A major new development in the Hunter Biden laptop scandal

Jhe Washington Examiner
A new report on the Hunter Biden laptop saga marks a giant leap forward in public understanding of an important national import story. A story that has been reprehensibly suppressed in the run-up to the 2020 election.

On the one hand, the Washington Examiner has put an end to laughable claims that the laptop’s digital content is not authentic. Obviously the content was produced by Biden’s use of the laptop and nothing else. A rigorous technical analysis carried out by a highly qualified expert, mandated by the Washington Examiner based on his decades of government and private work in the field, confirms what has been evident since the laptop became a public controversy in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election: the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden .


The thousands of e-mails, memos, logs and photos contained on the laptop were generated by its use. To suggest that the contents of the laptop were the result of a hack, a factory, or (most absurdly, Russian intelligence misinformation) was totally irresponsible. There was little evidence that the information could have been fabricated, compared to overwhelming evidence that the information, while surprising in many respects, was what one might reasonably have expected to find on a laptop by Hunter Biden. One would expect to find, that is, given the younger Biden’s notoriously shady entanglements in foreign affairs, his network of family and friends, his business history on the political influence of his father and his demons.

Contrary to what the public has been told, authenticating evidence for use in court is not difficult. The rules of evidence establish a presumption in favor of the admissibility of probative evidence. If an item appears to be what the promoter represents it to be, the rules provide for its admission into the evidentiary record even if there are gaps in the chain of custody or other clues of possible impropriety. The theory of our law is that such questions are about the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The party against whom the evidence is admitted must show any weakness by cross-examination; the jury or court then decides on the credibility and weight to be given to the item. Hunter Biden’s laptop always appeared to be what his supporters claimed it was: Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Even before the Washington Examiner analysis, there was a plausible account of how the laptop was left in a repair shop. There were numerous emails that appeared, in context, to relate to independently verifiable transactions. There were emails and memos that similarly related to independently verifiable personal associations and events. There were photographs that appeared to be of a personal nature. Witnesses authenticated key documents. And perhaps most telling of all: There have been no detailed denials from President Joe Biden’s campaign or Hunter Biden himself – the parties in the best position to cry foul if the documents released by the
New York Post
had been fabricated by corruption.

When a question arose about whether Joe Biden, as vice president, had met with one of Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business associates, campaign officials said they would have to check the timeline of the meeting. former VP – they didn’t deny it could have happened or claim the relevant laptop file was a fabrication. And Hunter Biden’s latest position is that the laptop information could “absolutely” be his. Now we finally have an analysis that makes indisputable what was already obvious. This forensic analysis combines a standard technical DKIM analysis with what is known as the “digital sandwich”. The latter is a not-so-fancy term to put things into factual context. While the analysis is impressive work, we’re not talking rocket science here. This type of “sandwiching” is what we all do when questions arise about the reliability of information: we place the information in its time (in relation to events that happened before and after), we assess how the information compare to independently verifiable others. facts, and we determine whether those involved were able (and had a logical reason) to say and do what is reflected in the information.

Because it methodically applies this common-sense approach to the thousands of files on the laptop, the analysis allows us to say with certainty that the contents of the laptop would be admitted as evidence by any judge competent in United States. The authenticity of the laptop should never have been a serious issue. That’s why old media removed the laptop. They knowed they couldn’t prove it wrong because it wasn’t wrong. The fact that former government national security officials are exploiting their expert credentials in a blatantly politicized effort to discredit information that was not suspicious but could harm the Biden campaign is a big part of why public confidence in our intelligence services has never been lower.

There are many alarming facets of laptop content. Some are already known. Some are just getting started. But the first thing to do in any attempt to establish the facts is to authenticate the source of its information. The laptop is genuine.

Andrew C. McCarthy is editor of National exam and a former federal prosecutor.

About Teddy Clinton

Check Also

New York Post deserves an apology and a Pulitzer for Hunter Biden coverage – AMAC

AMAC Exclusive – By Andrew Abbott As the public continues …