Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 12

Barbara McQuade's post on X
https://x.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1799860739047342103 soibangla (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Barbara McQuade is a true subject matter expert. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of WP:FRINGE in this. The signed letter from 2020 might make sense for a post from 2020. By 2024, it's been repeatedly affirmed that there is no evidence to support the suspicion of Russian disinfo, despite countless investigations into the matter from both journalists and law enforcement. The "questions about the chain of custody" also seem quite frivolous, per the judge in the case. They have been barred from discussion after reviewing both defense and prosecution pretrial filings. The allegations of "authentic but still Russian sourced" are similarly without merit and fall under the same problems of no evidence to support such claims. In 2020, federal investigators were looking into any Russian disinfo origins. Here in 2024, they're comfortable calling such doubts about the laptop a conspiracy theory. It's as if this post just ignored 4 years of investigations and developments. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to respond in full right now, but please cite The "questions about the chain of custody" also seem quite frivolous, per the judge in the case. I don't see McQuade limits her comments to a scenario in which the laptop could only be a disinfo op and nothing else, so that if it was proven not to be disinfo, that proves Russia was not involved, and that the "hallmarks" comment by the 51 has thus been proven false. soibangla (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The judge in this case heard arguments from prosecution and defense on chain of custody, and agreed with the prosecution that there was no evidence to support such doubts about the laptop, admitting the laptop+contents as evidence while barring defense from directly disputing the laptop. ABC: the judge agreed to admit it as evidence. Politico: Noreika has barred direct discussion of that.
 * "Hallmarks" is unfalsifiable. It's effectively someone opining that this seems like something to them, without offering evidence. This might be ok very early on in October 2020 when the story was very brand new, but here in 2024, with the complete lack of evidence to support suspicions about a russian disinfo op affirmed after multiple investigations, it is clearly a fringe view. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * please circle back to what I just wrote because I'm not confident you got my point, as you continue to address only disinfo
 * and again, read paragraph #5: they did not declare it was disinfo, but rather they were deeply suspicious based on their decades of collective experience, and this is widely misinterpreted to mean "the deep state lied to tip the election to Biden." soibangla (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think my comment regarding hallmarks addresses that. I don't think "the deep state lied to tip the election to Biden" because of a letter, I actually defend the truthfulness of the Politico article initially reporting on it above. I question how it's relevant in 2024, let alone relevant to recent developments being discussed here? It's 51 ex intel officials saying they're suspicious of russian disinfo being the source of this. Ok, well it's 2024 now, and there has been no evidence of russian disinfo being the source. Sure, it's true that they used to suspect XYZ, but if it turns out years later that there's nothing to support it, then clinging on to their conclusions is clearly fringe in light of 4 years of developments. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * again, you focus solely on disinfo, but the letter does not explicitly allege that, but that's what has always been assumed to be what they and others meant, though it could have been an influence operation, which are also common, such as the 2016 interference by the Internet Research Agency. so disinfo has been refuted, but not other possible purposes soibangla (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * in fact, the 51 letter explicitly says:




 * (emphasis mine) soibangla (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm using disinfo broadly and covering that point. Frankly, the letter does as well, describing how a USA Today report on "disinformation" mirrors their letters' concerns. At any rate, this is a highly technical point that does not matter. It suffers from the same problems of a complete lack of evidence, and we have RS attesting to the broader point of Russian involvement at large. Per the Vox article, which specifically references the 51 intel officials letter: And no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot. (hyperlink in original quote) KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weiss says the backup is "largely duplicative" of the laptop, and several types of data files are specifically mentioned, but image files are not. that Hunter chose to not backup his porn is one possible explanation of why they aren't in his iCloud (at least on what the FBI has said about file types).
