate. Greenwald is a sadly biased pundit whose opinions are useless. The "true subject" of this article is not some media conspiracy, it's the Trump campaign conspiracy to manufacture a Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens by threatening to withhold the weapons they need to hold off Russia. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Trump Administration oversaw spending funding per law and had prerequisite questions to be answered, it is called program administration and accountability. This is the same reason why the a good portion of the federal budget goes unspent every year, members of the the Executive have oversight responsibilities. You might to check your facts. Loopbackdude (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
More editorializing and biased, denigrating nonsense. So shocking.
The Intercept has published more ENTIRELY UNTRUE stories than Glenn Greenwald ever could. They are a propaganda rag at this point, and that is why he quit. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Evidently your mind was made up long ago, which tends to explain why none of my explanations of why many of your points are flawed seem to get through, but my persistent position has been and remains that there are simply many unknowns that many are trying to fill with speculation, or at least weak sourcing. That won't work in this encyclopedia, a refuge from the garbage swirling all around us. You ask why the NYT didn't report this earlier; I ask why Rudy didn't go on TV in October 2020 and wave around any of the seemingly exculpatory emails the NYT reported on yesterday. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
It's actually your points that are flawed and based on now completely discredited articles but sure. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: would you consider a partial self-rv? I'm thinking we could restore

In March 2022, The New York Times verified a number of emails and other files in a cache that appeared to have come from the laptop.[1]

References

  1. ^ Benner, Katie; Vogel, Kenneth P.; Schmidt, Michael S. (2022-03-16). "Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-17.

To me it seems pretty uncontroversial, relevant, and due for a short mention in the body. I don't think anyone could restore it but you for the next day or so, because of the CR restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That sentence alone seems too open ended, but I would restore In March 2022, The New York Times verified a number of emails and other files in a cache that appeared to have come from the laptop, though the Pozharskyi email was not among them. soibangla (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
We should also have something about the fact that Hunter is under investigation for FARA violations, including in relation to Burisma. Given that the whole point of this article is about allegations relating to Hunter Biden and Burisma. That is just a fact. He's innocent until proven guilty but that doesn't mean that the existence of an investigation is not relevant. --TocMan (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The existence of the investigation certainly is relevant — in his BLP where it currently is as whole subsection. The NYT uses the phrase "around the world" three times in the article, so it's not just Burisma, and so this matter does not touch upon the first sentence of this article. This article is not about whether Hunter is a corrupt guy, it's about whether he was corrupt with his father. And there remains no evidence of that. soibangla (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
If you think it's the 'first line' of the article that is limiting us here, then we should change the first line to better reflect the title. The overall "conspiracy theory" pertains to both Hunter and Joe Biden. The title is "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory" not "Joe Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy theory". The actual theories circulating include both that Hunter is corrupt and that Hunter and Joe are corrupt together. It seems incredibly contrived to not include a criminal investigation relating to Hunter Biden and Burisma here. TocMan (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This article would not have been created merely about alleged Hunter Biden corruption, it would've remained in his BLP. There still remains no evidence of corruption by Joe. None. soibangla (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
"Big Guy" is confirmed to be Biden by multiple Hunter partners. You just being a hack at this point. Loopbackdude (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Loopbackdude, assume good faith and maintain civility or I will block you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I am amazed by the jello editors are willing to stand on to feel personally offended. Loopbackdude (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but I can tell you that incivility can lead to a WP:DISRUPTBLOCK. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
"10 held by H for the big guy?" is unrelated to Burisma, and there is no evidence Hunter ever responded, or that Joe had any clue of this. If you rejected someone's attempt to bribe you, are you guilty of bribery? soibangla (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Did you have these same high standards for the now debunked Russian collusion Wikipedia pages? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla, I count three reverts from you on this page in the past 24 hours, even though this page is on a WP:1RR restriction. Please don't make me block you for violating 3RR. Count this as your warning. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Who will back moving the laptop/emails content to Hunter Biden laptop controversy?

For

Against

Conclusion

We have a clear consensus, so I have recreated the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article using content removed from this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this really is a conspiracy.

The laptop's contents is one matter where the public has only been given minimal info on, info so far is most definitely conspiratorial. Separately, probably just as big of a conspiracy has been the reaction to the laptop by governments, politicians individually, mainstream media, and social media entities. The conspiracy there is how all of those entities not just willingly, but actively and forcefully deemed this as "fake news," "Russian propaganda," threatened and silenced anyone even trying to discuss it objectively, labeled them, demonized them, censored them entirely just to shut them up and all the while they themselves were outright lying, they didn't have any valid premises other than themselves saying it was fake, circular logic just like the dossier where fake stories are floated with anonymous sources, politicians citing these fake stories with fake sources, then media supporting their narratives with the politicians' soundbites and quips to build the foundation for the circular house of cards. Those who tried to call them out on it were silenced, media most definitely wasn't going to report on themselves of their incompetence and/collusion, and this sort of censorship by media, politicians, and the corporate entities is a separate conspiracy. The organized effor to chill this story at all costs while just a few years ago the completely fabricated "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!" story was pushed with such indignant fervor is most telling. In 20 years, we'll be looking back and wondering how the hell we let it get this bad. 2601:154:4001:3D30:CCE7:983F:B559:2F91 (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've seen that pervasive narrative before. It's somewhat clever but cannot withstand intense scrutiny. It appears there may soon be a "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" article, so maybe that argument supported by reliable sources can be made there. But as far as this article is concerned, there remains no evidence Joe Biden did anything wrong. It was fabricated to smear him. soibangla (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
SoibangLA certainly sounds like a down the middle straight shooter with zero chance of any biases. I'm going take their word for it and assume Joe Biden is a saint."Well, son of a bitch!" 50.25.144.167 (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Well thank you very much. You don't need to take my word for it, just read the reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
IP2601, Russia did interfere in the elections. Trump invited it, and his campaign colluded with that interference. See Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Mueller wasn't able to prove "conspiracy", but Trump's defending and active aiding and abetting of that illegal interference by the enemy's military intelligence comes pretty close. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/clinton-campaign-dnc-fined-by-fec-for-lying-about-steele-dossier-payments/ 50.25.144.167 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
That has literally nothing to do with what Valjean just said. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. That is totally off-topic here and has been dealt with at Steele dossier. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
"the public has only been given minimal info on, info so far is most definitely conspiratorial." Is this a joke? Withholding information on an ongoing investigation seems to be standard procedure, not evidence of a conspiracy. Isn't Hunter entitled to protection of data? Does the United States have an equivalent to the General Data Protection Regulation? Dimadick (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

NOTICE. #Hunter Biden laptop controversy article recreated. See below and stop discussion of the laptop and emails here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Background text

"In October 2020, during the last weeks of the presidential campaign, the New York Post published an article, with the involvement of Donald Trump's personal attorney Giuliani and former chief strategist Steve Bannon, about a found laptop belonging to Hunter Biden. The laptop contained an email, the authenticity of which was not verified, showing what the New York Post characterized as a "meeting" between Joe Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi, a Burisma advisor, in 2015, though that characterization was disputed by witnesses.[5] The article's veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the provenance of the laptop and its contents, and suspicion that it may have been part of a disinformation campaign.[9][10][11] It was later confirmed that at least some of the laptop materials were genuine, though fake material may have been mixed in with it, and Hunter Biden said that it is possible the laptop could be his.[17][18]"

Forgive my ignorance in the process of editing, but would it not be more accurate to state that the email in question itself is authenticated as per the new WaPo article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.184.204 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't authenticated in October 2020, but has been more recently. This paragraph needs a rewrite of some sort. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

NOTICE. #Hunter Biden laptop controversy article recreated. See below and stop discussion of the laptop and emails here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

More confirmation

This time from WaPo - "The Post analysis included forensic work by two outside experts who assessed the authenticity of numerous emails related to the CEFC matter. In addition, The Post found that financial documents on the copy of Hunter Biden's purported laptop match documents and information found in other records, including newly disclosed bank documents obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees."

