OK, I appreciate that, and I read the full story. I am perfectly willing to be wrong and so I’m willing to take all kinds of input. I didn’t find much analysis of the story other than just an overall discrediting of Trump, Giuliani, Bannon, etc., which is kind of normal for mainstream press, so I can’t really give that a ton of authority.

Here’s an example of the kinds of things that I would read and say that it’s just fluff. “Trump and Giuliani have accused Joe Biden of seeking the ouster of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin to thwart an investigation of Burisma – a claim that independent fact checkers and investigators have debunked.”

There is no mention of which independent fact checkers, and they did say fact checkers plural, nor did they say who has debunked it. That is about as simple minded as the next line of defense - saying Joe Biden met the guy, and Joe said there was no evidence of that meeting on his schedule. What a worthless comment. What do you expect him to say?

I know he is innocent until proven guilty, but if these are serious charges, and the defense is that fact checkers have debunked it and Joe said he wasn’t there, is that enough for everyone to say oh OK, he must be clean? How about if some of these media outlets actually looked at the laptop evidence? It will probably be revealed more in the days ahead, and maybe it will speak for itself, with no explanation or spin needed. I understand there is not just Hunter’s laptop, there is also a hard drive from his business partner, with corroborating emails, and there may be up to 20,000 emails in the library.