 * confirming that the laptop contents match the backup contents is not the same as confirming all the laptop files are authentic, fake files could have also been backed up, and other analysts have been unable to authenticate most of the laptop files. what the FBI confirmed here was that it was Hunter's laptop, but not that all its contents are authentically his. soibangla (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "other analysts" in question have only ever had access to copies (or rather, copies of copies) of the hard drive. Federal investigators are the only party to have the laptop itself. At any rate, I suggest using Weiss's own words on scope of cross-referenced information, with attribution: "largely duplicative". We have an abundance of content in the article already mentioning people casting doubt on the laptop contents, often without any evidence. Demanding RS sourcing describe in detail how cloud backups contain nude imagery sounds like a very isolated demand for rigor. This addition can be made to the article while still addressing all of the concerns you lay out. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with multiple aspects of your analysis of very complex matters, and my future lack of engagement with you should be construed only as exasperation rather than acquiescence. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weiss is a prosecutor, not a forensic investigator. The judge ruled that the big picture forensic issues you are raising are irrelevant to the gun trial. Files that show no corruption are never worth the Fox/Giuliani treatment regardless of the files' authentcity or origin SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He is representing the position of federal investigators who did indeed investigate the laptop and the backups. Are you suggesting that you believe Weiss himself personally conducted all forensics the FBI did on the laptop and its contents? And as I mentioned before, part of the controversy is the authentication of the laptop, and we have RS that very explicitly links the results of federal investigations on the laptop to said controversy. Not every single part of this wikipedia article is about alleged corruption. Authenticity has been part of the story since the very beginning. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is full of error and is not responsive to the reasons several editors have provided to explain many of the errors. I am not going to repeat my responses. I hope you will carefully review these discussions if you wish to continue your quest for consensus SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have backed up every point I have made to direct references from secondary RS. If the RS reporting is in conflict with your speculations/claims, I don't think the "error" is on my end. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The prosecutor is making claims germane to HB's drug use and gun purchase. Neither of those topics is the topic of this article. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The prosecutor is making claims about the authenticity of the laptop. The case touches on that, and it has been brought up by both the prosecution and defense, and ruled on by the judge. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've previously noted, the prosecution is claiming that their evidence related to drugs and a gun is authentic. That's it. SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how the prosecution has described their evidence. They state, in their own words, that their cross-referencing of the laptop and the cloud backups has determined the laptop to be "largely duplicative" of icloud backups, not only "drugs and a gun". They have also successfully made their case that defense attorneys have failed to present any evidence displaying tampering or falsification of the laptop and its contents in general. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has received scant mainstream coverage, even in reporting on the trial. See the NYTimes source I added to the article. If this were a bombshell vindication of all Biden corruption smoking gun stories, it would be page one for weeks. Prosecutors presented their case specific to the charges they selected. Their charges is unrelated to the "laptop controversy". We've known for years that some of the files are authentic. And the facts so adduced were duplicative of HB's memoir. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never made any claims that this vindicates "Biden corruption smoking gun stories". This is an edit that provides very relevant content on authenticity from the only source that has ever had the actual laptop at hand to investigate. This article has had mountains of content related to authenticity of the laptop, dating back years. Authenticity is part of the laptop controversy, and I can provide an RS that spells this out too, in an Axios article about the DOJ authentication of the Hunter Biden laptop contents: Hunter's discarded laptop, and whether it exists, is a controversial topic KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * McQuade is not a subject matter expert. She has not published anything about Russian operations involving faking computers or their contents. It doesn't matter however because her statement about Russian activity is an opinion, not a fact. In order to show opinions, we need to determine their degree of support in reliable sources. A post on X does not show weight unless it has been reported in reliable secondary sources.
 * Also, it is never 100% clear that every file in every laptop was consciously created or downloaded by the owner. For example, a pop-up image may be downloaded even if the owner immediately deletes it. The determination of the authenticity of the files will be determined by the judge and jury. We don't want to imply that because a finding of facts has not yet been made that there is a major reason to believe the files were planted.
 * TFD (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the mother of all straw men. Who has argued anything similar to what you wrote? And the judge is not decidibf rhe dacts. He did determine what is relevant. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the judge would decidibf the dacts. Please don't distract from the discussion.
 * McQuade wrote, "it is still correct to say that the laptop has “all of the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.”" That's not my WP:RANDOMLOGICALFALLACY, that's what she wrote and presumably what you want to put into the article. TFD (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * dozens of the signatories agree with McQuade, as mentioned in this typically deceptive Fox News story. "There continues to be by many a calculated or woefully ignorant interpretation of the October 2020 letter signed by fifty-one former intelligence officials concerning Hunter Biden's laptop," said Mark Zaid soibangla (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not present an X post for inclusion in the article, just for discussion on Talk. I have never observed a pop-up image get saved to my machine, even when they were ubiquitous and there were no ad blockers. soibangla (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See "Pop–ups and Child Pornography" I don't know why the jury decided that the accused knew the pop-ups would be saved on his hard drive. In another case I read about the accused was acquitted. But my point was that courts must decide whether the accused was aware of files on his hard drive.
