It was reporting from the New York Post that created the firestorm of allegations and revelations regarding the Biden family, shady foreign business dealings, and potential influence peddling that have been ravaging the media landscape for nearly two weeks.
After they broke the story on Oct. 14, the impact was intense. First there was the effect on the election, as we watched the Biden/Harris campaign as well as the Biden family try to completely ignore the story as it kept breaking, day after day, with fresh controversy. Joe Biden was more willing to talk about milkshake flavours than his family's alleged misdeeds.
Social media clamped-down, stifling circulation and refusing to allow users of their platforms to share the stories. Twitter went so far as to ban the Post from Twitter until it agreed to delete their original six tweets that shared their stories on the site. Twelve days later the Twitter account of the oldest, continuously publishing newspaper in the country is still locked out of Twitter.
Third was the ripple out across media, with conservative-leaning outlets, including this one, running multiple stories about the Post's coverage, while other outlets uncovered even more information in the form of emails and documents from Hunter Biden's former business associates.
After that we saw the complete refusal of left-leaning media to cover the story at all. The Washington Post and The New York Times covered the story only to say that the Post did shoddy work, but nothing these two heavy-hitters uncovered could refute the story. NPR claimed it was a non-story, not even worth covering, although clearly they thought their refusal to cover the story was worth reporting.
The Wall Street Journal ran a story that stated: "All of this is news... It raises real concerns about what security risks Hunter might pose for a Biden administration. And it raises questions about Joe Biden’s involvement." Shortly thereafter, their news side ran a dueling story that claimed "Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden."
And still the Bidens remain silent.
The Post Millennial spoke with Kelly Jane Torrance, a member of the New York Post's editorial board, to find out more about their reporting, and the aftermath of the Hunter Biden laptop drop.
TPM: How long did you have the laptop before publishing?
Torrance: We heard about it a while ago but we finally got possession of it on the Sunday before we published, and we published on Wednesday.
TPM: Did you know that it would result in total madness?
Torrance: They kept pretty quiet, they were looking into it, checking everything out, but it was pretty quiet beforehand, the higher ups were talking about it.
TPM: The New York Times and the Washington Post reported that there were issues about the byline, and tried to use this to discredit the reporting, were you aware of that?
Torrance: It's different now because there's so few people in the office, we weren't all part of that conversation. But when the story came out, everyone on my team thought this was huge, this was really big. Joe Biden had said he'd never talked to Hunter about his overseas deals, and he was always so angry about it whenever he was asked about it, and it seemed so clear from what was reported that this was not a true statement.
TPM: What did you make of the Wall Street Journal story that some are saying discredits the Post's reporting?
Torrance: The crucial fact is that neither Hunter or Joe has denied the veracity of any of the emails, neither Biden has said that it was not Hunter's laptop, it seems clear to me that if this was all made up they would have said that he never sent those emails and that it's not his laptop and they didn't know where it came from. And I find it mind boggling that so many journalists are bending over backwards to say its fake news when neither Biden has denied the veracity of what our reporting has shown.
TPM: Why do you think journalists and editors are doing that?
Torrance: It seems pretty clear that this information is embarrassing to Joe Biden. And I'm not saying that it means he shouldn't be president—voters have to make up their own minds as to what they think of it and whether or not they still trust Joe Biden.
The fact that so many journalists are trying to discredit the story, but in some cases even trying to bury it in a way, and saying that it's not a story—and I'm thinking here of NPR—I think it's clear that most journalists are on the left and they really want to see Joe Biden win this election. The fact that so many journalists say they're objective and "telling it like it is," shows that there's some disingenuousness there, and the same thing with social media of course.
To me, given what's going on with social media and with journalists, I don't think there can be any question now that big tech and big media are in the tank for Joe Biden. It's really disappointing that so many journalists think it's acceptable to keep Americans from reading our reporting and deciding for themselves what it means.
TPM: What do you make of the claims from media outlets that the laptop is a Russian disinformation hoax?
Torrance: The Russian disinformation claims are just ridiculous, I've never gone in with journalists being obsessed with Russia, but DNI Ratcliffe has said that's not true, and Hunter has not denied that it's his laptop. The talk about Russian disinformation fuels itself really, in a way.
The Steele dossier was not the only thing that led the FBI to open the Russia investigation, but it was part of it. The stuff in there was used to get warrants to surveil carter page, and we now know that the main subscource for that was basically gossip that people were coming up with, there's no evidence that any of it turns out to be true. The Inspector General has chided the FBI for relying on material where there was never any evidence to back it up, material that didn't come from trusted sources.
TPM: We watched social media companies censor and suppress the Post in real time, and it was shocking. How did that all go down at the ?