New York Times Secretly Scrubs Article Detailing Outrage Over Hunter Biden Scandal

( Remember how the media completely refused to cover the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop during the 2020 presidential election, knowing that it would cause so much controversy and disgust among the American public that Biden had no chance of winning the election?

Well, they’re still at it.

Fox News revealed this week how The New York Times has quietly edited its reporting on the story, this time in an attempt to cover their tracks and make it look as though they never discredited the claims made about him.

The outlet has quietly removed the word “unsubstantiated” from a report about the story after facing severe backlash from readers. It is simply untrue to claim that stories of Hunter Biden’s laptop are “unsubstantiated” when the FBI has seen the contents of the laptop that the son of the president abandoned at a Delaware computer repair store.

The laptop contained explicit pornographic photographs and videos of Hunter Biden engaging in sexual activity with very young-looking women, and even smoking drugs.

After the Federal Election Commission determined on Monday that Twitter didn’t violate election laws by suppressing a story by The New York Post about the revelations from the laptop, only weeks before the last election, the Times offered an inaccurate description of the Post’s reporting.

Shane Goldmacher wrote that the FEC “dismissed Republican accusations” that Twitter had violated election laws by “blocking people from posting links to an unsubstantiated New York Post article.”

The Times felt so confident in the claim that they even tweeted it out.


The tweet received such a huge backlash from people who actually read the news at the time, prompting The Times to quietly scrub the word from the article itself.

It remains on the Tweet, however.

At some point, surely the media are breaking some kind of election rules, right?

How can they tell such blatant lies, particularly during an election season and long after their preferred candidate has won, without any penalties?