This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | â | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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 â 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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like you to do us a favor, though. [1] That "favor" was investigate the Bidens. â Muboshgu ( talk) 19:48, 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)
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)
@ 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
- ^ 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. ISSNÂ 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)
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)
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. â Muboshgu ( talk) 21:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.184.204 ( talk) 14:38, 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)
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)
soibangla ( talk) 15:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)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.
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.
everything they've found that can be verified has been verifiedWaPo today:
The vast majority of the data â and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained â 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?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 Trumpâs 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 Russianshows me that I shouldn't have bothered to explain how spycraft works. Russian proxies. soibangla ( talk) 03:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
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 â and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained â 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)
much less suit my agenda? ahem soibangla ( talk) 20:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
As I posted on the other page...
Soon after that period of inactivity â and months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody â three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names âDesktop Documents,â âBiden Burismaâ and âHunter. Burisma Documents.â
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 Bidenâs laptop appeared.
Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, âMail,â âSalacious Pics Packageâ and âBig Guy Fileâ â an apparent reference to Joe Biden.
- Hereâs how The Post analyzed Hunter Bidenâs 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)
[t]he Washington Post (a Biden proponent)and
leftist gatekeeperspretty much invalidates you from the discussion. ValarianB ( talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
Biden proponentand
leftist gatekeeperare WP:ASPERSIONS showing a lack of AGF that will make consensus-building harder. Please don't do it again. â Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
How should a reasonable person interpret"untold number" as opposed to "some?" How are
number of others which reportedly relate to this article's general subject...linked multiple times above? soibangla ( talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
finally coming arounddue to a tiny mention in two massive articles published seven hours ago. soibangla ( talk) 22:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I formally seek its acceptancefollowed immediately by restoring was dubious. soibangla ( talk) 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesnât imply any wrongdoingbecause 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)
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'
https://news.yahoo.com/york-times-quietly-deletes-claim-021800355.html â Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:2733:840:5CA2:34BC:DF55:CC74 ( talk) 12:06, 21 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 BidenâUkraine 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
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.
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)
.Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity [10]
Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop. [11]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If you're American, you honestly don't know how bad you have itexcept the vast bulk of the global coverage of these domestic issues comes from America, but if
Watching it from the outside is AMAZINGI certainly encourage inclusion of foreign sources that deviate from domestic sources. soibangla ( talk) 02:22, 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)
Why not update this post with factual information? The âallegedâ Hunter Biden laptop was proven to actually be Hunter Bidenâs. 47.187.137.2 ( talk) 20:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a âsmearâ from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation.
soibangla ( talk) 17:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)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."
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.
You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sourcesLook, 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)
Prove the laptop is Hunter'sWhat sources have evidence it is not? Otherwise accept what CNN and The Guardian say.
Prove the emails are authenticWhat 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 corruptionI am not claiming anything indicates corruption, just trying to clear up the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation.
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)
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)
it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaignProof?
There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved withSuch as, and for what reasons?
There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of MoscowActually, there is.
All of these things have been provenno they haven't
yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to beNope. soibangla ( talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
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 knowledgeamong 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)
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)
No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformationdoes not mean "it's not Russian disinformation".
Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticitydoes 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 fatherâs 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. â Muboshgu ( talk) 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
Weâve been at this for months and you still havenât provided any sources.lol. soibangla ( talk) 21:01, 18 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)
Does this help, Ernie?
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 â 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 â Yuriy Lutsenko and Victor Shokin â 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.â Muboshgu ( talk) 04:21, 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)
there remains serious concerns there was undo influence pedaling of many DC personalities on behalf of Ukraine corporationsyet there remains no evidence of that in this matter.
an email archive showing behavior like political influence pedalingremains false.
A senate committee statementfrom 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 mediamean? soibangla ( talk) 17:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
were played by Russian intelligencebecause 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 Bidenâs role on Burismaâs board affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine is not clearFurther,
Summarizing the reportâs 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."â Muboshgu ( talk) 17:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Even today, the full story isnât clear. Is the story straightforward â 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 youâre skeptical, but that the answers to this arenât 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)
The lead on the article reads: The BidenâUkraine 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 âfalse allegationâ 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. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 ( talk) 04:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
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 Trumpâs toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Indeed, at the time there was also an ongoing disinformation operation from Moscow involving â among other things â doctored recordings supposedly showing Joe Biden improperly pressuring the then-president of Ukraine to aid Hunter Bidenâs business interests â a fraud promoted by Mr. Giuliani.
In June 2021, Maxey, who previously worked as a researcher for Bannonâs âWar Roomâ podcast, delivered to The Washington Post a portable hard drive that he said contained the data. He said he had obtained it from Giuliani.
After the first story broke in the Post, Bannon and Giuliani seem to have basically handed out the hard driveâs 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.
Bannon and Giuliani seem to have basically handed out the hard driveâs contents to any conservative outlet that wanted itNot the actual hard drive, and only to conservative outlets. Please indent. soibangla ( talk) 20:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
In researching the book, I spoke to a person who had had independent access to Hunter Bidenâs 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 â10 held by H for the big guy?â 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 fatherâs 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 countryâs freedom of information law. (For a time, Hunter Biden had an office inside the complex that houses the Swedish embassy.