This is now at least 4 solid sources who have provided evidence that the Hunter Biden laptop material is genuine. There is still no evidence to date, notes Vox, that there is any Russian disinformation mixed in. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet not relevant to this article:

The Post did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or knew details about the transactions with CEFC, which took place after he had left the vice presidency and before he announced his intentions to run for the White House in 2020.

soibangla (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The laptop stuff needs a new home, and quickly. There's been a lot of new information about it recently, in NYP, WaPo, CNN, and others. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
No, there hasn't been any significant new developments about the laptop in 2022. The fact that some documents on it were likely genuine was known back in 2021. Most of these things are passing mentions in other articles and aren't particularly relevant anywhere beyond telling us what we already know. (It does seem like a few opinion-piece writers have seized on these passing mentions as though they were new information, but they largely are not and don't change the fundamental consensus about the laptop, ie. its unknown provenance makes it useless as evidence for anything and the majority of its contents remain unconfirmed.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This is false. The provenance of the laptop is irrelevant as to whether or not the material on it needs to be confirmed. Even if Hunter had personally handed his laptop to The New York Times, they would still need to go through the process of authenticating what they found on it before they published it. And what has changed, *importantly*, is the default assumption that material on the laptop cannot be trusted. It was that default assumption that the media held throughout the election cycle, and it is that default assumption that got the laptop story banned on Twitter and Facebook. It is now clear that the default assumption should be that the laptop materials are genuine because no evidence has surfaced indicating that the laptop has been manipulated, and it appears that everything that the Politico, NYT, WaPo (etc.) have attempted to verify (that was capable of being verified) has been successfully verified. The default assumption that the material should be treated as genuine is *new*. But of course just because a sensible person should assume it's real by default doesn't mean the media (or Wikipedia) should treat it as verified until they have done so. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
No, the default assumption about the material on the laptop, due to its suspicious provenance and origins, is that it should still be treated with caution. It still bears all the earmarks of a Russian operation. That doesn't mean all the emails are fake or tampered with, but that some might be. Very few have been verified yet. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
There has been absolutely no evidence provided that this has *anything* to do with Russia. All you got were assertions from intelligency agencies. It is the job of the media to QUESTION those intelligency agency experts and investigate their claims. Instead, they just repeated what they said unquestioningly. And now that the media are actually examining the laptop, they are finding that the materials on it are genuine: everything they've found that can be verified has been verified. "has all the earmarks of a Russian operation" is nothing more than a talking point that the media failed to investigate. Saying that this was a Russian intelligence operation as opposed to just an admitted crack addict who forgot his laptop at a repair shop is literally a conspiracy theory. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Bueller 007 says: There has been absolutely no evidence provided that this has *anything* to do with Russia. All you got were assertions from intelligency agencies. Paragraph one of our lead:

United States intelligence community analysis released in March 2021 found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration." The New York Times reported in May 2021 that a federal criminal investigation was examining a possible role by current and former Ukrainian officials, including whether they used former Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who is the subject of a separate federal investigation, to spread unsubstantiated claims.

So yeah, it wasn't "Russians." They got caught in 2016 so they outsourced it to Ukrainians this time, because Hunter was in Ukraine and they could try to link his life to Joe. Read about Derkach, Shokin and Firtash, Rudy, Parnas, diGenova and wife Toensing. Be careful when people say "Russians" here, because that may contain truthiness but is not actually true when one pulls back the veil. everything they've found that can be verified has been verified WaPo today: The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security experts who reviewed the data for The Post. soibangla (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
What is your comment even about? My comment was responding to someone quoting the claim made by *former* intelligence officials that the laptop bore the hallmarks of Russian disinformation in *Oct. 2020*. Here's CNN reporting on what *current* intelligence officials at the FBI think about the laptop as of *today*: "We know the FBI has possession of it and that they believe it is his laptop, that the contents of it are his." [2] Even current intelligence officials aren't saying that it's Russian... Bueller 007 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
What is your comment even about? I told you right up top what it was about by quoting you. The intel veterans were and remain correct that the laptop bore the earmarks of a classic Russian op they've seen before, but it's a misrepresentation to assert they definitively declared it a Russian op. They were careful to say they had not examined it and they could be wrong:

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

Even current intelligence officials aren't saying that it's Russian shows me that I shouldn't have bothered to explain how spycraft works. Russian proxies. soibangla (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Even if you personally feel that way, it is not what the sources say; what the sources are saying has largely not changed and continues to emphasize the fact that the bulk of the material on the laptop is unconfirmed and dubious. See my quotes from the actual Post story below (which is, again, from today.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I see where you get a sense of "unconfirmed" from your select quote, but what phrase made you feel "dubious"? Neither found clear evidence of tampering in their examinations, after all. Simply inconclusive, my gut advises. InedibleHulk (talk)
  • Why are you trying to cite a passing mention in another article and not their more recent main article on the subject, which says The verifiable emails are a small fraction of 217 gigabytes of data provided to The Post on a portable hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey. ... The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security experts who reviewed the data for The Post. Neither found clear evidence of tampering in their examinations, but some of the records that might have helped verify contents were not available for analysis, they said. The Post was able in some instances to find documents from other sources that matched content on the laptop that the experts were not able to assess. Among the reasons for the inconclusive findings was sloppy handling of the data, which damaged some records. The rest continues like this, noting various suspicious points in its chain of custody and the content. This is no different than things that were being said a while ago (ie. some documents on it are genuine, but the laptop as a whole cannot be confirmed due to its missing chain of custody and is therefore meaningless; and numerous aspects of how it was handled are extremely suspicious); it is not, overall, a new development, and they specifically note in as many words that they didn't find anything that is likely to change the overall story. Also note purported; this works both ways in that we have to reflect their caution. --Aquillion (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Ernie, that's at least the fourth time you have published the BLP violation stating that bacause some of the material is genuine, therefore all of the material is genuine. Don't do that again. Clear enough? SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I’ve lost count of how many times you’ve misunderstood basic policy or made allegations of things that didn’t happen. You’re welcome to report my behavior at a noticeboard of your choosing. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie, I noticed that too. I feel that you have a case for complaining about editors casting aspersions about your behavior. No editor should have to put up with their reputation being sullied in the community. Least of all in an effort to disallow reliably sourced information. Further, hyper-involved editors on this article should step aside. There's a clear case of gate-keeping bias going on. The article in its current form does a disservice to the project overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Amen. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hyper-involved editors know the most about the topic and prevent trash from entering the article whenever another Fox News "BOMBSHELL DEVELOPMENT" sends editors pouring in to "fix" it. Same as it ever was. soibangla (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Who is citing Fox News? Which editors have been sent in to "fix" anything? If you're going to cast aspersions, be specific. It's most likely that everyone is reading the ongoing developments and going, "Hmm, this is different than how Wikipedia describes it." Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I emphasized "New York TIMES" and my fix was thrown out with the suggestion that I read Politico, a website that doesn't even load for me, much less suit my agenda. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
much less suit my agenda? ahem soibangla (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to tell you what it is, if that's why you're coughing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I cited Fox News simply to illustrate a recurring pattern in contentious articles and I didn't suggest people were being "sent" here. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
How should a reasonable person interpret "sends"? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Not the way either of you have. soibangla (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Helpful! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Editors should check any "agenda" before punching the edit link. WP is pretty clear that we work for the benefit of our readers, worldwide, and they don't care whether our internet connection or web browser chokes on a key RS reference page. It's pointless to comment until you fix your tech issues. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The relevant RS verifying these emails (NYT and WaPo) load just fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Apart from the Schreckinger Politico piece being excluded as WP:REDFLAG, a status that remains despite what the NYT or anyone else subsequently reported, how has any reliably sourced information been disallowed? Consider the fact that information from reliable sources, notably the NYT, has been widely misinterpreted or misrepresented in conservative media, so it's no surprise that it finds its way here. Reliable source, wrong interpretation. soibangla (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Some of the laptop material is authenticated. I believe there are other materials there that are not, and we are not even aware of what those materials are. As Valjean would say, this still has nothing to do with the intended scope of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As I posted on the other page...

Soon after that period of inactivity — and months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody — three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names “Desktop Documents,” “Biden Burisma” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents.”

Williams also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Biden’s laptop appeared.

Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.

- Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop

Anyone who tries to sell the notion that since portions of the material on the laptop is "confirmed" as belonging to H. Biden, that means we should declare the "conspiracy theory" aspect of this to be done with, is not editing here in good faith. ValarianB (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

