New York Times FINALLY acknowledges legitimacy of NYP’s Hunter Biden’s laptop story

The New York Times piece in question was published on Wednesday, and looked into a federal investigation Biden regarding his tax liability. The New York Post focused on a paragraph located around three quarters of the way through The Time’s piece, which said they have authenticated files obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop.

"People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. 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. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation," the paragraph read.

"Authenticated!!! You don’t say," the New York Post editorial board wrote. "You mean, when a newspaper actually does reporting on a topic and doesn’t just try to whitewash coverage for Joe Biden, it discovers it’s actually true?"

The editorial board continued on to note that the Times had previously cast doubt on whether Joe Biden had met with an official from Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company where Hunter Biden served as a board member.

The Times acknowledged in the recent article that the dinner had taken place, and the then-Vice President had in fact made an appearance.

"It is not clear whether the Burisma executive attended the dinner, although the vice president did make an appearance, according to people familiar with the event," The New York Times reported.

"Funny how this works when you don’t just take someone’s word for it," the editorial board wrote.

They continued to slam The New York Times for casting doubt on the veracity of the laptop, having previously claimed that the information was "purported." The Times had cited a letter from former Democratic officials that called it Russian disinformation. The laptop story was reportedly called "unsubstantiated" by the Times as recently as September of 2021.

This messaging came from Biden's team.

"Why was it unsubstantiated? Because of willful ignorance and the Times’ curious lack of curiosity," the editorial board wrote.

They noted that Hunter Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski had come forward after The Post published the initial laptop stories in the fall of 2020, confirming that the emails bearing his name were legitimate.

"The Bidens didn’t even deny it was true! They just deflected, with the media’s help, saying it was a dirty trick or not a story. Mostly, the press just ignored it," the editorial board wrote.

They said that now that Joe Biden is in the White House, "The Times finally decides to report on the news rather than carry the Biden campaign’s water."

The editorial board continued on to take a shot at how the Times authenticated the files.

"How did the Times 'authenticate' the laptop? It doesn’t say. Unlike The Post’s reporting, which detailed exactly how we got the files and where they came from, the Times does a hand wave to anonymous sources. No facts have changed since fall 2020. They knew the laptop was real from the start. They just didn’t want to say so," they wrote.

They said that these "180s" The New York Times does never have "any shame."

They noted that The Post had been banned from Twitter for reportedly posting "'hacked materials' that weren’t hacked" in relation to the laptop story, and that they had subsequently received an apology, "but by that point, they had accomplished what they wanted. Like the Times, they cast enough doubt to avoid making their preferred candidate look bad."

They slammed the Times for finally reporting that Hunter Biden may have pursued business deals in Europe and Asia, and may have used his father’s position as leverage in them, as well as not properly reporting his income or registering with the government.

"Readers of The Post have known this since October 2020. We also have a much better sports section. We’ve authenticated it," the editorial board concluded.