Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Is this really a conspiracy?

Lets recap.

1. Hunter Biden was business dealing in Ukraine. 2. Trump tries to investigate this. 3. Trump is impeached by a democratic majority house. 4. Biden is elected and willing to go to war to protect Ukraine.

Seems to me we have evidence that some one important has investments there or we wouldn't be in a rush to war. 67.61.103.98 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what you wrote is a baseless conspiracy theory. Since this article is based on what reliable sources tell us, it pretty much debunks your fringe view. Since WP:Advocacy of WP:Fringe POV is forbidden here, please do not continue down this path or argue to defend what you wrote. -- Valjean (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Hunter Biden was involved in business in Ukraine (this part is true!) 2. Trump tried to manufacture a scandal out of it by threatening to withhold Congressionally approved funding to the Ukraine (so close to what he's accusing Biden of doing, which sounds like psychological projection to me) 3. Trump is impeached for his crimes (also true) 4. Biden wins the election and then Putin escalates the war rhetoric, likely hoping that Trump's influence would have split us off from Europe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You literally just wrote baseless conspiracy while accusing the other person of posting baseless conspiracies. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"would have split us off from Europe" Who is "us"? Dimadick (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The U.S., the country where I live and of which I am a citizen. Coulda been more clear there. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Biden confessed

Joe Biden is on video bragging about withholding 1 billion dollars of US AID money if the prosecuter wasn’t fired. It’s not a conspiracy theory when Biden himself confessed to the fact in a bragadocious manner to a crowd of people captured on video. 2601:582:C200:4B70:3092:34AC:8A4:C61A (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This was explained and debunked before the election. He was bragging about getting Viktor Shokin fired because Viktor Shokin was corrupt and not conducting investigations. He had the support of the European community to do so. Doing this put Burisma in more danger, not less. Don't trust memes you see on Facebook. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"Don't trust memes you see on Facebook." Better yet, never trust Facebook as an information source. No reputation for fact-checking. Dimadick (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

It isn’t a conspiracy theory

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ 2600:1702:2380:3250:5D79:D976:F827:EC0A (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

NOT A CONSPIRACY

Why are we still lying? Why are we still blaming Trump for things that Biden did? Biden is on video laughing repeatedly about how he threatened a prosecutor in Ukraine to be fired or he would withhold $1 billion in funding for the Ukraine! It’s live it’s a video and everyone seen it! So why are we lying and saying it’s a conspiracy. Brain dead Biden was not elected president. And another thing I’m sick and tired of hearing now that Trump was impeached for withholding funds to the Ukraine. President Trump was never impeached! How do we stop Democrats from rewriting history with lies and nonsense. Why don’t we write history with facts! 71.127.219.67 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We are not lying, this page contains nothing but facts. You are swallowing fake news talking points which we have rebutted over and over again on this talk page. Search the archives at the top of the page and read the FAQs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update

Why not update this post with factual information? The “alleged” Hunter Biden laptop was proven to actually be Hunter Biden’s. 47.187.137.2 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That has not been proven, actually. soibangla (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Provide verification for "factual information". If it's that NY Post article from October 2020, just don't bother. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You say while using opinion pieces as "reliable sources". 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence the laptop is fake. It was an opinion held by mostly retired Intelligence Community individuals that got written up in Politico piece with a headline "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." You'll note the lack of any physical evidence presented in the article.

The law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's - CNN.

POLITICO writes that some of the laptop material is genuine link.

There a new Guardian piece out which says "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." The Guardian piece lays out the full scope of "evidence" that the laptop was fake - On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation.

So yes, you are correct that our article is badly out of date and contains misinformation, but the majority of editors seem to be ok with that. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The donor was an American who did not disclose he was a lobbyist. soibangla (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol no. He's a lobbyist for Russian oil that you all tried to use as proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket. Now he's no longer connected to Putin because he gave EXCLUSIVELY to Democrats? Please. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Do any sources flatly state the laptop has been proven to be Hunter's? And let's not confuse the laptop with its contents. And what are the chances there was a second real laptop?