According to two experts hired by The Washington Post (a Biden proponent), that verified portion comprises 22,000 emails from 2009 to 2019. Some of these emails appear to offer insights into deals he developed and money he was paid for business activities that opponents of his father’s bid for the presidency sought to make a campaign issue in 2020. I have faith those "some" include the one in this lead which leftist gatekeepers have sought for months to paint as a right-wing or Russian fake. Even if, somehow, they don't, that still leaves an untold number of others which reportedly relate to this article's general subject. Look into those. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Taking jabs such as [t]he Washington Post (a Biden proponent) and leftist gatekeepers pretty much invalidates you from the discussion. ValarianB (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Think about the mission of disinformation agents, Russian or Republican or Fox, or whoever: These folks have a lot at stake. So they devote considerable resources to modeling and evaluating the levels of information, intelligence, education and attention among their target audiences. It's not surprising that this all seems plausible to a target minority of the general population and an even smaller minority of Wikipedia editors. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Source for an untold number of others which reportedly relate to this article's general subject? Source for a Biden proponent? leftist gatekeepers? You gonna stand by all that?soibangla (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Why would you take "a Biden proponent" or "leftist gatekeeper" as a jab? They're just descriptions, to me. I have thought about disinformation efforts, from both sides of American politics and Russia. Statements like One of the verified emails from Pozharskyi, which was the focus of one of the initial stories from the New York Post, was written on April 17, 2015. It thanked Hunter Biden “for inviting me to DC and giving me an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together.” benefit nobody. Even before the election, the sex and drug variety of potential dirt seemed actually compromising, to me. I never cared, personally, everybody has dirt. Now that Biden is president, though, it's time to accept that this article distrusted the wrong messengers specifically on Pozharskyi, and fix the lead accordingly. Everybody makes mistakes, it's OK. Soibangla, the source for "some", which I call an untold number, is linked multiple times above, including the OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Biden proponent and leftist gatekeeper are WP:ASPERSIONS showing a lack of AGF that will make consensus-building harder. Please don't do it again. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
WaPo endorsed Biden. I won't comment further on those who routinely bar conservative sources and ideas. Just focus on fixing the lead, not accusing me of attacking people. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
WaPo's editorial board endorsed Biden, but their journalism is independent of that, like for every other publication. We're not going to disqualify every publication from News media endorsements in the 2020 United States presidential election as RS because their editorial boards made an endorsement. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm asking you to consider it as a reliable source for its statement of fact, not disqualify it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you unfamiliar with the separation of news and editorial? Maybe read up on the 2020 rebellion of ~250 WSJ journalists against the editorial board for reporting lies[3] and the board's amusing response.[4] soibangla (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
How should a reasonable person interpret "untold number" as opposed to "some?" How are an untold "some" number of others which reportedly relate to this article's general subject...linked multiple times above? soibangla (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The WaPo article, linked above, says the sentence I pasted in pink above. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
So...one source says some. Got it. soibangla (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
No, you don't. Many sources said some were genuine. WaPo hired experts to confirm about 22,000 were, including the one this so-called conspiracy theory article focuses on calling a fake. Unless your next comment is about updating the article, I won't reply. This is long. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
No no, you said untold emails that relate to this article, not that untold numbers of sources said some of the emails were genuine. soibangla (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I said a lot of things. Now that the one and only email at the heart of this particular disagreement has been verified as authentic, do you agree that your rationale for Wikipedia saying it was not is now inapplicable? If so, please revert that linked reversion. If not, whatever. I tried. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for linking to my reversion of your edit. My edit summary remains correct and I stand by it. Yes, you've said a lot of things. soibangla (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I am losing track of where this is and was going, but we should all be agreeing that WaPo has confirmed some of the emails, and those confirmed emails show some payments to Hunter Biden from CEFC. Right? That's accurate? The alleged Pozharski email and laptop remain unverified. Correct? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Partly incorrect. There are multiple verified/true/confirmed emails from (an account registered to) Pozharskyi to (an account registered to) Biden. One of the verified emails from Pozharskyi, which was the focus of one of the initial stories from the New York Post, was written on April 17, 2015. It thanked Hunter Biden “for inviting me to DC and giving me an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together.” InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm out of WaPo free views this month so I haven't read today's article. I do see Politico reporting from last year verifying that Pozharskyi email, yes. I assume soibangla is referring to a different Pozharskyi email or emails? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The verification, despite coming from a reliable source, was WP:REDFLAG because no other reliable source corroborated it. Now that WaPo characterized it as verified seven hours ago, you're free to seek inclusion on that basis. Still, bear in mind that email still doesn't implicate Joe. soibangla (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to implicate Joe and never thought this, of all things, somehow could. I don't care what happens to his kids, either. Thanks for finally coming around, however it happened! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
finally coming around due to a tiny mention in two massive articles published seven hours ago. soibangla (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that I said you could seek inclusion, not necessarily include. That content was included months ago, but reverted, so by my understanding you need to gain consensus to restore. soibangla (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This process is already tortured enough without adding more bureaucracy that we don't need. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It's more of an exclusion, but OK, I formally seek its acceptance. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Lasted 59 minutes before SPECIFICO reverted me. I can't complain. A new record! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I put it back. Their edit summary was simply incorrect. It appears they hadn’t read the source or followed closely this talk page discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You're a good man, Ernie, don't get banned! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The reversion was technically correct per WP:CRP for this article. I formally seek its acceptance followed immediately by restoring was dubious. soibangla (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what you think "dubious" means in this context, but if consensus means convincing every regular that The Washington Post is still reliable for facts, that seems to me unduly tedious. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
"Finally coming around" is how it's supposed to work. Wikipedia's rules guarantee we will always be "behind the curve" where yellow journalism and conspiracy theories are always the first to report. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
REDFLAG doesn’t apply as it’s not an exceptional claim. It doesn’t imply any wrongdoing and is simply a run of the mill email. Politico verified it months ago and there’s never been a policy based reason to exclude it. I echo the Hulk in appreciating that editors are finally coming around. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The Politico piece certainly was EXTRAORDINARY and there's always been a proper, policy based reason for exclusion and no one gained consensus to restore on the basis of that story alone. Tell people in conservative media that It doesn’t imply any wrongdoing because they didn't get that memo, and this tends to explain why so many editors complained for months that it was being unfairly excluded. Again, this is an encyclopedia with a higher bar than most. This whole matter was handled properly from the start and no one should concoct any narrative that "leftist gatekeepers" succeeded in unfairly blocking content that was proven fact because they're trying to bury the truth to protect Biden. soibangla (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hardly. It is not proper, policy based reasoning to continually wikilawyer the goalposts until virtually anyone with functioning vision can finally see that the emperor doesn't have one thread left on his back. It is biased gatekeeping by editors who have enough audacity to assert that the project can't be trusted in the hands of anyone else. Nope. That's not how it's supposed to work AT ALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
We have rules to ensure this encyclopedia remains among the best sources of information on the planet, particularly relating to a highly contentious political issue involving a conspiracy theory about the president of the United States. Those rules were properly applied here. And it will still be incorrect tomorrow when folks show up to say "it's not a conspiracy theory anymore"...again. soibangla (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
This section is about whether email was authenticated and whether unknown Russians secretly plotted to fool American voters about it. If this article's authors had followed WP:YESPOV from the start, Wikipedia's voice never would have presented opinions on either's veracity as fact, and you wouldn't now be so hesitant to accept how the actual facts from WP:RS are WP:V and WP:DUE, despite contradicting what was previously opined and believed without evidence, before a forensic investigation even began. Let your preconceptions go, I say, keep Wikipedia current and factual. Or at least keep the question of what is or isn't a conspiracy theory in a pertinent section. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
After what you did here today, you'll have to try harder to persuade me I should ever again care about what you think about anything. I'm done here. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
If you were honestly done here, I wouldn't have to try at all, either telling you what I think or what sources say. Sweet, in theory. SPECIFICO, do you see how WaPo authenticated the Pozharskyi emails? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

NOTICE. #Hunter Biden laptop controversy article recreated. See below and stop discussion of the laptop and emails here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

New York Times quietly deletes claim Hunter Biden laptop story was 'unsubstantiated'

New York Times quietly deletes claim Hunter Biden laptop story was 'unsubstantiated'

https://news.yahoo.com/york-times-quietly-deletes-claim-021800355.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:2733:840:5CA2:34BC:DF55:CC74 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This was a stray topic posted at the top of the top page by an IP user, without a section header. ValarianB (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I removed some address bar junk. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The url is Yahoo, but it's really a story by Washington Examiner, which is not a good source. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm just talking tracking junk, everything starting with a question mark, that's the OP's own business. But yeah, it leans conservative. A bad fit among sources which "strongly questioned" the whole story. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't evaluate it at the time, just noted it was a stray from a week ago. The Wash. Examiner is obviously garbage for sourcing, so, the contents of this didn't seem to be much worth it in the end. ValarianB (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The article can't be cited on Wikipedia, and I don't know why the IP user added it. But the title of the article is an easily verifiable claim that should be relevant to editors who wish to gain a personal understanding of how media sentiment toward the laptop has changed in order to deal honestly with this material. It appears that by Sept. 13, 2021, The New York Times no longer believed it was accurate to say that the NY Post article about the laptop was "unsubstantiated". Reminder: by Feb. 27, 2022, The Guardian claimed that "Now...almost no one disputes [the laptop's] authenticity." [5] And by late March, the NYT and WaPo were using the laptop as a source. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

NOTICE. #Hunter Biden laptop controversy article recreated. See below and stop discussion of the laptop and emails here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus to remove laptop/emails content, with a caveat

We seem to have a consensus for moving that content to the Hunter Biden article (soibangla, Mr Ernie, Muboshgu, XavierItzm and Valjean). Then we can see what happens. If it becomes an undue weight problem there, it can be spun off to Biden laptop controversy per WP:Summary style. That would not be an improper POV fork.

Caveat: If some part of the laptop/emails matter ends up being proven to be part of this conspiracy theory, we will still cover it here. This conspiracy theory is a falsifiable claim (Joe either did it or didn't do it), so in the true scientific spirit, we are always open to evidence that proves it true. If that happens, we will document it and change the title of this article while documenting the history of the original theory and the later proofs that it was actually true. Nothing will get buried. True or false, it is all part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document here using RS.

One reason this is important is that we need to avoid duplication in two articles. By following WP:Summary style, we can crosslink and include summaries in both articles.