 * Writing a book does not make one an expert unless it is published by an academic publisher. I don't think anyway that her book provides technical details about how Russia carried out its cyber-attacks, but instead relies on conclusions by actual experts. TFD (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * smh, not the "only academic sources count" thing again soibangla (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. I said that only publication in academic sources can establish someone as an expert on a topic. And someone has to be an expert before anything they self-publish can be considered reliable. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." TFD (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Self-publishing is the publication of media by its author at their own cost, without the involvement of a publisher.
 * McQuade's book is published by Penguin Random House, an Anglo-American multinational conglomerate publishing company considered one of the 'Big Five' English language publishers. She was an AUSA for 12 years and a US attorney for another seven, including prosecuting national security cases, and is now a professor at Michigan, a top-10 law school. soibangla (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This whole thread oughta be shut down as NOTFORUM to begin with, per the OP's statement: "I did not present an X post for inclusion in the article, just for discussion on Talk". But I'll make a point in response anyway. If the OP or anyone else in this thread thinks the McQuade comment belongs in the article, it should not be presented as some kind of "balancing" text. To wit: "the federal prosecutor, relying on FBI forensics on the laptop, introduced it and its contents into evidence as authentic, but former prosecutor and current professor Barbara McQuade still thinks the emergence of the laptop and its contents look like Russian disinformation." That won't fly. DonFB (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * perhaps when I wrote "just for discussion on Talk" I should have added "for consideration to improve the article," and at no point did I suggest the McQuade comments should be included in the article. I figured others would understand my intent, but evidently some did not. soibangla (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How can it be under consideration to improve the article, if "at no point" you would suggest it should be included? Did you mean to say: "I don't think this comment should be included, but maybe other editors think it should?" DonFB (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you are pretending to be a mindreader to falsely attribute malicious intent to me. you are casting aspersions upon me, and you should be sanctioned for it. soibangla (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked a couple of pretty simple, if pointed, questions. You introduced a published comment, but say you're not suggesting it be included. Then you get offended when I ask what's the point of bringing it up. Time to chill. DonFB (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have never suggested inclusion, by me or anyone, not once, not even in the remotest sense, period, not ever. any editor who wants to be taken seriously would retract any such suggestion. soibangla (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said you did. I asked why you brought it up if you didn't want it included. What was the point? DonFB (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * of course you did, as if you think you can read my mind. What was the point? To elicit discussion to improve the article. That's what we do here. Article inclusion was never remotely suggested. I suggest you back off from this. soibangla (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we got plenty of discussion, with no productive results. In the future, I suggest you focus on the specific improvement that a source you're introducing can make to an article, rather than opening the door to an unfocused NotForum time sink. DonFB (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we got plenty of discussion, with no productive results though sometimes editors hijack contentious Talk discussions onto absurd tangents and diversions to derail the whole conversation, such as falsely insisting an editor seeks article inclusion of a routine discussion item. so there's that. soibangla (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you insist you never sought inclusion of the comment, which is true, and I insist I never said you did. But the larger discussion was still a big waste of time. DonFB (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * there's just no way to predict how a discussion might go, but it's certainly not helpful to show up late to falsely trashtalk another editor to be disruptive.
 * so, finally, goodbye soibangla (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source you presented is X (formerly known as Twitter.) It is considered self-published. X does not fact check information posted. TFD (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * but I never suggested it should be included in the article. this is a Talk page, where we discuss how to improve the article. soibangla (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * but I never suggested it should be included in the article. this is a Talk page, where we discuss how to improve the article. soibangla (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right thread, but I have reverted a whole lot of deletions, and here is my edit summary: "Don't remove it, move it to the body. Don't engage in historical revisionism by removing why there was so much controversy." We document history here, so don't use hindsight to remove so much stuff. We document how we got from A to Z, including all the mistakes and warts. The history of the doubts and suspicions is good content that should go in a history subsection in the background section. Document the learning process. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

soibanga,how does discussion of McQuade's opinion help improve the article, if we are not going to use it in the article? Penguin Random House btw lists Chariots of the Gods, and books about UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, feng shui, acupuncture, and all kinds of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and the occult. Lots of their titles cannot be considered reliable sources. It depends on whether or not the author is an established expert. TFD (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We need to revise some of this article in the light of hindsight.
