Dem litany of laptop lies

Miranda Devine characterizes the Dems’ performance in the House Oversight’s first committee hearing of the new Congress yesterday as “The Democratic litany of Hunter Biden’s laptop lies.” Having helped break the laptop story in the pages of the New York Post in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Devine is the go-to source for comments on developments in the case. Here she is on yesterday’s hearing featuring the testimony of former Twitter executives:

So many lies were told at the House Oversight’s first committee hearing Wednesday into the corruption scandal involving Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and the subsequent cover up by the FBI with social-media firms to rig the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden.

Or, as Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tried to rebrand it: “Hunter Biden’s half-fake laptop.”

It’s a sign of desperation that more than two years after The Post published the first bombshell story from the laptop, Dems can’t get their stories straight on what the laptop really is.

Is it Hunter’s property, his “personal data” that was stolen from him, as his lawyers claimed last week in letters demanding the Department of Justice investigate John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the Delaware computer repair shop where Hunter abandoned his laptop while a crack addict in April 2019?

Or is it the “so-called laptop,” as Hunter’s lawyers claimed in a backflip clarification the next day?

It’s hard to keep up.

It’s hard to keep up, indeed. Only yesterday the laptop was Russian disinformation, according to the Deep State 51, Politico, the mainstream media, and, oh yeah, President Biden himself.

The Democrats have abandoned that line, I guess. They have moved on to new lines — of roughly equal merit, as Devine suggests in the rest of the column here. Devine’s assessment is that the truth has gotten out, which seems to me somewhat wishful thinking. In any event, however, she certainly knows the truth and lays out the facts in her valuable column.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.