Now is the time to voice objections before it happens. -- Valjean (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What part of the laptop/emails, and be very specific, is part of the conspiracy theory as expressed in the first sentence of the article? I have asked this several times above but not gotten any response or evidence it is part of the theory. -- Valjean (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Pinging PackMecEng. -- Valjean (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I see I misunderstood you. So are we to live with this insufferable situation of confusion forever? It's an open invitation to fringe historical revisionism and creep. It's an open sore. -- Valjean (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Definitely didn't say that, but what exactly would go on Hunter's BLP? "A computer was found that may or may not be his"? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The content that doesn't belong here is the last paragraph in the lead and everything from "New York Post reporting" and below it. That's why I favor a separate article, but it's harder to get a consensus for that, so I suggest starting with moving all that to Hunter Biden, where it will pretty quickly be seen as a huge undue weight problem to be split off into its own article. Here it has gotten bloated because many think it's part of the conspiracy theory, yet when asked, no one can explain exactly what. -- Valjean (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I can get behind a separate article, but not putting this on Hunter's page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu, we agree. That is the ideal solution. Hunter Biden laptop controversy (currently a redirect) seems a logical solution. -- Valjean (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It would be contrary to policy to ignore it. Multiple RS discuss the matter, so we are supposed to document it. -- Valjean (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I would have been OK with separating the two subject matters but if people don't want to, then, alas!, like Valjean says, mention of the laptop on this here article must be followed up with RS that give the outcome of the story. Can't arbitrarily freeze the story after just the beginning of the story and not present the follow up RSs. XavierItzm (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course. "Freezing" the story isn't how we work here. We document what happens. -- Valjean (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Not everything found in a reliable source should be included the encyclopedia, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING, in particular WP:NOTNEWS. A given reliable source may be used in zero, one, or several articles without any violation of policy. The false claim that removing material from here somehow makes necessary its inclusion elsewhere seems to be used here to manufacture a false dichotomy to push this material into the Hunter Biden article indirectly. This talk page is the wrong forum to discuss changes to the Hunter Biden article. --Noren (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Anywhere but here, and Hunter Biden isn't the best place. Hunter Biden laptop controversy (currently a redirect) seems a logical solution. -- Valjean (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It would be UNDUE on the Hunter Biden page, I have no opinion on this page. As discussion of the contents of the Hunter Biden page is off-topic for this page, perhaps this section should be hatted with the heading 'Off-topic discussion'. --Noren (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think most of the contents can be moved to Hunter Biden article, for example the story of the laptop itself has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Some of the information is clearly relevant and should stay, such as the statement "the laptop did not show wrongdoing by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to Burisma" with the attribution to Politifact. We can probably summarise the first paragraph in one sentence "A laptop likely belonging to Hunter Biden was found in 2020." Alaexis¿question? 20:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Some of the laptop allegations are related to China; others are related to Ukraine. Others are related to his personal life. Regardless of whether there's any important substance to any of the material found on the laptop, that story and the related controversy (being banned on social media, etc.) has clearly taken on a life of its own, and it should be its own article. It can be mentioned briefly in his bio, and the bits that are relevant to the "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" can be mentioned here. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

NOTICE. #Hunter Biden laptop controversy article recreated. See below and stop discussion of the laptop and emails here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy article recreated

We have a clear consensus, so I have recreated the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article using content removed from this article.

That means discussions about the laptop/emails matter should occur there. Then, if some part is clearly relevant here, create a new section here and link to it from the new article. Keep the focus on the relevant content, not the whole laptop or all the emails. Stay on-topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Can evidence be provided that this is a conspiracy theory?

What evidence exists that this is a conspiracy theory? Evidence, as in, non-opinion piece journalism by left leaning propaganda institutions. 76.215.14.180 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that Joe got Viktor Shokin fired to protect Hunter, and extorted Ukraine for $1 billion dollars until Shokin was fired. Abundantly reported facts show that Joe got Shokin fired because the Western world demanded it, not to protect Hunter. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#cite_note-56 soibangla (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
If that’s the theory it should be clear in the article. As the flood of IP comments has shown, readers seem to be very confused by what’s currently written. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
That's why we're gonna create Hunter Biden laptop controversy as the only cromulent solution to this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The "flood of IP comments" comes from brigading on far-right forums and chats. Let's not pretend these are simple confused citizens here. WP:DNFTT should be applied to anything initiated by a "new" user on this and associayed talk pages. Zaathras (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Sentence one:

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unconfirmed claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma

Paragraph two:

The conspiracy theory alleges that then-Vice President Biden withheld loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor to prevent a corruption investigation into Burisma and to protect his son. The United States did withhold government aid to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor, in accord with the official and bipartisan policy of the federal government of the United States.

Lots of eyeballs have looked at this for a long time. Do you have a proposal to improve it? soibangla (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think a conspiracy can have a single alleged criminal, as the article suggests this one does. Have any of these "unconfirmed claims" actually alleged people conspired with Joe to fire Shokin? If not, it's just a corruption allegation, like his sexual assault allegation, and should be retitled accordingly after the laptop controversy splits. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It's a conspiracy theory that, among other moving targets, claims that by employing Hunter Biden, Burisma would not be investigated by a corrupt Prosecutor who was not investigating it at all, and who was subsequently removed due to pressure from Western Governments concerned with battling corruption in Ukraine. The conspiracy theory takes aim at multiple people, with the ultimate target being Joe Biden. Is that really not clear? ILMostro (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it really isn't. Who, in theory, are Joe Biden's co-conspirators and what crime did they plot? By using words like "aim" and "target", it sounds to me like you're describing a smear campaign meant to sow doubt in his leadership qualities, which would make sense, given how it seems to have come from his political opponents before an election, rather than a conspiracy theorist's website/newsletter/whatever some time around when Shokin was fired. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

provenance of laptop

Regarding this[7]:

NYT reported:

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[8]

which in itself is arguably ambiguous, but WaPo reported more explicitly yesterday:

...a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden

and

The Post review draws in part on an analysis of a copy said to be of the hard drive of a laptop computer that Hunter Biden purportedly dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and never came to collect[9]]

soibangla (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding two more sources.

Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity [10]

.

A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop.[11]

Mr Ernie (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:CIR -- the issue is that the authenticity of every email is not proved by the assumption that it was Biden's machine. The current article text that was reinserted yesterday is a BLP violation and somebody needs to roll it back. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, unknown provenance later confirmed as belonging to Hunter Biden[12] is contradictory because provenance means origin, not chain of custody. soibangla (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Good point. We have been using provenance to mean chain of custody, which isn't entirely wrong, but is unclear. Let's just say it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I saw your change, but still, WaPo said yesterday: "a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden." At this late date, this is still not universally accepted fact. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The key and authoritative statement should be that of the law enforcement officials who have closely examined the laptop and its contents. Their clear assumption is it is Biden's laptop and they haven't said anything to call that into question. That's all been evidence free speculation by media outlets, some of which has now been debunked. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
assumption, not conclusion. You added the word "clear." soibangla (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
they haven't said anything to call that into question. CNN found one "law enforcement source" to tip them about an assumption, but as policy FBI does not talk about ongoing investigations. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Fortunately, we have a well-referenced article Provenance which defines the term as the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object, which is pretty much synonymous with Chain of custody. That article actually states that the term is a synonym of provenance. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
huh, I used this: https://www.google.com/search?q=provenance soibangla (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

NOTICE. #Hunter Biden laptop controversy article recreated. See below and stop discussion of the laptop and emails here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is pointless in its current form

There's basically no info given on the alleged conspiracy theory. I suggest renaming it to "Firing of Viktor Shokin" and rewriting it from that perspective. Joe Biden's conflict of interest can be mentioned in that article as it already is in this one. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And you chose to begin a new topic about the title when there's already a discussion above, um, why exactly? ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Because a literate person can see that the previous section is about renaming the article and that this is about rewriting it? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Joe Biden's persistently alleged conflict of interest is what makes this a conspiracy theory and the continued obsession with the laptop is intended to perpetuate it. soibangla (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
It is not an "alleged" conflict of interest. Exactly as this article currently states, Joe Biden had a conflict of interest: "Hunter Biden's employment was described by commentators as creating a conflict of interest, and advisors to the Obama administration considered the situation awkward." The prosecutor he was pushing to have fired was investigating Burisma, where his son was employed. That's a conflict of interest. The existence of the conflict of interest does *not* mean that the reason he had Shokin fired was *because of* the familial/financial reason that created the conflict of interest. Here's how this works in any sane country with a sane media: the media acknowledges that it's a conflict of interest and that he should have stepped aside but that Hunter's employment with Burisma (which created the conflict of interest) did not necessarily result in the firing of Shokin although it should be investigated. After investigation, it could not be substantiated. The End. That people are so concerned with whether or not this should be called a "conspiracy theory" (and seeking to deny the existence of the conflict of interest altogether) just demonstrates that the American media has turned the public into a bunch of lunatics. If you're American, you honestly don't know how bad you have it, because terrible American media is all you see. Watching it from the outside is AMAZING. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
That there was an actual COI is what the conspiracy theory is all about. All the Burisma stuff, all the Shokin stuff, all of it is tinfoil loonies, as the (yes, American. yes, reliable, by the standards of this project) sources used in the article bear out. Zaathras (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The WaPo source says "Republicans have said it presented a conflict of interest," and cited one professor concurring. I don't think that constitutes a sweeping non-partisan conclusion, and I'm going to insert "potential." soibangla (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
If you're American, you honestly don't know how bad you have it except the vast bulk of the global coverage of these domestic issues comes from America, but if Watching it from the outside is AMAZING I certainly encourage inclusion of foreign sources that deviate from domestic sources. soibangla (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll note that neither reference #5 or #32, both WaPo and both used to back up claims of what "the conspiracy theory alleges", contain the word "conspiracy". The first refers to The New York Post "article" and the second Rudy Giuliani's "claims". The caption calling Shokin a "primary subject" of the conspiracy theory is backed by nothing, and suggests he was a key actor in the plot to fire himself. I'd encourage inclusion of any reliable source that satisfies the verifiability policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Reference #8, also WaPo and also seemingly vouching for what "the conspiracy theory alleges" (as if it's a person) does use the term, but in referring to Trump's baseless mail-in ballot screwjob. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Bueller: "The prosecutor he had fired was investigating Burisma, where his son was employed."