We need to revise some of this article in the light of hindsight. I'll take my cue from the excellent description by who mentions "the original catalyst for the controversy". The suspicions about possible Russian involvement, which affected everything, are rooted in the history of the following attempts by Trump and Russia to smear Joe Biden: Anything tied to Giuliani/Trump/Russia was proven to be tainted and usually false, so everyone, including the press, intelligence community, and editors here, was on high alert for more Russian interference, attacks on the Bidens, and a continuation of the proven Russian efforts to help Trump. Giuliani's bogus "fact gathering(!)" operation in Ukraine (a continuation of the Trump–Ukraine scandal to drum up fake evidence against Biden) turned out to be part of a Russian/Trump operation to attack Joe Biden, and the claims made by Giuliani, Trump, Carlson, and GOP, turned out to be pure Russian disinformation, a fact confessed by Lev Parnas (See Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory), a key player in the Russian efforts.
 * Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
 * Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Throughout this process, one sees that impeaching Trump and proving he was lying never stopped him. He and his cohorts continued the Trump–Ukraine scandal. They are like the cut-off head of a rattlesnake. You can try to kill the snake, but the head will still bite you. You can prove he's lying, but that won't prevent him from continuing to lie and often repeating the same debunked lies. The Big Lie technique is part of his DNA.

On another note, I noticed this comment above by "Would you agree that this statement by Natasha Bertrand, which is false,.." I would say it's misleading, seen in the light of hindsight, so it would be unfair to judge her harshly. At the time it seemed very likely true. Sysiphis lists five statements in the article that use the word "false". Let's be careful to not fall into the trap of believing that a finding that Natasha's headline (we don't usually use headlines) is misleading means those five statements aren't true. They are still true. This whole affair was rooted in "false allegations against Joe Biden" and Hunter Biden, all made by Donald Trump, Conservative media, and Tucker Carlson. They have lied constantly about every aspect of this.

The bottom line is summed up well in the lead of this article: "A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden. Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a Republican House Oversight committee investigation in April 2024 also found no wrongdoing."

No evidence against Joe Biden has emerged that he acted improperly in regard to Ukraine. He never abused his power as Vice-President or later as President. Instead, he has stood by his son as a loving father, but not defended Hunter's drug abuse and other problems. He also will not abuse his pardon powers to pardon Hunter if he is convicted. That is all very untrumpian.

As we revise some of this article in the light of hindsight, the history of why suspicions tainted what was said and done should be explained. Don't hide it. We document history here. Don't allow historical revisionism to creep into the process. Describe how we got from A to Z, how some of the first suspicions were later allayed, actions changed, beliefs changed, etc. Describe "the original catalyst for the controversy". That's so important. There was a vast aura of justified suspicion at the time, some true and some not true. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I plan on taking a look through the archives. There may already be a consensus on whether Russian dis-info claims meet WP:WEIGHT requirements for the lead. DN (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden himself made the claim on the debate stage with Trump, and Natasha Bertrand's headline claiming the same thing "likely shaped perceptions of the letter that continue to this day" (according to the current article). I would strongly object to any past finding that it did not meet weight requirements. Sysiphis (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Politico headline you are talking about is not really false, it's at worst somewhat misleading in the headline. It reported on dozens of ex-intel officials saying the laptop story is Russian disinfo. There was indeed a letter released by these ex-intel officials casting doubt on the laptop story being disinfo. The ex-intel officials' letter "merely" strongly suspected it was Russian disinfo, with a couple of qualifiers of this being their suspicions, not what they 100% know. A degree of separation or so I guess from the headline of "is Russian disinfo". RS generally don't report claiming the Politico story is false (it's basically just reporting that the letter exists), they do report that the letters suspicions have not been borne out and that the headline was too loaded. I've added content on the background of initial suspicions on Russia (which are broader than just a letter existing) in the lead, and the background section. There's an entire section in reactions that details the intel letter, which is probably not needed in the lead.
