Over the summer, the Washington Post editorial board wrote that, guess what, maybe the DOJ is giving Hunter Biden special treatment after all!
Washington Post editorial board: “critics might have been justified to suspect that Mr. Biden was being given special treatment.”https://t.co/N6fqiygVip
— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) August 14, 2023
It's not just the DOJ -- the Washington Post is to some degree still giving Hunter Biden special treatment. Byron York shared another example of that:
For some in the press, a continuing struggle over how to refer to Hunter Biden's laptop. https://t.co/ZO63UHDlRH pic.twitter.com/nE0RXSJSqr
— Byron York (@ByronYork) November 18, 2023
Wait, they "authenticated" the laptop's contents but the laptop itself is only "purported"? Interesting.
…purported and authenticated….
— Roadwarrior (@John73571561) November 18, 2023
Authenticated, but purported:
But interviews with former Hunter Biden associates, along with information drawn from congressional testimony and a review of emails found on a copy of Hunter’s purported laptop that have been authenticated by The Post, illustrate how the president’s son and his partners benefited from his last name. There is also limited evidence that the now-president asked his son to be careful or expressed qualms about how Hunter was wielding the name he made famous.
There's a lot of heavy lifting being done in that paragraph.
Recommended
Purported laptop? Did they think it might have actually been a tablet?
— Andrea E (@AAC0519) November 18, 2023
The Post would definitely not be going to that level of journalism gymnastics if the laptop came from somebody in the Trump family.
That high a standard of professional skepticism would make it impossible to hold a simple conversation with one’s barber
— Vestigaliberal (@Ami61495883) November 18, 2023
They have more contortions than a pretzel maker
— Cindy (@Cindybinmo) November 18, 2023
This is included in the Post's article and the spin continues to crack me up:
A Washington Post review of Hunter Biden’s career found no sign the family patriarch was an active participant in his son’s business efforts.
Sure, Jan! We've gone from "Biden never spoke to his son about his overseas business dealings" to "no sign Joe was an active participant in his son's business efforts."
The Post no doubt doesn't consider those checks made out to Biden for "loan repayments" or all the pseudonym email names to be red flags at all.
Here's a photo of WaPo "journalists" looking for proof the "family patriarch" was an active participant in his son's business dealings:
Have a good weekend everybody!