Not quite. He was fired because the investigation into Burisma's owner had stalled, so a new prosecutor who would actually investigate was needed. Joe Biden's action worked against any supposed protection of Hunter's COI, not to protect it. That's what makes Giuliani's accusations so counterfactual.

Shokin was also widely seen as corrupt and unfit for his job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Update

Why not update this post with factual information? The “alleged” Hunter Biden laptop was proven to actually be Hunter Biden’s. 47.187.137.2 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That has not been proven, actually. soibangla (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Exhaustively proven. This is no longer a theory, but conspiracy fact. 135.23.80.41 (talk) 135.23.80.41 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Provide verification for "factual information". If it's that NY Post article from October 2020, just don't bother. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
You say while using opinion pieces as "reliable sources". 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There's no evidence the laptop is fake. It was an opinion held by mostly retired Intelligence Community individuals that got written up in Politico piece with a headline "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." You'll note the lack of any physical evidence presented in the article.
The law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's - CNN.
POLITICO writes that some of the laptop material is genuine link.
There a new Guardian piece out which says "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." The Guardian piece lays out the full scope of "evidence" that the laptop was fake - On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation.
So yes, you are correct that our article is badly out of date and contains misinformation, but the majority of editors seem to be ok with that. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia. [1] 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The donor was an American who did not disclose he was a lobbyist. soibangla (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Lol no. He's a lobbyist for Russian oil that you all tried to use as proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket. Now he's no longer connected to Putin because he gave EXCLUSIVELY to Democrats? Please. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Do any sources flatly state the laptop has been proven to be Hunter's? And let's not confuse the laptop with its contents. And what are the chances there was a second real laptop?

Material similar to the alleged hard-drive contents was reportedly circulating in Ukraine during 2019. One individual interviewed by Time magazine stated that he had been approached in late May 2019, and a second person stated that he had been approached in mid-September. The seller, according to the second individual, wished to sell compromising information about Hunter Biden to Republican allies of Donald Trump for $5 million. "I walked away from it, because it smelled awful", he told Time. Igor Novikov, a former advisor to the Ukrainian president and a disinformation researcher, said that the market for kompromat (damaging material) had been very active in the past year in reaction to political events in the United States, with political operatives rushing to respond to Giuliani's call for damaging information on the Bidens. Novikov characterized the materials available on the market as "extremely hard to verify, yet very easy to fake". On October 19, Derkach posted on social media that he had a second Hunter Biden laptop, stating, "The facts confirming international corruption are stored on a second laptop. These are not the last witnesses or the last laptop."

soibangla (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
From the sources above, CNN says A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop, POLITICO writes about new evidence that at least some of the alleged laptop material is genuine, and the Guardian says Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity. The Guardian piece is pretty straightforward. Almost no one disputes its authenticity, except perhaps for Wikipedia editors. If I read that piece in The Guardian and came to Wikipedia for more context I would be very confused, especially with this evidence free editorializing in a talk page FAQ point we somehow still cling to.
I can find no sources who present any actual evidence, aside from speculation from retired IC officers, that the laptop is not Hunter's or that the contents are fake. I suspect it gained such traction because of the possible influence it had on the 2020 election, despite the actual contents being a nothing burger that wouldn't have had an impact anyways. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
No need to repeat your sources, I already saw they don't report the laptop is proven fake genuine. What we've always had and continue to have is a physical slab of hardware that may have once belonged to Hunter, so that much might be true, though even that has still not been reported proven. But many continue to conflate that slab of hardware with its contents as though they are synonymous, but they are not. It is standard operating procedure for Russian intel (and presumably others) to mix-in fake documents with real documents, hoping the FBI and CIA will fall for that old trick and conclude that everything is real. And this has been explained here ad nauseam. Nothing has changed, but if it does you can bet the farm I'll be among the first to include it here. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok so we agree you don't have any sources that say with evidence that is the case here, and that it is all speculation, despite the sources I've provided saying otherwise? Do you have a rebuttal to the Guardian (the article was published yesterday so I understand if you hadn't seen it before) saying "almost no one disputes its authenticity?" If no, should we build that up in the article? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
You're not hearing what I'm saying. The Guardian reports almost no one disputes the authenticity of the laptop. Not publicly, that we know of, anyway. Let's stipulate that the laptop has been proven to have been once owned by Hunter, but he lost it or it was stolen. Beyond that point, can there be any assurance that the contents on the laptop are real? Of course not. And that's what matters here. The contents, not the slab. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying. Should we update the FAQ above which says "The authenticity of the laptop has not been verified," which seems to run contrary to the Guardian piece? Regarding the contents, we have the POLITICO piece confirming some of the material is genuine. I can find no sources confirming any of the material is questionable. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Almost no one is not no one, and simply the "fact" it was Hunter's laptop does not in itself establish anything improper, unless someone is upset about porn. We have no knowledge of its chain of custody. For all anyone knows, his laptop was snatched and flown to an SVR lab in Moscow for "enhancement" before being given to Rudy/Bannon. The Politico piece was not picked up by any other reliable source, it relies exclusively on an assertion by some unnamed guy whose credibility is unknown, hence it is REDFLAG and UNDUE. soibangla (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
You haven't bothered to link to any RS that back up any of this speculation. We should at least be able to find agreement to update the FAQ. What do you think? Is The Guardian's take one we can use here? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I have not speculated here, inasmuch as I have illustrated that there are unknowns, and having exhaustively elaborated on the facts of this article over and over since prior to its creation I am well aware of eager efforts by some to assert these unknowns are now established facts. Moreover, even if the laptop is proven to be Hunter's and its contents are proven authentic, it would still not constitute any smoking gun, as any purported offer of an introduction and any purported "meeting" between Joe and Pozharskyi at a DC banquet attended by many is not in itself indicative of corruption. Even if such an encounter occurred, we have no idea what may have been discussed, and we certainly shouldn't presume anything nefarious. Just because Pozharskyi worked at the same firm as Hunter did and some baselessly allege Hunter was up to no-good doesn't mean we should presume Pozharskyi had nefarious intent, either. We haven't even reached the point that it's been proven it's Hunter's laptop, let alone that its contents actually mean anything. I think the FAQ is fine as it is. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
If you think having an inaccurate FAQ (which is entirely unsourced) is fine then we just have to agree to disagree. You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sources. There is no actual evidence anything you said is true, contrary to the things that are confirmed in the sources I've provided. Muboshgu you asked above for any verification, so what do you think about the new Guardian piece? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sources Look, listen. Since before this article's existence I have provided countless sources that quite obviously many have chosen to ignore and come here to make the same bogus arguments and insist on believing what they want and refuse to listen. It just never stops. Why should I jump through hoops like a poodle for this? Prove the laptop is Hunter's. Prove the emails are authentic. Prove that any of that indicates corruption. Get some solid sourcing like the article contains or drop this. soibangla (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The onus is on you to back up what you say. I guarantee you that you have never provided a source that has any actual evidence to back up anything you've speculated above.
Prove the laptop is Hunter's What sources have evidence it is not? Otherwise accept what CNN and The Guardian say.
Prove the emails are authentic What sources provide evidence they are not? Otherwise accept what Politico says. Or here's the NYT, writing "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation." The FBI even wrote a letter to Senator Ron Johnson "suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop."
Prove that any of that indicates corruption I am not claiming anything indicates corruption, just trying to clear up the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation.
If there was any shred of Russian disinformation in that laptop it would have been reported high and low by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I was asked what I think about the new Guardian piece. I say it seems like the same bullshit from October 2020 slightly repackaged. Hunter Biden does drugs? Has some questionable relationships? Okay. We'll see what the grand jury produces re: his taxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
When you say 'bullshit' are you saying that the Guardian article is inaccurate? It's listed as a reliable source. Are you proposing to remove The Guardian as a reliable source? If not, what are you actually saying? 2001:4450:8138:BF00:0:0:0:6F1 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not saying that the Guardian article is inaccurate in any way. But, I am saying that there's nothing new here. The Guardian piece is rehashing the same nonsense from 2020 about the laptop with some updates on his court proceedings that haven't concluded. A grand jury investigation into whether or not he paid taxes is one thing. Allegations about influence trading involving his father are as bullshit as they were 18-24 months ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Lol it wasn't nonsense in 2020 but nice try yet again. Oh, and the New York Times just completely contradicted their story and verified some of the "conspiracy" claims earlier this month. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I’m sorry if I’m late to the game on this. The laptop now is accepted to be Hunter Biden’s and you are working from an assumption that it was sent to Russia? As far as what goes on here on Wikipedia the only thing I can say is that if the same situation involved someone in the Trump family would you be doing somersaults trying to come up with reasons why the contents could not be attributed to the owner? It seems as if assuming that the contents are not from Hunter Biden is speculation more than attributing the contents to him. This is not a character attack on you directly, more a question of fairly calling balls and strikes on something and here we have a growing consensus that the laptop and contents are Hunter Biden’s and we should be treating them as such until it is proven NOT to be the case. Of course there should be a consensus on this but evidence continues to mount as to the veracity of many of the claims regarding the laptop itself and the information that has been found on it. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I guarantee you that you have never provided a source that has any actual evidence to back up anything you've speculated above. Check the archives. Run who wrote that on this article. Please show how I speculated as opposed to illustrated that there are unknowns. It is unknown if the laptop is Hunter's, it is unknown if the contents are authentic, and consequently there is no evidence, let alone proof, of corruption by Joe (and there still wouldn't be even if everything is authenticated). None of what you just wrote proves anything. Tantalizing for social media discussions, maybe, but it does not clear the higher bar for this encyclopedia. Note carefully that the FBI "suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation" doesn't say anything about pro-Russia Ukrainians, such as Derkach whom the Treasury sanctioned for his activities. Read about Derkach in this article and his BLP. Then, just for fun, read more about Shokin's "affidavit" and Firtash, and diGenova's and Toensing's work with them. Note also that we show in the lead that the IC said it found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration." Also, last we heard, the EDNY is investigating Ukrainians, not Russians. We must not conflate the 2016 Russian collusion narrative with this incident that may not have directly involved Russians, but rather their proxies. This article does not contain "the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation," rather it shows that there are many unknowns from "a series of unevidenced claims." No one anywhere has decisively found a smoking gun, and consequently the article reflects that. And the Guardian article provides nothing new to show otherwise. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You absolutely have speculated. This entire Wikipedia page is nothing but anti-Trump speculation.