 * Wrt the broader point I'm seeing in the older talk section on the lack of initial coverage by media/social media, I think a reword of existing content in the first paragraph makes sense. I'm not sure why blockage of the original NYP story on twitter alone and the twitter files merits inclusion, vs Facebook and other media outlets. At the very least, if there's consensus to have that included, then it can be readily replaced by broader initial media skepticism on it.
 * A sensible edit could be:
 * Later assertions by Twitter owner Elon Musk and others that the government had ordered the company to suppress the Post story to favor Joe Biden in the weeks leading to the election were not supported by a Twitter Files examination authorized by Musk changed to:
 * Social media organizations blocked links to the New York Post story, while other news outlets declined to publish the story due to chain of custody concerns about the laptop, problems in verifying the story, and suspected Russian disinformation. per WaPo, AP. After that, add in the existing lead sentence about no evidence as of May 2023 to support Russian interference. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added background in the background section on reasons behind suspected Russian involvement, namely the Podesta/DNC hacks and Giuliani's oppo research. There's some other stuff that can be added that's largely detailed in the famous 51 ex-intel officials letter (Giuliani was targeted by Russian intel, consistency with Russia's general objectives in interference in US elections, and hacking of Burisma) but these were what was focused on in Bump's WaPo article specifically reviewing initial suspicions. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Prosecution testimony in gun trial
On a related note, given newer info on verification, shouldn't the two massive paragraphs for some reason dedicated to reporting just by CBS and WaPo on laptop authentication be slimmed down in the lead/moved to body? They all operate off of copies of the hard drive, and are hardly the only, nor the first, outlets to verify content. We have had verification from Politico NYT, CNN for a while now. Results from the federal investigation, which had access to the actual initial laptop itself are now out and should logically take precedence in the lead wrt authentication. According to prosecutors/FBI investigators, they've authenticated all the contents they found on the laptop: prosecutors said they cross-referenced every email, WhatsApp message, iMessage, and text message they found with Apple Inc. to establish the credibility of the data." They also have the laptop itself verified as Hunter's: "Jensen explained that investigators identified a serial number on the laptop that "matches the Apple subpoena records … of this particular device to the iCloud account at a particular date." Prosecutors also showed jurors an invoice for $85 from the Wilmington computer repair shop where Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop for repair, which had been sent to an email address belonging to Hunter Biden." Per ABC. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * KN, thank you for brining this to the talk page. I reverted the unclear and UNDUE portion about the prosecution evidence and testimony of the summary witness. Per the Consensus Required CT page restriction, it should not have been reinstrted prior to affirmative consensus for it on talk. Please self revert that violation and advocate here for that text.
 * This testimony has not been widely reported in RS and the synchrony among sources for the files appears only to encompass files related to the gun purchase and drug use. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is easily the most due content related to authentication, since law enforcement is the only party in this entire case with access to the laptop itself, the subject of this article. The Judge has already ruled on admitting the laptop and its contents and agreed with prosecution arguments that there is no evidence to suggest it has been tampered with, and even barred defense from making such claims, due to lack of evidence. The FBI did indeed utilize Apple's cloud backups to verify the info, per aforementioned ABC source. It would be extremely misleading by omission to only claim that they verified the laptop belonged to Hunter, instead of including that they had also verified the laptop's contents as well. There is indeed also other RS reporting on the cloud backups to bring perspective as to the scope of the cross-referencing (more than just guns and drugs) Per Axios: Weiss wrote that in September 2019 Apple provided digital backups of Hunter's data in response to a search warrant and the laptop was "largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple investigators had already."
 * At a very conservative level rewrite to take both the Axios and ABC articles into account and clarify scope: FBI agent Jensen testified that investigators had used cloud backups from Apple to verify the credibility of emails, WhatsApp messages, iMessages, and text messages found on the laptop. Special counsel Weiss stated that the laptop contents were "largely duplicative" of cloud backups obtained from Apple. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The blow-by-blow about different players' suspicions has now largely been overtaken by events. With the benefit of hindsight, I've cut portions of the lead relating to various attempts at authentication. The copies which were floating around are not obviously relevant enough to put in the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * did the iCloud backup also include the salacious images? soibangla (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This version of the lead looks great, thanks for your work Riposte97. Much shorter and cuts out of so much of the detailed fluff about early speculation and analyses on incomplete information and an uncertain chain of custody, much of which is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things now that we know what we know. Minor suggestion, but we could also potentially say in our own voice that no evidence of corruption on Joe's part has been found? To call a spade a spade, the oversight committee investigation was largely a sham; it's not exactly why we know there's no evidence of corruption, though it does add to that knowledge (i.e. even when Republicans tried their hardest they couldn't find anything).
