Now it can be told!

Ken Vogel reports in the New York Times that “Hunter Biden Sought State Department Help for Ukrainian Company.” Subhead: “After President Biden dropped his re-election bid, his administration released records showing that while he was vice president, his son solicited U.S. government assistance.” The New York Post has an accessible account of Vogel’s story by Victor Nava in “Hunter Biden asked US embassy in Italy for help landing Burisma deal while Joe was VP.”

It’s interesting to see the lengths to which the government went to protect President Biden from the story. The Times had to bring a FOIA lawsuit to obtain the documents it suspected had been withheld from an earlier production. Vogel seems to be afraid that Republicans will “pounce” on this element of his story:

The Times challenged the thoroughness of the [State Department FOIA] search, noting that the department had failed to produce responsive records contained in a cache of files connected to a laptop that Mr. Biden had abandoned at a Delaware repair shop. The department resumed the search and periodic productions, but had produced few documents related to Mr. Biden until the week after his father ended his re-election campaign and endorsed Vice President Harris for the Democratic nomination.

Vogel fails to mention the the work of 51 former intelligence officials to protect the exposure of the Biden family business and to denigrate the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop in the run-up to the 2020 election. Rather, in the quoted paragraph Hunter Biden’s laptop makes a cameo appearance in Vogel’s story. The New York Post’s Miranda Devine could tell him all abut it.

The more apt headline for Vogel’s story in the Times would be Now it can be told! I would like to say that Miranda Devine apparently could not be reached by Vogel for comment. On X, Devine drily observes of Vogel’s story “[t]his might all come as a surprise to @nytimes readers but @nypost readers have known the score for four years.”

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.

Responses