In a twist that underscores the enduring controversy surrounding Hunter Biden, the infamous "laptop from hell" has re-emerged as a central piece of evidence in his federal gun trial. This development has reignited debates about the media's initial handling of the story and the broader implications for the Biden family.
The laptop, once dismissed by many media outlets and intelligence officials as potential Russian disinformation, was formally entered into evidence this week by federal prosecutors in Wilmington, Delaware. The contents of the laptop, which include videos, photos of drug use, sex acts, and sensitive business communications, are being used to support charges that Hunter Biden lied about his drug use on a firearm purchase form.
The laptop first came to public attention in October 2020, just weeks before the presidential election. The New York Post published a story about the device, which had been abandoned at a repair shop and subsequently obtained by Rudy Giuliani, then-President Donald Trump's lawyer. The report suggested that the laptop contained emails implicating Hunter Biden in questionable foreign business dealings, potentially involving his father, Joe Biden.
During the final presidential debate in 2020, then-candidate Joe Biden dismissed the laptop story, citing a letter from former intelligence officials who suggested it bore the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign. Biden stated, "There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant." This narrative was widely echoed by media outlets, leading to significant skepticism about the laptop's authenticity.
Fast forward to 2023, and the laptop's authenticity is no longer in question. Testimony from an FBI special agent confirmed that the bureau had the laptop in its possession since 2019, adding weight to the claims initially made by the New York Post. The laptop is now a key piece of evidence in Hunter Biden's trial, where he faces charges of making a false statement on a gun purchase form.
Emma-Jo Morris, the former New York Post deputy politics editor who broke the initial story, expressed a sense of vindication. "I thought it was insane, and almost beyond parody what I was watching, as the entire political establishment, intelligence community, media establishment, big tech, everyone just made up a story that I knew wasn't true," Morris, now at Breitbart News, told Fox News Digital. "But I was vindicated the minute we pressed publish."
The media's initial dismissal of the laptop story has drawn sharp criticism. CBS News, for example, verified the laptop's contents in 2022 through its own forensic investigation, long after other outlets had dismissed the story. This delay in recognition has led to calls for apologies from journalists like CBS's Lesley Stahl, who had famously dismissed the laptop's authenticity during a "60 Minutes" interview with Trump.
Townhall senior editor Matt Vespa recently wrote, "Stahl owes Trump an apology." This sentiment is echoed by many Trump allies who feel that the media's handling of the story was biased and politically motivated.
Symone Sanders-Townsend, who served as a Biden spokeswoman in 2020, bluntly stated on MSNBC that attempts by Trump to amplify the story were "Russian misinformation." MSNBC contributors and hosts echoed this sentiment, reinforcing a narrative that has since been debunked.
The skepticism at the time was partly due to the involvement of Giuliani and the lack of access to the laptop's hard drive for independent verification. CNN political director David Chalian and then-CNN president Jeff Zucker were among those who advised against covering the story, citing the need for substantiated evidence.
As Hunter Biden's trial continues, the laptop saga serves as a stark reminder of the complex interplay between media, politics, and the quest for truth. The trial has brought the laptop back into the national spotlight, highlighting its significance in the ongoing investigations into the Biden family's business dealings.
Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement in the purchase of a gun, making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federally licensed gun dealer, and possession of a gun by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison, with each count carrying a maximum fine of $250,000 and three years of supervised release.