Material similar to the alleged hard-drive contents was reportedly circulating in Ukraine during 2019. One individual interviewed by Time magazine stated that he had been approached in late May 2019, and a second person stated that he had been approached in mid-September. The seller, according to the second individual, wished to sell compromising information about Hunter Biden to Republican allies of Donald Trump for $5 million. "I walked away from it, because it smelled awful", he told Time. Igor Novikov, a former advisor to the Ukrainian president and a disinformation researcher, said that the market for kompromat (damaging material) had been very active in the past year in reaction to political events in the United States, with political operatives rushing to respond to Giuliani's call for damaging information on the Bidens. Novikov characterized the materials available on the market as "extremely hard to verify, yet very easy to fake". On October 19, Derkach posted on social media that he had a second Hunter Biden laptop, stating, "The facts confirming international corruption are stored on a second laptop. These are not the last witnesses or the last laptop."

soibangla (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

From the sources above, CNN says A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop, POLITICO writes about new evidence that at least some of the alleged laptop material is genuine, and the Guardian says Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity. The Guardian piece is pretty straightforward. Almost no one disputes its authenticity, except perhaps for Wikipedia editors. If I read that piece in The Guardian and came to Wikipedia for more context I would be very confused, especially with this evidence free editorializing in a talk page FAQ point we somehow still cling to.

I can find no sources who present any actual evidence, aside from speculation from retired IC officers, that the laptop is not Hunter's or that the contents are fake. I suspect it gained such traction because of the possible influence it had on the 2020 election, despite the actual contents being a nothing burger that wouldn't have had an impact anyways. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No need to repeat your sources, I already saw they don't report the laptop is proven fake genuine. What we've always had and continue to have is a physical slab of hardware that may have once belonged to Hunter, so that much might be true, though even that has still not been reported proven. But many continue to conflate that slab of hardware with its contents as though they are synonymous, but they are not. It is standard operating procedure for Russian intel (and presumably others) to mix-in fake documents with real documents, hoping the FBI and CIA will fall for that old trick and conclude that everything is real. And this has been explained here ad nauseam. Nothing has changed, but if it does you can bet the farm I'll be among the first to include it here. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok so we agree you don't have any sources that say with evidence that is the case here, and that it is all speculation, despite the sources I've provided saying otherwise? Do you have a rebuttal to the Guardian (the article was published yesterday so I understand if you hadn't seen it before) saying "almost no one disputes its authenticity?" If no, should we build that up in the article? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You're not hearing what I'm saying. The Guardian reports almost no one disputes the authenticity of the laptop. Not publicly, that we know of, anyway. Let's stipulate that the laptop has been proven to have been once owned by Hunter, but he lost it or it was stolen. Beyond that point, can there be any assurance that the contents on the laptop are real? Of course not. And that's what matters here. The contents, not the slab. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. Should we update the FAQ above which says "The authenticity of the laptop has not been verified," which seems to run contrary to the Guardian piece? Regarding the contents, we have the POLITICO piece confirming some of the material is genuine. I can find no sources confirming any of the material is questionable. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost no one is not no one, and simply the "fact" it was Hunter's laptop does not in itself establish anything improper, unless someone is upset about porn. We have no knowledge of its chain of custody. For all anyone knows, his laptop was snatched and flown to an SVR lab in Moscow for "enhancement" before being given to Rudy/Bannon. The Politico piece was not picked up by any other reliable source, it relies exclusively on an assertion by some unnamed guy whose credibility is unknown, hence it is REDFLAG and UNDUE. soibangla (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You haven't bothered to link to any RS that back up any of this speculation. We should at least be able to find agreement to update the FAQ. What do you think? Is The Guardian's take one we can use here? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not speculated here, inasmuch as I have illustrated that there are unknowns, and having exhaustively elaborated on the facts of this article over and over since prior to its creation I am well aware of eager efforts by some to assert these unknowns are now established facts. Moreover, even if the laptop is proven to be Hunter's and its contents are proven authentic, it would still not constitute any smoking gun, as any purported offer of an introduction and any purported "meeting" between Joe and Pozharskyi at a DC banquet attended by many is not in itself indicative of corruption. Even if such an encounter occurred, we have no idea what may have been discussed, and we certainly shouldn't presume anything nefarious. Just because Pozharskyi worked at the same firm as Hunter did and some baselessly allege Hunter was up to no-good doesn't mean we should presume Pozharskyi had nefarious intent, either. We haven't even reached the point that it's been proven it's Hunter's laptop, let alone that its contents actually mean anything. I think the FAQ is fine as it is. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think having an inaccurate FAQ (which is entirely unsourced) is fine then we just have to agree to disagree. You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sources. There is no actual evidence anything you said is true, contrary to the things that are confirmed in the sources I've provided. Muboshgu you asked above for any verification, so what do you think about the new Guardian piece? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sources Look, listen. Since before this article's existence I have provided countless sources that quite obviously many have chosen to ignore and come here to make the same bogus arguments and insist on believing what they want and refuse to listen. It just never stops. Why should I jump through hoops like a poodle for this? Prove the laptop is Hunter's. Prove the emails are authentic. Prove that any of that indicates corruption. Get some solid sourcing like the article contains or drop this. soibangla (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on you to back up what you say. I guarantee you that you have never provided a source that has any actual evidence to back up anything you've speculated above.

