Well over here we all knew the Hunter Biden Laptop story was real and that the Russia Collusion crap was just that... crap.
YOu guys need to do something about your media and the big tech companies.

Of course this is very far from what really happened. Even the Post had doubts about the authenticity of the story at the time they wrote it. The New York Post’s front-page article about Hunter Biden on Wednesday was written mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it. The Post has mostly turned into a tabloid at this point in time and really cares little about facts, so the NYT and other media outlets were correct in questioning the the reporting at the time it was written. Actually, the NYT should be commended for following up and eventually confirming the story. They could have continued to claim that story the story was bogus and probably none of their readers would have questioned it. Or just buried the story. And that's probably what would have happened if the Times were as dishonest as is claimed in the rant above. But they didn't. Some 50 Intel people backed them up at the time. At least they kept up with the story and eventually got to the truth. I seriously doubt this would have occurred in today's conservative media. This story would be a non-story if it was anyone but the president's son. So, Hunter made some money off his dad's name and position. To hear the conservative media tell it, you would think that this is the first time in history that this has ever happened. Happens all the time. The real conclusion that should be drawn is that the NYT is reasonably trustworthy since they owned up, but you won't hear that on this site. It's all about how the Times tries to suppress the truth. If that was really true they would have continued to claim the story was bogus, or simply not commented, which they didn't.

As I read the post, which relies on the admission -- at long last -- by the New York Times that the New York Post Hunter Biden story was accurate, I was struck by the repeated statements that "We now know" that is was accurate. Here are the two statements I have in mind:

"We now know that it was news--news that those supporting Biden, including Twitter, Facebook, and Google, successfully suppressed prior to the 2020 election." (Italics mine.)

"Given what we now know, all fifty of these intelligence officials, as well as Brian Stelter, should be dismissed from their jobs for blatant incompetence." (Italics mine.)

I immediately thought, when reading those statements, that some of us, perhaps most of us, who are on the Conservative cultural and political end of the spectrum, already knew this. But then I thought that the "we" in your statements was probably not intended to be understood as "we Conservatives now know," but rather as "we -- whether Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat -- who are genuinely interested in truthful and accurate reporting, in reporting which at least tries hard to be objective, now know." Read this way, I say, "Yes, finally."

This is red pilling a number of lefty journalists that try to be honest. (Malice defn of red pill, mainstream media lies to you for corporate gain and power.)