Hunter's business dealings were mentioned in 2015 by the New York Times, and it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaign. There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved with. There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of Moscow. All of these things have been proven yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to be. Then you make these ridiculous speculations about it somehow being Trump because you want it to be. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there was a 2015 NYT article about Hunter.[13] Did it conclude wrongdoing? No. it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaign Proof? There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved with Such as, and for what reasons? There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of Moscow Actually, there is. All of these things have been proven no they haven't yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to be Nope. soibangla (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Yup. It's literally what you've been doing this whole time. You've never had any proof to back up any of your claims about it being Trump or the Russians and have referenced nothing but opinion pieces.

It's common knowledge that Clinton's campaign put the Hunter info out there to discourage Biden from running against her in 2016.

Such as the people he was involved in. All of that is documented fact. His business partner at Burisma just went to jail for fraud, by the way. Why? Because they hired him to positions he wasn't qualified for entirely to lobby his father. It's not exactly uncommon in politics. You just want to believe it isn't true and refuse to accept that it could be. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's common knowledge among Hannity viewers, perhaps. Hunter had nothing to do with Devon Archer's fraud case, and Hunter was qualified to provide management consulting seevices to Burisma that didn't require energy expertise. soibangla (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but not everybody who doesn't blindly believe left-wing conspiracy theories or blindly trust the mainstream media is a Fox viewer. Nice try though.
Explain how Hunter was the least bit qualified for the position he held, and explain how Archer's ties to Hunter and business dealings with both Hunter and his uncle mean Hunter has nothing to do with Archer's fraud case since you want to revert my previous response to you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, the more important question is not whether the first laptop originally belonged to Hunter, but the fact that its recent provenance is dubious, just like the second one being offered by sources related to Russian intelligence. How did those laptops get into Russian hands and then to Trump loyalists, all without Hunter Biden's involvement? It all smells like a Trump/Russia disinformation operation. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Since this stolen info was first shopped around in Ukraine, I wonder if the laptops were stolen there while Hunter worked there, then given to Trump’s people? -- Valjean (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
These questions sound like conspiracy theorizing. Here are 4 very short and straightforward sentences from RS: NYT "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation," CNN "A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop," POLITICO "...a purported leak of Hunter Biden’s computer files contains genuine material," and The Guardian "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Which doesn't address anything I wrote, which is about other aspects of the subject related to the danger of planted disinformation and how the whole thing stinks of a Trump/Giuliani/Russian operation. Note that I wasn't denying your points. They can all be true and yet part of a disinformation operation used to imply unproven wrongdoing by Joe Biden. You need to stop making such implications. -- Valjean (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
You're literally just baselessly speculating while accusing anybody who doesn't blindly agree of being a conspiracy theorist. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I have never made any such implication, so I hope you'll strike or refactor that. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation does not mean "it's not Russian disinformation". Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity does not mean "it's authentic". The Guardian article, it seems to me, hinges on this: But should the Delaware panel recommend criminal charges, it could ricochet around the second half of his father’s administration. Well sure, if Hunter gets arrested or indicted, that would be bad for Hunter Biden, and the press will write a ton of articles about it, but there's no guarantee it would have any impact on the administration beyond that. Wait for the future to see. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nypost.com/2021/05/29/biden-got-cash-from-russia-lobbyist-before-nord-stream-2-giveaway/

Article spreads misinformation

This page spreads misinformation. Even the NY Times admits that the "Hunter Biden laptop" and its content are real: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html Reading the past discussions about this page is cringy. Deliberate disregard for facts. And no, CNN is not the beacon of journalism. 178.197.216.177 (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't read that NYT article yourself, have you? You've only read what the right wing messageboards say about it? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The article referenced actually says the NYT verified files that APPEARED to have come from the laptop. The statement, "Even the NY Times admits that the "Hunter Biden laptop" and its content are real" is, in fact, not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.209.86 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is getting difficult

This is getting difficult because real issues are merged and conflated with conspiracy theory. As I understand it, the conspiracy theory is that Joe Biden purposefully did some things while Vice President to somehow aid his son Hunter Biden who was employed by a Ukranian company. There are real aspects to that story, namely that Hunter is currently under investigation for FARA issues, that a laptop of his somehow ended up in Rudy Giuliani's hands, and that the contents of the laptop were real. Which brings us to the second conspiracy theory, which is that the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop point to evidence that Hunter Biden was misusing access to his father to make money from business deals. Then there's a third conspiracy theory that isn't called that directly but certainly is, that the contents of the laptop were planted by Russian agents as disinformation to interfere in political campaigns, and that tech companies used this conspiracy theory as evidence to censor and suppress mention of the story, encouraged in Congressional hearings by Democrats who believed tech companies were not doing enough censoring and suppressing of disinformation.
So I'm at a bit of a loss as to how we can improve this article without really starting over with a more clearly targeted approach as to what this article's conspiracy theory is and is not. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I encourage you to write with as much precision as possible here, as you have a tendency to make broad statements that aren't fully accurate, such as the contents of the laptop were real, right after mentioning a laptop of his somehow ended up in Rudy Giuliani's hands. The pivotal email in this matter still has not been reported as authenticated. soibangla (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree, that claim that something is "conflated" with somethng is unintelligible, and it is impossible to have a straightforward discussion without a clearly defined issue on the table. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
"The contents of the laptop were real" is a fully accurate statement, backed up by the many sources I've provided. I encourage you to present one with evidence to the contrary. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The proposition that "the contents..." is identical to "all of the contents..." has repeatedly been rejected here. No point repeating anything that depends on a gradeschool logical fallacy. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The NYT explicitly reported "a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop," but you assertively changed it to definitely "came from the laptop." That is imprecise and was rightly reverted. Your action was not helpful in our effort to nail down this complicated topic. soibangla (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
You’ve yet to provide a source presenting evidence that any laptop material is not genuine. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Nice dodge. I'm losing my enthusiasm for proving anything to anyone who systematically ignores it and returns to their talking points, many of which I commonly find on Murdoch properties. soibangla (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
What Murdoch talking points? Just provide a source. It should be easy. We’ve been at this for months and you still haven’t provided any sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
We’ve been at this for months and you still haven’t provided any sources. lol. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Still waiting to see your sources (and not random edit stats). Kernighan (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
evidence that any laptop material is not genuine That is yet another gradeschool-level logical fallacy. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
What does the pink color mean? That you also don’t have sources? Hopefully you can provide RS instead of OR. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The highlighted text is quoting your words 4-1/2 inches above. evidence that any laptop material is not genuine. There is no way to start from a false premise to arrive at a valid conclusion. This has been explained to you several times. It's pointless to keep repeating it. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Look at me, a regular Joe Peacock! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • We need to reflect the caution in the sources (since they are BLP-sensitive.) And the best sources remain extremely cautious, willing only to say that it appears that some of the emails may be real. Obviously it would be WP:SYNTH / WP:OR to summarize that in a way that implies that the email at the core of that aspect of the dispute has been confirmed - if you want to imply that, then BLP means that you are the one who has to produce a source stating so specifically. The NYT story might make you, personally, feel that some aspect of the conspiracy theory has been vindicated - but the source doesn't say that (or even reference the conspiracy theory at all, by my reading), so it's not relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a simple and clear delimitation of the topic. The conspiracy theory is not about Hunter Biden's possible corruption or later investigations. It is about the false conspiracy theory that Joe Biden misused his position as Vice President to pressure the firing of a prosecutor who might investigate Hunter Biden and expose corruption. Anything else does not belong in this article. It belongs in Hunter's article. Lord knows he has plenty of problems, but the conspiracy theory is not about them. -- Valjean (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

At the very least I don't think the NYT article is relevant, since it doesn't mention the conspiracy theory at all; nothing in it, by my reading, touches on any elements of the conspiracy theory beyond an incredibly oblique mention that the laptop was part of the events leading to Trump's impeachment - it's all about tax issues. The core problem is that it's being used in a way that risks WP:SYNTH implications that aren't really stated in it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Does this help, Ernie?

Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived
”Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn't resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor... The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.”
The Hill (John Solomon's columns regarding Ukraine became a subject of the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment inquiry against President Trump) petrarchan47คุก 04:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
LOL! That's the debunked original version of the conspiracy theory by the conspiracy theorist himself, who is no longer a RS. -- Valjean (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
John Solomon? Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time.... a long time.... – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The Hill finds John Solomon 'failed' to identify key details of sources. By KYLE CHENEY, Politico, 02/19/2020
John Solomon, the former opinion writer at The Hill whose columns were seen as a central part of a smear campaign against former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, failed to identify "important details" about his sources — including that they were under investigation or indictment and were even his attorneys, according to a review of his work by his former colleagues.
In its review of 14 columns, The Hill's news team said serious doubts about the credibility of Solomon's Ukrainian sources were evident even before his interviews with them. Those include, most notably, two former Ukrainian prosecutors — Yuriy Lutsenko and Victor Shokin — who were the principal sources behind unsupported allegations of corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
"In certain columns, Solomon failed to identify important details about key Ukrainian sources, including the fact that they had been indicted or were under investigation. In other cases, the sources were his own attorneys," The Hill concluded. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That is an opinion piece... again. Part of the issue that makes covering this topic difficult is that there are opinion-pieces from deeply-invested partisans who will trumpet any sort of random event as some sort of deeply-significant change (especially from conservatives frustrated that this didn't have the same impact that the Podesta hack or the Comey letter did.) But in terms of news coverage, nothing much has shifted since the start; the laptop's provenance remains uncertain and the broad claims it was produced to substantiate remain unproven, and continues to be extremely implausible given the larger context (ie. the prosecutor at the heart of the conspiracy theory was not investigating Hunter Biden and was removed for corruption, which basically made the entire conspiracy theory DOA.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47, in case you're wondering about the reaction to your post, try to actually read this article before posting.

The conspiracy theory is about whether Joe Biden corruptly pressured the removal of a prosecutor to protect his son. The facts show that Joe Biden openly carried out the will of the international community to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor who was not doing his job to investigate corruption. By getting a prosecutor who would actually investigate Burisma for any corruption, Joe Biden's actions placed Hunter Biden in jeopardy if he was involved in any corruption there.

Solomon, Giuliani, and Bannon were played by Russian intelligence and their corrupt Putin-supported lackeys in Ukraine. -- Valjean (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect, so kindly where is the reporting?
Editorializing: "Solomon, Giuliani, and Bannon " 2 out of three are media publishing figures, 1 is a lawyer paid to act in the pollical space for a campaign.
Solomon, Giuliani, and Bannon were played by Russian intelligence is incorrect, they hit resistance from a the deep state and the main stream media on their message. It turns out each have a ton of support information years after the primary events that was left uncovered by the press at the time. They operated in a space that journalist failed to investigate in the run up to the 2020 United States Presidential Election. They are part of the conservative right in american politics, they exists in a valid information space no matter the editors crys. The information brought forward is significant and reflects reality more often than NY Times WA Post echo chamber of "deep state" insider sources reporting when the Bidens are involved.
Seems some editors are now floating without NY Times support on old information that the sources today are meekly saying "no comment" or "im not currently following" when asked about their 2020 statements of fact. At this point there is no factual evidence the laptop was any part of any disinformation, that the contents were at least a portion of an email archive showing behavior like political influence pedaling. I understand it will take years for editors to catch up, on the scale of likely, nobody was played by russian intelligence in respect to the history of the bidens, the beltway, the social media platforms and new york media played the voters. Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory contents are 3000+ words are looking at the spin results of of systemic media bias from "Wikipedia Reliable Sources".
Per a host of unbiased sources, there remains serious concerns there was undo influence pedaling of many DC personalities on behalf of Ukraine corporations, this article is full of a good number of these concerns. The arc from https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ukraine%20Report_FINAL.pdf to Politically Motivated Twitter Suppression of the NY Post Hunter Laptop in the runup to the Election 2020 does not seem to exist except across 12+ articles. It might be a good task to construct that in an editors brain, because from a NPoV that might be a significant set items to collect.
"Many of the allegations Democrats have made against Republicans — that they are relying on foreign disinformation, that they are carrying out a politicized investigation in an effort to bring down their political opponents, and that they are working covertly with the executive branch to quickly release sensitive information for political reasons — reflect the very patterns of behavior that Democrats themselves have engaged in, and continue to engage in, on a regular basis." - A senate committee statement that is currently up for debate and must be reflected or coverage bias exists. Loopbackdude (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
there remains serious concerns there was undo influence pedaling of many DC personalities on behalf of Ukraine corporations yet there remains no evidence of that in this matter. an email archive showing behavior like political influence pedaling remains false. A senate committee statement from Ron Johnson, whom the FBI warned was being fed Russian disinfo, but nevertheless concluded in that report there was no evidence of influence peddling. What does new york media mean? soibangla (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Good catch, new york media Sounds like a reference to an anti-Semitic meme that gets baked into the far-right narratives and carelessly repeated by people who don't even stop to think about what they are saying. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I do disagree with the idea that Solomon, Giuliani, and Bannon were played by Russian intelligence because it seems they were playing right along. It's open for debate whether they were witting or unwitting participants. As for that Senate report, you clip one little statement from it and pretend it's fully representative. More relevant are statements like the extent to which Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine is not clear Further, Summarizing the report’s findings, The New York Times wrote that the report did not present evidence of improper influence or wrongdoing by Joe Biden. Politico described the report as "largely a compilation of previously public information … as well as news articles and strongly worded insinuations with little evidence to back them up." – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Here is a recent Washington Post piece about this. Its conclusion: Even today, the full story isn’t clear. Is the story straightforward — Mac Isaac obtained a laptop, thought it might be relevant to national politics and then found only one taker, Giuliani, for the material? Was the material reportedly circulating in Ukraine the same stuff? Nonexistent? Obtained from an iCloud hack independently? Did Guo learn about the laptop from Bannon, with mentions of the material in September following from there? It is of course always easy to ask infinite questions when you’re skeptical, but that the answers to this aren’t known now reinforces the reasons for skepticism 18 months ago. tl;dr: Nothing has changed since Giuliani first started trying to push the story, and there are still no answers to the core question of the laptop's provenance, which would obviously have to be answered before anyone outside of the partisan orbit who needs it to be important would start taking it seriously as evidence for anything. Numerous aspects of the laptop's contents remain highly suspicious (the article details all of them). tl;dr: The breathless rush of op-eds claiming something has dramatically changed (again, since this happens any time there is any news coverage of any sort mentioning the laptop in any context) isn't supported by anything concrete. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

The lead on the article reads: The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unconfirmed claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son...

Currently, a Grand Jury investigation is going on in Delaware - I realize the tenet of WP:CRYSTAL but there is no mention of any of the investigations so stating up front that something is a “false allegation” while the question is still up in the air seems a bit presumptive. I realize this article has the attention of many editors and again this is only a question but even doing a cursory search regarding the investigation displays a litany of information from reliable sources and seems as if it should at least be noted somewhere in the context of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The target of that investigation is Hunter, not Joe. So go to Hunter Biden#Investigations. It's there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand some of your reasoning in this regard and I did go to look at the page in question.
I have a further question though honestly... nothing happens in a vacuum, so pushing some of this content off to another page entirely may not be appropriate in the context of what this entry is about.
In that regard, it strikes me as there should be further referencing to US involvement in the politics of the Ukraine stretching back to the late aughts. These events did not spring forth all at once and are interwoven with other historical actions. In that case should this be folded into Joe Biden’s own biography as a subhead?
And again, this is more a question about putting events into a true context even as things are still becoming clearer on them - I see that there are strong reactions by a multitude of editors and do not want to ratchet up the dialog further but my only concern is that this article as it stands takes a clear point of view with the lead: “The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unconfirmed claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States,” and while events are still unfolding this may be an instance of WP:CRYSTAL because we simply don’t know yet. We’re still in the process of learning about things so even labeling this way is presumptive. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The rules for See also are strange sometimes, but some of those might go there. Otherwise, since this article is about conspiracy theories, any that are actually true don't go here. And if the results of any grand jury disagree with what is written here, it will (likely quickly) be changed. Gah4 (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I see your point (and it’s a good one - thank you) but, wouldn’t it then make more sense to list the unconfirmed claims in question in a series of bullet points or sections? The lead itself winds up being very broad otherwise, giving the appearance anything which has been called into question regarding the Biden family and The Ukraine is false. Should there be something at the top pointing to confirmed claims? Should any articles on the topic be combined detailing confirmed and unconfirmed events? 71.190.233.44 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"The Hunter Biden story is an opportunity for a reckoning" - WaPo editorial board

I think it may be of benefit to some editors here to give this a read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/03/hunter-biden-story-is-an-opportunity-reckoning/ Endwise (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yet there was reason in this case for reluctance on the part of the publications and the platforms alike. Both had been the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign in 2016, and it was only prudent to suspect a similar plot lay behind the mysterious appearance of a computer stuffed with juicy documents and conveniently handed over to President Donald Trump’s toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Indeed, at the time there was also an ongoing disinformation operation from Moscow involving — among other things — doctored recordings supposedly showing Joe Biden improperly pressuring the then-president of Ukraine to aid Hunter Biden’s business interests — a fraud promoted by Mr. Giuliani.