Prove the laptop is Hunter's What sources have evidence it is not? Otherwise accept what CNN and The Guardian say.

Prove the emails are authentic What sources provide evidence they are not? Otherwise accept what Politico says. Or here's the NYT, writing "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation." The FBI even wrote a letter to Senator Ron Johnson "suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop."

Prove that any of that indicates corruption I am not claiming anything indicates corruption, just trying to clear up the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation.

If there was any shred of Russian disinformation in that laptop it would have been reported high and low by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I was asked what I think about the new Guardian piece. I say it seems like the same bullshit from October 2020 slightly repackaged. Hunter Biden does drugs? Has some questionable relationships? Okay. We'll see what the grand jury produces re: his taxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

When you say 'bullshit' are you saying that the Guardian article is inaccurate? It's listed as a reliable source. Are you proposing to remove The Guardian as a reliable source? If not, what are you actually saying? 2001:4450:8138:BF00:0:0:0:6F1 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Guardian article is inaccurate in any way. But, I am saying that there's nothing new here. The Guardian piece is rehashing the same nonsense from 2020 about the laptop with some updates on his court proceedings that haven't concluded. A grand jury investigation into whether or not he paid taxes is one thing. Allegations about influence trading involving his father are as bullshit as they were 18-24 months ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol it wasn't nonsense in 2020 but nice try yet again. Oh, and the New York Times just completely contradicted their story and verified some of the "conspiracy" claims earlier this month. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I guarantee you that you have never provided a source that has any actual evidence to back up anything you've speculated above. Check the archives. Run who wrote that on this article. Please show how I speculated as opposed to illustrated that there are unknowns. It is unknown if the laptop is Hunter's, it is unknown if the contents are authentic, and consequently there is no evidence, let alone proof, of corruption by Joe (and there still wouldn't be even if everything is authenticated). None of what you just wrote proves anything. Tantalizing for social media discussions, maybe, but it does not clear the higher bar for this encyclopedia. Note carefully that the FBI "suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation" doesn't say anything about pro-Russia Ukrainians, such as Derkach whom the Treasury sanctioned for his activities. Read about Derkach in this article and his BLP. Then, just for fun, read more about Shokin's "affidavit" and Firtash, and diGenova's and Toensing's work with them. Note also that we show in the lead that the IC said it found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration." Also, last we heard, the EDNY is investigating Ukrainians, not Russians. We must not conflate the 2016 Russian collusion narrative with this incident that may not have directly involved Russians, but rather their proxies. This article does not contain "the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation," rather it shows that there are many unknowns from "a series of unevidenced claims." No one anywhere has decisively found a smoking gun, and consequently the article reflects that. And the Guardian article provides nothing new to show otherwise. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You absolutely have speculated. This entire Wikipedia page is nothing but anti-Trump speculation.

