Select Page

Hunter Finally Admits the Laptop IS His 

Hunter Finally Admits the Laptop IS His 

For more than two years, Hunter Biden lied about his laptop.  The White House lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop.  The FBI lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop.  The media lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop.  They all claimed that the laptop that Hunter Biden left behind at a repair shop was not really his at all.  It was all the work of a Russian disinformation campaign.  

In fact, any statements suggesting that the laptop really belonged to Hunter were struck down from social media platforms … canceled … censored.  Even the front page report of the New York Post was blocked from social media as disinformation.

Eventually and reluctantly, publications like the New York Times admitted that the information contained on the laptop – particularly those incriminating emails – were legit.  Still, others continued to question the authenticity of the information contained on the laptop.

In one of the all-time great acts of cynical hypocrisy, Hunter Biden now admits that the laptop is his and that he put all that information on that computer.

Hunter made that confession indirectly through his attorneys, who sent letters to state and federal prosecutors to go after those who obtained the laptop and revealed the contents to the public.  Hunter believes they are criminally liable for stealing and exposing his private information – and private parts.  

Hunter is also considering a lawsuit against John Isaac — the repair shop owner who originally had the laptop that Hunter apparently abandoned — Rudolph W. Giuliani and Stephen Bannon, both former advisers to former President Donald Trump.  They also indicated possible suits against FOX News and Tucker Carlson – and unnamed others.

That’s right.  Hunter now admits that every gigabyte on the infamous laptop is his information … his emails … his X-rated photos … his documents.  All those references to dubious deals are accurate.  Even the reference to some unnamed “Big Guy” who gets a cut of the “profits.”  Nothing to do with the Russians.

Given the facts and the grounds laid out for a potential lawsuit, it all smacks of a publicity stunt to influence public opinion more than a judge and jury.  That is about all Hunter can do since the lie about Russian involvement has largely unraveled.  

In another example of unprecedented hypocrisy, the fawning left-wing press continues to ignore or play down the Hunter Biden issues.  Some have even echoed Hunter’s argument that those who expose the information have committed a crime.  What?  The liberal wing of the Fourth Estate is supporting the argument that those who reveal personal information to the press are criminals.  Isn’t that what the news media does routinely? 

Hunter is currently under investigation by the FBI.  You may not know that if you only watch left-wing media.  For two years, the news media can be complicit in propping up the proven to be phony Russian conspiracy theory against Trump – making it the top news of the day.  But they ignore the fact that the President’s son is under investigation for potential tax fraud and violation of the registered foreign agent laws.  Then there is that upcoming congressional investigation into his highly suspicious business dealings with Ukraine, Russia, and China – and the possible involvement of President Biden as the “Big Guy.”

The disinterest of the media is mind-boggling unless you understand that their primary purpose is not news, but allegiance to the progressive agenda and its advocate, the Democratic Party.  Anne Applebaum, of Atlantic Magazine, summed up the left-wing media’s approach to the Hunter case when she said that the entire story was “uninteresting” to her.  

I suspect with Republicans in charge of the House, there will be a serious investigation of Hunter’s activities – and eventually, his pals in the press will again have to eventually concede that the Bidens have a problem.  A serious problem.

But for now, we can say that under penalty of perjury and contempt of court, Hunter – through his attorney – has admitted that all those claims of Russian propaganda were untrue.  Maybe now we can deal with what was on that laptop without trying to lie about it.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Frank stetson

    I think folks have a ways to go on this one Larry. Not quite mission accomplished. First, Hunter has admitted the laptop is his. But where is the laptop? The admission certainly gives Hunter the ability to sue a plethora of people. Good luck to him with that.

    But where is the laptop and what has the chain of custody been like? For example, all of the data that you have seen or anyone has seen has been a copy. Or maybe a copy of a copy. It was under Rudy’s control. While documents have been proven to be legitimate, there is no proof that the data on the copy hard drive is 100% legitimate or that the documents are even on the original. Or if on the original, tgat they weren’t placed there. We don’t know what’s real, we don’t know what’s fake.

    And we don’t know where the real PC is or what its chain of custody has been. No, by Hunter, admitting that the laptop is his, there’s no way he is admitting that all the data on the copy or the copy of the copy that’s in the public domain is the same. Probably some of the data is legitimate, but we really don’t even know if it was even on the original.

    Hunter faces the same problem when he goes to school. He can’t prove that the data he’s suing about was on the original hard drive. You may not be able to prove where it comes from. And he may not want to be forthcoming about some of these things, as being legitimate. I am guessing Jesus will never hit court.

    You’re closer, but it is not mission accomplished.

    • Larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … Of course there is more of the story to unfold. But it seems the consensus — including the liberal media — is that the stuff on the laptop is legit and it is Hunter’s stuff (referring to documents and emails. I assume the other stuff is his too.) Hunter’s law suit is based on the fact that the contents is his property. That is enough for me. Your suggestion that there may be some material attributed to the laptop is totally speculative and with out any basis in fact. I do not think the law suit will get too far. There is the question of abandonment that needs to be first resolved.