 * To respond to the only objection I see here, from SPECIFICO, regarding DUE ("this testimony has not been widely reported in RS"): the info regarding the trial is only one sentence of the lead. The NYT for example has run multiple articles specifically about the laptop's appearance in the trial. I also looked at a random WaPo article about testimony in the trial in general, and roughly half of the article is about the laptop lol. A single sentence about it in the lead seems clearly due given the level of reporting and information it provides. Endwise (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Lawsuit Section
Should be updated that Hunter has backed away from erroneous claims.

https://nypost.com/2024/06/13/us-news/hunter-biden-drops-laptop-lawsuit-against-rudy-giuliani/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost&utm_source=twitter LemonPumpkin (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We should definitely not use anything from the WP:NYPOST unless it's from their sports section. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you denying this factual information that he shrunk away from his lawsuit? Here's a link from the propagandistic USA Today if you're that clueless. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-drops-lawsuit-against-rudy-giuliani-for-releasing-his-laptops-information/ar-BB1oeOdU LemonPumpkin (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not ever responding to the substance of WP:UNCIVIL posts like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not surprising, given Hizzoner's recent bankruptcy. It is possible Rudy considers defamation a sport, but that's a touchy subject for the Post these days. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added a sentence about the lawsuit being dropped. There is nothing to suggest that they are "erroneous claims", of course. It is more likely due to the impossibility of getting blood from a stone, which SPECIFICO alluded to. This likely would have been done yesterday if the above unconstructive editor knew how to use a talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Time to remove "controversy" from article title
Not really a "controversy" anymore, now that government prosecutors plan to use the laptop contents as evidence. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * From the source you presented: The laptop has become a symbol of the legal and political controversy surrounding the president's son in recent years. So, why should we remove "controversy" from the article title? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is "controversial"? If you read the article, it's pretty obvious "suppression" or "cover-up" would be more appropriate. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It will be interesting to see what they produce. "Contents?" a laptop? We don't know.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I recommend you not edit war and self-revert the reinsertion of Weiss's quote. It comes from a court filing and has not been accepted by the judge. It is not the position of the US government, just Weiss. Federal Judge Maryellen Noreika, who is presiding over the case, hasn't said when she'll rule on these pretrial motions about expert witnesses and how the laptop can be discussed in front of the jury. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A special counsel does not speak for the American government as if he is the Attorney General. let's not engage in farcical hyperbole. Zaathras (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where does the prosecutor say it's "Not really a controversy anymore"? I can't find it. DN (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support removing "controversy" from the title. The prominant coverage and NOTABILITY of it is due solely to partisan narratives and RS investigation and reporting about said narratives. What is the crux of any "controversy?" Controversy is like Second Amendment rights, Abortion law, Climate policy, even Cinton/Lewinsky. The laptop, ivermectin, the Mar A Lago assassination attempt, Seth Rich tales, etc are not controversies.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Scandal is the best word to use. Both because the contents of the laptop documents illegal activity from a Presidential candidate's son (drug use, use of prostitution, etc) and 51 former Intel official signed a letter to erroneously suggesting the laptop was Russian disinformation to influence the upcoming election. LemonPumpkin (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All the world is a scandal.
 * Scandal is in the eye of the beholder.
 * <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a disingenuous, unconstructive response. Scandal can mean "a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.; an offense caused by a fault or misdeed; or damage to reputation; public disgrace." A controversy is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion; or a contention, strife, or argument." It's now incontrovertible, through a court of law, that a good deal of the laptop's content is indeed real and that it documents illegal behavior. There's no longer debate on this specific fact. As such, the article title must conform to the proper English term. LemonPumpkin (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The current title, would be best. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain your opinion of not conforming to the standard English definition? It's unconstructive to flippantly state your opinion without rationale. LemonPumpkin (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * LemonPumpkin, "no longer debate" is irrelevant. This article documents the debate/controversy, including why it occurred and any later resolution. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The current title is fine. This article documents the debate/controversy, including why it occurred and any later resolution. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)