Hunter's business dealings were mentioned in 2015 by the New York Times, and it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaign. There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved with. There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of Moscow. All of these things have been proven yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to be. Then you make these ridiculous speculations about it somehow being Trump because you want it to be. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there was a 2015 NYT article about Hunter.[1] Did it conclude wrongdoing? No. it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaign Proof? There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved with Such as, and for what reasons? There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of Moscow Actually, there is. All of these things have been proven no they haven't yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to be Nope. soibangla (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup. It's literally what you've been doing this whole time. You've never had any proof to back up any of your claims about it being Trump or the Russians and have referenced nothing but opinion pieces.

It's common knowledge that Clinton's campaign put the Hunter info out there to discourage Biden from running against her in 2016.

Such as the people he was involved in. All of that is documented fact. His business partner at Burisma just went to jail for fraud, by the way. Why? Because they hired him to positions he wasn't qualified for entirely to lobby his father. It's not exactly uncommon in politics. You just want to believe it isn't true and refuse to accept that it could be. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's common knowledge among Hannity viewers, perhaps. Hunter had nothing to do with Devon Archer's fraud case, and Hunter was qualified to provide management consulting seevices to Burisma that didn't require energy expertise. soibangla (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but not everybody who doesn't blindly believe left-wing conspiracy theories or blindly trust the mainstream media is a Fox viewer. Nice try though.

Explain how Hunter was the least bit qualified for the position he held, and explain how Archer's ties to Hunter and business dealings with both Hunter and his uncle mean Hunter has nothing to do with Archer's fraud case since you want to revert my previous response to you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, the more important question is not whether the first laptop originally belonged to Hunter, but the fact that its recent provenance is dubious, just like the second one being offered by sources related to Russian intelligence. How did those laptops get into Russian hands and then to Trump loyalists, all without Hunter Biden's involvement? It all smells like a Trump/Russia disinformation operation. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Since this stolen info was first shopped around in Ukraine, I wonder if the laptops were stolen there while Hunter worked there, then given to Trump’s people? -- Valjean (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

These questions sound like conspiracy theorizing. Here are 4 very short and straightforward sentences from RS: NYT "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation," CNN "A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop," POLITICO "...a purported leak of Hunter Biden’s computer files contains genuine material," and The Guardian "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Which doesn't address anything I wrote, which is about other aspects of the subject related to the danger of planted disinformation and how the whole thing stinks of a Trump/Giuliani/Russian operation. Note that I wasn't denying your points. They can all be true and yet part of a disinformation operation used to imply unproven wrongdoing by Joe Biden. You need to stop making such implications. -- Valjean (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You're literally just baselessly speculating while accusing anybody who doesn't blindly agree of being a conspiracy theorist. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have never made any such implication, so I hope you'll strike or refactor that. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation does not mean "it's not Russian disinformation". Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity does not mean "it's authentic". The Guardian article, it seems to me, hinges on this: But should the Delaware panel recommend criminal charges, it could ricochet around the second half of his father’s administration. Well sure, if Hunter gets arrested or indicted, that would be bad for Hunter Biden, and the press will write a ton of articles about it, but there's no guarantee it would have any impact on the administration beyond that. Wait for the future to see. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC on Hunter Biden's blp

Editors invited to consider how to describe Hunter Biden in the lead of his BLP here. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Smoking gun?

I'll let others comment first.

The New York Times reported in March 2022 that since 2018 Hunter Biden and possibly others had been under investigation by federal prosecutors in Delaware, with a grand jury convened to subpoena and hear evidence. The investigation examined payments and gifts Biden or his associates had received from foreign interests and whether Biden had violated the law by not registering as a lobbyist under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The Times reported it had acquired emails that were authenticated by people familiar with them and the investigation that appeared to come from a laptop belonging to Biden. One April 2014 email, written by Biden to his business partner as their work with Burisma was about to begin, noted that his father, then the vice president who would soon visit Kyiv, should "be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands." The email also stated that Burisma officials "need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot intervene directly with domestic policymakers, and that we need to abide by FARA and any other U.S. laws in the strictest sense across the board." Biden wrote that his father's visit "could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation. We need to temper expectations regarding that visit." He also wrote that his employer, the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, could help Burisma through "direct discussions at state, energy and NSC." Other emails showed Biden and his business partner discussing inviting foreign business associates, including a Burisma executive, to attend an April 2015 dinner in Washington, where the vice president would stop by.

