Leading up to the 2020 election the scramble to wave off reports about Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents as likely part of a "Russian disinformation campaign" culminated in making the Left's "election interference" accusations 100 percent pure projection:
And the Dems and media are still clinging to the original narrative.
"Laptop From Hell" author Miranda Devine spotted the New York Times still refusing to accept reality:
Here's how the NY Times story starts, and this couldn't possibly be more passive or more obvious in the attempt to portray the president's son as the real victim as a result of the laptop not being part of a "Russian disinformation campaign" as the Left and media insisted in 2020:
When The New York Post first reported in 2020 about a laptop once used by Hunter Biden — which the paper said contained incriminating evidence against him and his father, Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was running for president — it set off a firestorm.
Many national news outlets raised questions about the existence of the laptop and the claims about its contents, while major social media platforms limited posts about The Post’s coverage. Conservatives said those reactions were evidence of liberal censorship.
Many of the claims made by The Post in its coverage of the laptop, in which the publication sought to link President Biden to corrupt business dealings, have not been proved. But the laptop had enough incriminating evidence to continue to haunt Hunter Biden.
Devine also called BS on the Times' claims about what hasn't "stood up to scrutiny":
The next thing you know those 51 ex intel community people will be signing a letter saying "everything except the stuff from the laptop that was used to convict Hunter Biden is part of a Russian disinformation campaign."
There will be no media apologies for this, because it might ruin it the next time they try to push something similar.
The media who pushed the "laptop is disinformation" stories will never report the full reality of the situation because it would require admitting they were either duped or in on the election interference. We're pretty sure which one of those options is correct:
In media minds it was perfectly acceptable because they were "saving democracy."