      • frank stetson

        I hear you Larry, but you know the deal with “chain of custody” for evidence; there needs to be one and it needs to be good.

        Much of what’s been reviewed is a copy of a copy and that is problematic, that’s what I am saying. Plus, where is the original? I think team Hunter may have it, and that is problematic. WIKI indicates forensics has verified a lot of emails, not by second sourcing, but by reviewing the data for authenticity. That’s problematic as other “experts” will differ, guaranteed. They also found planted folders, that’s problematic. They did this by looking at a copy of a copy, and that’s problematic. That’s if you want to use this stuff to get Hunter legally, tax or otherwise.

        IF you want to use it in the court of public opinion, it’s all fair game, until you go too far and Hunter sues you. And Hunter does not really need the stuff to be authenticated to sue you, he is suing over privacy or defamation, which I am all for. I tire of people stealing other people’s mail and then publishing. Sure, abandonment, etc. comes in, but still doesn’t change the fact that I am all for stopping people from publishing other’s mail. If they had to crack the password to get in, I hope he nails them.

        The “chain of custody” of this evidence is piss poor from a legal standpoint I think. Here’s what WIKI says: “In March 2022, The Washington Post published the findings of two forensic information analysts it had retained to examine 217 gigabytes of data provided to the paper on a hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey, who represented that its contents came from the laptop. One of the analysts characterized the data as a “disaster” from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Hunter Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence that people other than Biden had accessed and written files to the drive, both before and after the New York Post story. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names “Biden Burism”, “Big Guy File”, “Salacious Pics Package” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents”. One of the analysts found evidence someone may have accessed the drive contents from a West Coast location days after The New York Post published their stories about the laptop. (stetston: so, one says crap, others say it’s cool.)

        Using cryptographic signatures, one analyst verified that 1,828 of the roughly 129,000 emails on the drive came from the indicated email accounts of origin, suggesting they were authentic and had not been tampered with. The other analysis verified nearly 22,000 emails using similar methods, after overcoming technical issues the first analysis could not resolve. The analysts said emails from Burisma, where Pozharskyi was an advisor, were likely authentic but cautioned that if Burisma had been hacked, it would be possible for hackers to use stolen cryptographic signatures to forge emails that would pass as authentic. ( stetson: so one says cool, but still could be hacked info to be able to fake adding other stuff) The New York Times reported in January 2020 that Russian military intelligence had hacked Burisma beginning in November 2019; a co-founder of the firm that discovered the hacking said Russians were stealing email credentials. Both analysts acknowledged that cryptographic signatures are not a perfect way to authenticate emails, as some email services do not implement the technology as rigorously as others. About 16,000 of the 22,000 emails carrying cryptographic signatures came via Google, which rigorously implements the technology. The analysts noted that cryptographic signatures can only verify that an email originated from a certain email account, but not who controlled that account; there are other means for hackers to commandeer email accounts. According to the Washington Post, “Some other emails on the drive that have been the foundation for previous news reports could not be verified because the messages lacked verifiable cryptographic signatures.”

        Among the emails that The Washington Post was able to authenticate was the Pozharskyi email that formed the basis of the New York Post’s original article. An email referencing “10 held by H for the big guy?, a possible reference to a rejected proposal to give Joe Biden a 10% share of a Chinese deal his son was negotiating, was not authenticated, though a recipient of the email publicly vouched for its authenticity. (stetson: in court, second sourcing like this will be critical I think)

        One of the analysts found that timestamps on documents and operating system indexes matched, though he noted hackers could forge timestamps in undetectable ways. The analysts also noted that repeated access to the drive resulted in logs and other files used by forensic analysts to examine system activity being deleted. Neither analyst found evidence emails or other files had been manipulated by hackers, nor could they rule out that possibility. (stetson: more “it could be or it couldn’t be, that’s what a court will need to choose fake or real, but beyond all reasonable doubt?)

        In reference to a cache of emails allegedly coming from the Hunter Biden Laptop, Matt Tait, a former information security specialist for the GCHQ (UK’s Government Communications Headquarters), told CyberScoop, “it is clear the cache isn’t in its original form”.

        In November 2022, CBS News published the results of a forensic analysis they commissioned of a copy of the laptop data Mac Isaac initially handed to federal investigators in 2019. The analysis, conducted by Computer Forensics Services, found data, including over 120,000 emails, “consistent with normal, everyday use of a computer”, found “no evidence that the user data had been modified, fabricated or tampered with”, and found no new files created on the laptop after April 2019, when Mac Isaac received the laptop. The chief technology officer of Computer Forensics Services added: “I have no doubt in my mind that this data was created by Hunter Biden, and that it came from a computer under Mr. Biden’s control”. Also on November 21, CBS News published the first photograph of the damaged Macbook Pro, which had been provided to them by Hunter Biden’s legal team.”

        Clear as mud in other words.