Katie Benner; Kenneth P. Vogel; Michael S. Schmidt (March 16, 2022). "Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues". The New York Times. soibangla (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Is "smoking gun" your WP:OR? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this more Russian disinformation? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

One might wonder why Burisma officials "need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot intervene directly with domestic policymakers, and that we need to abide by FARA and any other U.S. laws in the strictest sense across the board" and "what he will say and do is out of our hands" weren't email excerpts prominently mentioned earlier. soibangla (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

All that I meant in my edit is that we shouldn't use terms like "smoking gun" unless sources do. This information should be integrated, yes. We can await the results of the investigation to know more. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I dislike the use of the term 'smoking gun' but we clearly need a sentence or more including new info from the New York Times that came out yesterday. I tried adding a line about it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1077668273 But this was reverted because I apparently need to "establish relevance." Obviously the fact that Hunter is under investigation for FARA violations, and that this investigation includes his work for Burisma, is patently and obviously relevant to the article, so much so that I have hard time seeing how someone could think otherwise. I'm happy to hear any opposing views. TocMan (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How is it relevant to the first sentence of the lead? soibangla (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you're still titling the page "conspiracy theory" shows unbelievable bias.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's allegations that led to a federal investigation based entirely on evidence found in the laptop that the NYT now says is verified. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of the right-wing/MAGA "understanding" of what happened is that (1) Hunter did Bad Things with Burisma and (2) Joe was involved too. Based on the investigation into Hunter potentially violating FARA and not paying his taxes, (1) might actually be correct in some form. Nothing regarding (2) is proven or even necessarily under any investigation. If Hunter did introduce Joe to a Burisma partner, it certainly wouldn't make Walter Shaub happy, but having a meeting isn't enough to prove crime, otherwise all those Trump people who were deemed "too stupid" to collude with Russia would be in jail right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol the entire first paragraph of this entry is now basically a lie.

Oh, and Russiagate was a hoax that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, and the people who pushed it were CONVICTED for it. Keep pushing baseless conspiracy to "own the cons". That's so very mature and intelligent and not at all every bit as juvenile and pathetic as you claim MAGA people are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24rhhtr7 (talk • contribs) 10:03, March 17, 2022 (UTC)

Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)#Indictments shows all the people indicted and convicted for the Trump-Russia nonsense. What Clinton people were convicted of doing anything? Stick to facts, they help. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A Clinton campaign lawyer. Is that close enough for you? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. He's only been indicted to date. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I love how it never occurs to somebody like you that some of us are sane centrists who are sick and tired of the worst of the left and right acting like middle schoolers and dragging the rest of us into it. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is "dragging" you to this talk page. You can edit other articles on Wikipedia that don't concern the things in American politics you don't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This sorry excuse for a Wikipedia page and the nonstop propaganda and nonsense from people on the left and their blind followers is what dragged me to this talk page.

I'm not talking about Wikipedia. I'm talking about five years of nothing but the nonsense of people like you EVERYWHERE in media and in society in general all to "defeat Trumpism". 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Five years? This conspiracy theory was hatched two years ago. Stick to talking about this page. I do think it was wrong for Trump to withhold aid to Ukraine until they set up a sham investigation of his political opponent. He was impeached for it. One would think that current events would demonstrate the significant impact of that behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think it was wrong for Trump to withhold aid to Ukraine until they set up a sham investigation of his political opponent. This didn't happen. Trump initially blocked but later released the $400 million in aid which was not predicated on the opening of any investigation. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Initially blocked" = withheld. Withheld aid approved by Congress, no less. He did release it, but withholding it for even a minute was illegal. And yes, the aid was predicated on the investigation. As soon as Zelenskyy asked for more javelin anti-tank missiles, Trump responded I would like you to do us a favor, though.[2] That "favor" was investigate the Bidens. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol it's been the same nonsense for five years. I'm sure you're active on the Steele Dossier and other "orange man bad" pages as well.