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | â | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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 â 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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like you to do us a favor, though. [1] That "favor" was investigate the Bidens. â Muboshgu ( talk) 19:48, 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)
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)
@ 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
- ^ 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. ISSNÂ 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)
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)
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. â Muboshgu ( talk) 21:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.184.204 ( talk) 14:38, 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)
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)
soibangla ( talk) 15:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)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.
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.
everything they've found that can be verified has been verifiedWaPo today:
The vast majority of the data â and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained â 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?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 Trumpâs 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 Russianshows me that I shouldn't have bothered to explain how spycraft works. Russian proxies. soibangla ( talk) 03:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
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 â and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained â 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)
much less suit my agenda? ahem soibangla ( talk) 20:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
As I posted on the other page...
Soon after that period of inactivity â and months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody â three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names âDesktop Documents,â âBiden Burismaâ and âHunter. Burisma Documents.â
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 Bidenâs laptop appeared.
Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, âMail,â âSalacious Pics Packageâ and âBig Guy Fileâ â an apparent reference to Joe Biden.
- Hereâs how The Post analyzed Hunter Bidenâs 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)
[t]he Washington Post (a Biden proponent)and
leftist gatekeeperspretty much invalidates you from the discussion. ValarianB ( talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
Biden proponentand
leftist gatekeeperare WP:ASPERSIONS showing a lack of AGF that will make consensus-building harder. Please don't do it again. â Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
How should a reasonable person interpret"untold number" as opposed to "some?" How are
number of others which reportedly relate to this article's general subject...linked multiple times above? soibangla ( talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
finally coming arounddue to a tiny mention in two massive articles published seven hours ago. soibangla ( talk) 22:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I formally seek its acceptancefollowed immediately by restoring was dubious. soibangla ( talk) 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesnât imply any wrongdoingbecause 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)
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'
https://news.yahoo.com/york-times-quietly-deletes-claim-021800355.html â Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:2733:840:5CA2:34BC:DF55:CC74 ( talk) 12:06, 21 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 BidenâUkraine 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
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.
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)
.Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity [10]
Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop. [11]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If you're American, you honestly don't know how bad you have itexcept the vast bulk of the global coverage of these domestic issues comes from America, but if
Watching it from the outside is AMAZINGI certainly encourage inclusion of foreign sources that deviate from domestic sources. soibangla ( talk) 02:22, 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)
Why not update this post with factual information? The âallegedâ Hunter Biden laptop was proven to actually be Hunter Bidenâs. 47.187.137.2 ( talk) 20:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a âsmearâ from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation.
soibangla ( talk) 17:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)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."
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.
You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sourcesLook, 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)
Prove the laptop is Hunter'sWhat sources have evidence it is not? Otherwise accept what CNN and The Guardian say.
Prove the emails are authenticWhat 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 corruptionI am not claiming anything indicates corruption, just trying to clear up the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation.
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)
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)
it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaignProof?
There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved withSuch as, and for what reasons?
There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of MoscowActually, there is.
All of these things have been provenno they haven't
yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to beNope. soibangla ( talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
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 knowledgeamong 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)
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)
No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformationdoes not mean "it's not Russian disinformation".
Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticitydoes 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 fatherâs 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. â Muboshgu ( talk) 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
Weâve been at this for months and you still havenât provided any sources.lol. soibangla ( talk) 21:01, 18 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)
Does this help, Ernie?
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 â 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 â Yuriy Lutsenko and Victor Shokin â 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.â Muboshgu ( talk) 04:21, 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)
there remains serious concerns there was undo influence pedaling of many DC personalities on behalf of Ukraine corporationsyet there remains no evidence of that in this matter.
an email archive showing behavior like political influence pedalingremains false.
A senate committee statementfrom 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 mediamean? soibangla ( talk) 17:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
were played by Russian intelligencebecause 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 Bidenâs role on Burismaâs board affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine is not clearFurther,
Summarizing the reportâs 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."â Muboshgu ( talk) 17:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Even today, the full story isnât clear. Is the story straightforward â 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 youâre skeptical, but that the answers to this arenât 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)
The lead on the article reads: The BidenâUkraine 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 âfalse allegationâ 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. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 ( talk) 04:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
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 Trumpâs toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Indeed, at the time there was also an ongoing disinformation operation from Moscow involving â among other things â doctored recordings supposedly showing Joe Biden improperly pressuring the then-president of Ukraine to aid Hunter Bidenâs business interests â a fraud promoted by Mr. Giuliani.
In June 2021, Maxey, who previously worked as a researcher for Bannonâs âWar Roomâ podcast, delivered to The Washington Post a portable hard drive that he said contained the data. He said he had obtained it from Giuliani.
After the first story broke in the Post, Bannon and Giuliani seem to have basically handed out the hard driveâs 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.
Bannon and Giuliani seem to have basically handed out the hard driveâs contents to any conservative outlet that wanted itNot the actual hard drive, and only to conservative outlets. Please indent. soibangla ( talk) 20:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
In researching the book, I spoke to a person who had had independent access to Hunter Bidenâs 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 â10 held by H for the big guy?â 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 fatherâs 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 countryâs freedom of information law. (For a time, Hunter Biden had an office inside the complex that houses the Swedish embassy.
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)
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)