All this drama would not have dragged on so long if Rudy had given the hard drive to credible press outlets for them to examine and authenticate, as they immediately requested. But he didn't. The MSM could've put the whole matter to bed within days, but Rudy wouldn't let them. And now the NYT reports on emails showing Hunter was adamant in not seeking influence with policymakers, which kinda puts the kibosh on the corruption narrative. You think maybe that's why Rudy didn't want anyone to examine the emails, but rather just the Podzarskyi email that has a whiff of smelliness but doesn't actually prove anything? And then the NYP story the next day about a China deal in which they cited some guy asking "10 held by H for the big guy?" but never reported on Hunter's email that Joe gave him "an emphatic no" to the idea? As far as I know, the hard drive has been unavailable to MSM until just recently, so they've been in the dark about the authenticity of its contents all this time and thus had no basis to walk anything back (if "walk back" is what they actually did, anyway). Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback. soibangla (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
We actually have a timeline of when WaPo got the laptop. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/ They got it from Jack Maxey

In June 2021, Maxey, who previously worked as a researcher for Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, delivered to The Washington Post a portable hard drive that he said contained the data. He said he had obtained it from Giuliani.

It's true that Rudy own-goaled by not providing the DKIM verifiable emails to MSM outlets early on. Additionally, John Paul Isaac gave an incredibly sketchy interview (woefully unprepared with a lawyer or anything, somewhat justifiably paranoid given the potential effect on major political parties) when the story came out.
But it's also true that the press had easy early access to the laptop through Giuliani and Bannon associates (Jack Maxey, Raheem Kassam, Jack Posobesic the latter 2 openly offering to liberal outlets) but chose not to verify it. And that in the meantime they blasted headlines about Russian disinfo. Instead of looking into the most searched for and censored story the media chose to ignore it completely based on the association with Giuliani and the weird beret-wearing albino legally-blind guy. We don't (To my knowledge) know if/when NYT first pursued/acquired a copy of the laptop. -- 136.49.80.62 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Check on Maxey. When did Raheem Kassam and Jack Posobesic offer it? soibangla (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Poso says he got the emails on oct 18 https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1317843325190344705?s=21
Posobiec: "In 2020, I offered copies of Hunter's Hard Drive to Jake Tapper, Maggie Haberman, even Mark Cuban. None of them took the offer." https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1505554130240212992?s=21
DailyDot https://www.dailydot.com/debug/hunter-biden-gateway-pundit-trump-disinformation/

After the first story broke in the Post, Bannon and Giuliani seem to have basically handed out the hard drive’s contents to any conservative outlet that wanted it. On Oct. 18, Jack Posobiec of One America News Network (OAN) tweeted merrily that he was en route to getting the emails. Meanwhile, requests for the contents from legitimate news organizations like NBC News went ignored.

Those are just a couple names I know. Basically copy of the laptop was shopped around so much on the right it's impossible an avid journalist wouldn't get it.
Ben Schreckinger was able to get a copy much earlier as part of his book for Politico, published July 2021, so he must have had it much sooner. He's a 20 something zoomer at the time. So was Emma who wrote the NYP story. The entire MSM could have known everything it knows now then, just chose to leave it to a couple 20 somethings and supress in MSM. -- 136.49.80.62 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you find Posobiec credible? Read his BLP. Bannon and Giuliani seem to have basically handed out the hard drive’s contents to any conservative outlet that wanted it Not the actual hard drive, and only to conservative outlets. Please indent.soibangla (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Poso claimed publicly to have gotten a whole copy. Seems worth looking into and running a DKIM analysis on it, basically doing what they started doing in 2nd half of 2021. Schreckinger got it by himself, why couldn't the MSM? https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/12/hunter-biden-corruption-515583

In researching the book, I spoke to a person who had had independent access to Hunter Biden’s emails. This person was not in a position to compare the leaked emails word-for-word with the originals, but they said Hunter Biden had in fact received an email containing the “10 held by H for the big guy?” language and another from a Burisma representative thanking him for the opportunity to meet Joe Biden. I also obtained a cache of the purported laptop files from people working with the right-wing operative Steve Bannon, one of the people behind the original leak. I was able to confirm that some other parts of the material are genuine. Two people who corresponded with Hunter Biden in the months leading up to his father’s 2019 campaign launch confirmed to me the authenticity of emails in the cache. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fears of being embroiled in a global controversy. Finally, emails in the cache matched emails released to me by the National Property Board of Sweden, a Swedish government agency, under the country’s freedom of information law. (For a time, Hunter Biden had an office inside the complex that houses the Swedish embassy.

The Sweden story was published Feb 2021 in that country https://www.dn.se/sverige/swedish-emails-reveal-new-facts-on-joe-biden-s-keys-to-hunter-s-office/ -- 136.49.80.62 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Schreckinger got it by himself, why couldn't the MSM? Because he's a young, intrepid, ambitious journalist who scooped 'em all. Been known to happen. soibangla (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I see Schreckinger only got a cache of the files. Maybe Poso was bluffing about how much of the laptop he had. So June 2021 seems the earliest recorded access from the press. It's unclear whether WaPo or NYT could have gotten them earlier. -- 136.49.80.62 (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
So you're pretty much walking back most/all of what you just said? soibangla (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you made a good point and I walked back a bit. Thank you, I appreciated.
A large cache was available for fact checking. One intrepid journalist will always beat a news room that has dismissed a story. We don't have an inside scoop on what happened with news rooms and when they put resources on this. We know that Ken Vogel at the NYT didn't attempt FOIA request until December 2021. https://www.businessinsider.com/state-department-give-hunter-biden-emails-new-york-times-lawsuit-2022-3 It needs fleshing out what was available and known when and how it worked inside newsrooms. -- 136.49.80.62 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Vogel's FOIA isn't related to the laptop. soibangla (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Romania was on the laptop. Kazakhstan. The Post just initially ran China and Ukraine stories which were focus. [Podcast where the author Emma Jo is interviewed - skip to 10:14 for the meat of it, they talk about other stuff once they're done talking about laptop so cant exit when subject changes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj4KpkxCYIo) (not presenting as a reliable sauce for article, just to show they picked the two biggest stories they could identify, having received the laptop early October very close to election). There were other leads besides Ukraine/China. Bobulinski FOIA request is surely related to validating Bobulinski's role as a business partner and his claims to backup the laptop with his own emails from his devices etc.
After a few articles confirming a tax/money laundaring/FARA investigation in December 2020, I don't see evidence of MSM publishing much at all. WaPo we know started looking into it in June 2021 without publishing anything. Schreckinger in September 2021 was a small blip on the citable sources radar, with the dam breaking from NYT acknowledging March 2022 after which the rest of MSM followed suit, including WaPo deciding to post their analysis which they'd been sitting on. -- 136.49.80.62 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
also regarding WaPo calling the recording a "fraud", what evidence do they have that it is such? The U.S. government has called Andriy Derkach an “active Russian agent.”. A russian agent says he got it from an investigative journalist. A Russian Agent is an important detail, but it does not mean that it's not real, or a conspiracy that whatever was allegedly said on the recording. e.g. wikileaks was real and US Intel community believes Russians caused the leak.
AP News: "While heavily edited, the recordings do not appear to be entirely fabricated" https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-media-social-media-joe-biden-russia-292da15771d83932249b32873774f8ae . youtu.be/IpCpI_HAB84 There's the the original source being discussed.
As long as this page is built around "conspiracy", discussing all these questions in a complete way will be limited. There are only 4 sources referencing "conspiracy theory" in the title, most of them don't refer to it this way, instead to "allegation", "accusation". "false claim" etc. 136.49.80.62 (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • That's an opinion-piece... again. As I've said above, I've yet to see any actual non-opinion pieces supporting the idea that anything of any significance has changed about this story in 2022, and even the stories in 2021 were generally extremely cautiously-worded. There's several table-pounding opinion-pieces, but they can only be given so much weight if there's no news coverage that reflects their focus. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not advocating to directly base article content off this, I'm just saying that some in the mainstream media are starting to change their tune. This is the Washington Post's editorial board by the way, which is not "table-pounding" right-wing propaganda whose aim is to attack Joe Biden or something. Endwise (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't think opinion pieces are sufficient to support your own opinion that anything significant has changed. Lots of people have strong feelings about this topic, which come out in opinion pieces all over the political spectrum; but the more cautiously-worded news articles don't generally support the idea that much of significance has changed since 2021. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Dan Abrams: Media Missed Legitimate Questions On Hunter Biden (April 6, 2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEfcf0OSu9c Report from MSNBC + Cast of Morning Joe discusses with Dan Abrams how the media failed in covering the story earlier on --136.49.80.62 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_7&oldid=1089712066"