And yes by all means show how little you know about the situation in Ukraine and who interfered way before Trump was even anywhere near the White House. Your other baseless conspiracy theories haven't been embarrassingly false or anything. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Break

I'm reopening this discussion which was prematurely closed. The current article regarding the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory mixes a few different theories and narratives. One I have been trying to dispel for years is the narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop stuff was Russian disinformation. There was never any evidence for this, but that did not stop Democrats and the Social Media networks from blacklisting any mention of it days before an election, which I think is a major scandal. That narrative needs to be immediately dispelled and corrected in the article. The emails are legit, even if they are not supporting the "conspiracy theory" narrative that Biden did anything wrong. I hope we can all at least agree on that. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What was more scandalous? Twitter suppressing links to a dubious and unconfirmed story a week before an election, or the Director of the FBI opening a dubious investigation a week before an election? I don't know what the "major scandal" is there; suppressing that story didn't violate the First Amendment, since that relates to government actions, not what private companies do. Based on what I've read, it seems the emails are indeed legit, but we did not know that in October or November 2020. Given who was pushing that laptop, skepticism was valid. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't dubious, and funny how you don't see the Russian collusion disinformation in the same light.

And explain how the investigation into Hunter was dubious or even the one into Hilary for that matter. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There was nothing dubious or unconfirmed about the story, which was original reporting by the NY Post. The scandal was the narrative invented by Natasha Bertrand's now infamous but evidence free story based on former officials opinions. This narrative was taken by the tech companies on whose platform much modern communication occurs, and with open encouragement by Democrats and other media outlets, suppressed and blocked. We had no reason not to believe the story in October 2020 and November 2020, and nothing has changed in the meanwhile except finally the NYT acknowledging the situation (and why are they only reporting on it now?). If everyone's minds weren't already made up a long time ago this would be a major blow to journalistic integrity. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We have tons of reason not to believe the NY Post story. The whole story, including the chain of custody of this laptop is absurd. (That NBC News article is from October 2020 btw, so the claims that this story was "suppressed" by the media are also absurd.) And I don't blame those 50 intelligence officers who, after witnessing Russian disinformation in the 2016 campaign, feared that this was Russian disinformation in the 2020 campaign. The pendulum swings. This is why we need to wait for the investigation to progress, to see if Hunter is charged with anything or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu even the NY Times admits today the laptop contents are real as purported.

Working outwards from the laptop contents have proven to be real as now all media outlets that walk in lockstep with NYT now claim. The conspiracy claim is that hunter biden did sell influence in exchange for employment and deals that are public and are in an entire series of books.

In provenance, the laptop was left abandoned or was hacked or was stolen is external to the laptop contents. By the standard no recipient of the emails could point out, non existing, editing or omission. For email that is the journalistic standard of the day for reporting. By the NY Times standards of the trump campaign 2016 and steele dossier reporting by the NY Times reporting of the laptop contents was self confirming.

That media bias was in play, repressing supporting evidence available to all serious reporters for 2 years. The laptop should have begun a look at the hunter biden business dealing but for so many the disinformation claim stopped all work. That twitter repressed the reporting is a very valuable nugget in what Big Tech was during the 2020 elections.

This article now breaks to some sub article on the 2020 campaign. Very much like Steel Dossier, the media bias in reporting, or lack of confirmation evidence in dismissal is the true subject of the article that the editors should rightly be credited with covering in fine detail.

Ill give it a few days and

Re Title Suggestion -

"Reaction to Hunter Biden Laptop and the Biden family - Ukraine fact pattern, As dismissed by the Mainstream US and foreign media."

