Hacker News Reader

Comment by scrbblr | Hacker News Reader

The claim that the "story was fabricated" is strange. The source of the material may be unclear and quite possibly not what was originally claimed, but that does not mean the emails are fabrications - and no one from the Biden campaign has claimed that they are.

View on HN

There's certainly a ton of circumstantial evidence like Biden's lawyer asking for the hard drive back and nobody denying it's real.

I did one Google search to see if this is true, and found a Politico story that says Biden staffers, after reviewing schedules, denied that the events described in the emails took place. So "no one is denying it" seems false. (Feel free to do the search yourself, it's easy.)

I imagine the candidate himself is not denying it, because even addressing it to defend himself from a totally false accusation turns it into a headline. Which, given the content of these leaks, is obviously the entire point of them.

This illustrates the manipulatory power of doing one Google search. Their later statement said they "wouldn't rule out the possibility of an informal meeting" but it's buried. [0]

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lash...

It says that after reviewing his "official schedule" they concluded no meeting happened. I seriously doubt that an illicit meeting would be included on his "official schedule".

If you follow this kind of logic, you can believe anything about anything that isn't explicitly denied or proved. Which is a daft state of affairs to be in, no? Surely it's a one-way trip down the Conspiracy Cave once you start thinking like this?

> Biden staffers, after reviewing schedules, denied that the events described in the emails took place.

This seems to dodge the actual matter at hand. The question is whether the email conversation was fabricated or actually happened, not whether everything the participants said in the conversation was true.

The sources I saw said they denied the meetings were on his "official schedule." Which is a weaselly. Biden himself hasn't denied they occurred. That might be because they don't want to give the story any credence by denying it. But he hasn't.

The source of the material is very clear. Hunter Biden left a laptop at a repair shop, and the guy at the repair shop made multiple copies. The repair shop guy has come forward. The FBI also has at least 1 copy.

The source of the material is entirely unclear. All we know is that there exists a laptop, the source of which is unknown. It could have been Hunter Biden dropping the laptop into the repair shop. It could have been Vladmir Putin dropping it off for all we know. We certainly don't know if the laptop is Biden's. All we do know is that the story told by the repair shop guy is highly suspicious - including the explanation for why exactly he looked into the contents and why exactly he got into contact with Rudy Giuliani, or indeed whether he got in contact with Giuliani at all.

Facts in support of the laptop being genuine:

- The laptop had emails on it that were previously not public

- The laptop had pictures of Hunter and family that were previously not public

- They have Hunter's signature on the drop off receipt

- Hunter's attorney requested the hard drive back (they have the request in writing)

- The FBI subpeonaed the laptop

- The DNI himself says it's not a Russian disinformation campaign and that there's not intelligence saying it is

- No one in the Biden campaign has denied the laptop itself is genuine (only that they couldn't find a meeting on the books that matches the one in the email)

Facts in support of the laptop coming from Vladimir Putin:

- Literally nothing

By the way, he guy at the computer store came forward as to why he got in contact with Rudy Giuliani. He went to the FBI with the info and got stonewalled by them. Sensing they were covering it up, he decided to become a whistleblower and went to whoever would listen.

> - The laptop had emails on it that were previously not public

Have yet to be authenticated though?

> - They have Hunter's signature on the drop off receipt

Can't find a source for this - only that it says "Hunter Biden". Do you have a handy URL?

> - Hunter's attorney requested the hard drive back (they have the request in writing)

Again, can't find a source that doesn't say "allegedly" in the sentence. Do you have a handy URL with proof?

> - The FBI subpeonaed the laptop

Given they seem to think it's a Russian disinformation play being made through the campaign team of POTUS, yeah, I'd expect them to be going through it with a fine toothcomb to find out who, where, when, etc.

> The DNI himself says it's not a Russian disinformation campaign

Alas, his credibility is probably lower even than Guiliani's.

> that there's not intelligence saying it is

The FBI seem to be approaching things from the point of view that it is a Russian op. Awkward!

> No one in the Biden campaign has denied the laptop itself is genuine

They've also not denied that Hunter Biden is a lizard person. SUSPICIOUS.

UPDATE - News out this morning that DOJ is also confirming the laptop is genuine. You're, of course still welcome to cognitive dissonance away the entire subject and believe it's some Russian plot.

Are you using two accounts or is this two different russian agents posting?

Alas, just the one account and doubly alas, no pay check from Russia. Pretty sure their rates for being controlled opposition on HN wouldn't really cover my needs.

>- The laptop had emails on it that were previously not public

Not public no, but in the posession of Vlad since January as reported here: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/478090-russia-hacked-u...

>- The laptop had pictures of Hunter and family that were previously not public

I hear Jennifer Lawrence is part of the Ukraine scandal now too.

>- They have Hunter's signature on the drop off receipt

As already established, Vlad has Burisma's emails, so we already know he has Biden's signature.

> - Hunter's attorney requested the hard drive back (they have the request in writing)

Yes, Hunter's lawyers would probably want access to the fabricated evidence used to attack his father. That doesn't make it authentic.

> - The FBI subpeonaed the laptop

The fact the FBI investigated and didn't pursue Biden is evidence the material is not reliable.

> - The DNI himself says it's not a Russian disinformation campaign and that there's not intelligence saying it is

Ah yes, Trump's political appointee thinks Trump's personal lawyer is doing the Lords work. I'm so surprised. The ranking member of the houes intellgience committee disagrees.

>- No one in the Biden campaign has denied the laptop itself is genuine (only that they couldn't find a meeting on the books that matches the one in the email)

Because the ownership of a laptop is not the scandal, it's the fabricated Russian-sourced smear campaign is.

>By the way, he guy at the computer store came forward as to why he got in contact with Rudy Giuliani. He went to the FBI with the info and got stonewalled by them. Sensing they were covering it up, he decided to become a whistleblower and went to whoever would listen.

I'd love to get into the process by which a blind computer repair person trusted Rudy Giuliani more than the FBI.

Oof, all of that and not a shred of evidence to back any of it up. Propaganda is a powerful force. Do some research on your own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com