For support Simply read.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-nyt-now-admits-the-biden-laptop?s=w

Hunter biden and Joe Biden other connections to eastern europe are biographic in nature and highly referenced in Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and Ukraine Corruption. Those articles will be expanded with investigation that now might also get coverage. This article is a testament to how much in the main stream direction without supporting facts wiki editing can go. Loopbackdude (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say the laptop contents aren't real. I was talking about the story as we knew it in 2020, when all we knew was people who pushed misinformation and disinformation were pushing an unverified laptop story days before the election. And I will not read Glenn Greenwald's Substack. He left The Intercept because he couldn't tolerate editors editing his pieces to make them factually accurate. Greenwald is a sadly biased pundit whose opinions are useless. The "true subject" of this article is not some media conspiracy, it's the Trump campaign conspiracy to manufacture a Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens by threatening to withhold the weapons they need to hold off Russia. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Evidently your mind was made up long ago, which tends to explain why none of my explanations of why many of your points are flawed seem to get through, but my persistent position has been and remains that there are simply many unknowns that many are trying to fill with speculation, or at least weak sourcing. That won't work in this encyclopedia, a refuge from the garbage swirling all around us. You ask why the NYT didn't report this earlier; I ask why Rudy didn't go on TV in October 2020 and wave around any of the seemingly exculpatory emails the NYT reported on yesterday. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: would you consider a partial self-rv? I'm thinking we could restore

In March 2022, The New York Times verified a number of emails and other files in a cache that appeared to have come from the laptop.

References

To me it seems pretty uncontroversial, relevant, and due for a short mention in the body. I don't think anyone could restore it but you for the next day or so, because of the CR restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That sentence alone seems too open ended, but I would restore In March 2022, The New York Times verified a number of emails and other files in a cache that appeared to have come from the laptop, though the Pozharskyi email was not among them. soibangla (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We should also have something about the fact that Hunter is under investigation for FARA violations, including in relation to Burisma. Given that the whole point of this article is about allegations relating to Hunter Biden and Burisma. That is just a fact. He's innocent until proven guilty but that doesn't mean that the existence of an investigation is not relevant. --TocMan (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The existence of the investigation certainly is relevant — in his BLP where it currently is as whole subsection. The NYT uses the phrase "around the world" three times in the article, so it's not just Burisma, and so this matter does not touch upon the first sentence of this article. This article is not about whether Hunter is a corrupt guy, it's about whether he was corrupt with his father. And there remains no evidence of that. soibangla (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think it's the 'first line' of the article that is limiting us here, then we should change the first line to better reflect the title. The overall "conspiracy theory" pertains to both Hunter and Joe Biden. The title is "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory" not "Joe Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy theory". The actual theories circulating include both that Hunter is corrupt and that Hunter and Joe are corrupt together. It seems incredibly contrived to not include a criminal investigation relating to Hunter Biden and Burisma here. TocMan (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This article would not have been created merely about alleged Hunter Biden corruption, it would've remained in his BLP. There still remains no evidence of corruption by Joe. None. soibangla (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla, I count three reverts from you on this page in the past 24 hours, even though this page is on a WP:1RR restriction. Please don't make me block you for violating 3RR. Count this as your warning. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the New York Times pushing conspiracy theories?

Now that even the New York Times has recognized the laptop and emails are and have always been real are you going to get your head out of the sand and make a fair article or are you going to keep the facade on because you are unwilling to accept the fact that you were blinded by your beliefs (and a good dose of propaganda)?

Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html 37.163.63.146 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

emails are and have always been real All of 'em? Is that what the Times reported? no. Do the emails seem to show that Hunter was adamant about avoiding even the appearances of influence peddling? well...yes soibangla (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please try to make more sense. No one is claiming that all of the emails are necessarily realon the basis of the evidence presented to date. That is not claimed by Shreckinger (he specifically notes that he did *not* verify all the emails), nor is that claimed by the NYT. However, there is literally ZERO evidence that *any* of the emails are fake. The NYT has specifically said this: "...no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation..." [3] The intelligence community report upon which the claims were made that the laptop was Russian disinformation also specifically says that they have NO EVIDENCE that any of the information found on the laptop was falsified: "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."[4] Bueller 007 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No one is claiming that all of the emails are necessarily real actually someone just did soibangla (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)