Clay’s Theory: Why NYT Admitted the Truth on Hunter’s Laptop

CLAY: Buck, I’m still fired up over the Hunter Biden laptop story because there are just so many lies. To me, this is the essence of the unholy alliance between Big Tech and the Democratic Party and what they got away with in telling so many of us that this was a made-up story, that this was “Russian disinformation.”

I just want to play this montage of media pundits on CNN and MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post. They were all in collusion together to try to prevent this story from becoming a legitimate point of debate during the course of the 2020 presidential election. Listen.

BUCK: It’s one thing when you have Brian Stelter (impression), “Oh, it’s Russian disinformation.” You don’t expect him to know. He doesn’t know anything. It’s amazing that this guy has even the, whatever, hundreds of people that watch every day who do. But that’s one thing, right? But when you have, as the New York Post rightly pointed out — and big hat tip to them for it — some of the former directors of our intelligence agencies, some of the folks that are on that front page of the New York Post, I worked for.

I know some of these people. (laughs) They went either completely out of their minds, or were willing accomplices in the lie to the apparatus. And this is how you know” None of them are embarrassed. There’s no, “Mea culpa.” There’s no, “I shouldn’t have gone along with Russian…” I could say that about anything, Clay. I could say, “You’re not really Clay Travis!”

I could say, “You’re Egor Igorevich,” who’s actually a KGB spy. “Prove I’m wrong!” They have amazing technology over there. The whole thing is completely insane and yet here we are seeing that they totally lied. They lied with collusion of big tech to suppress, and the people who are on that front page of the New York Post cover last week they feel they did their part. That they lied for a bigger purpose is how they view it, which is what everybody should know about the apparatus. It’s not about the truth; it’s about power.

CLAY: Well, what’s incredible about this is how there are no consequences yet. Now, I want to play the reporter asking Jen Psaki about it as well. And then, Buck, I’ve got a theory about what might be going on here. And, by the way, if you missed it, the New York Times suddenly decided to acknowledge — and this story was buried on like the 20th page of the print edition — that all of the emails in the Hunter Biden laptop scandal were real.

And, Buck, did you spend time going through this, the idea from the get-go that this could have been Russian disinformation? There were so many photos and videos of Hunter Biden, that it would have been impossible — for anybody who actually spent ten minutes looking at any of the things that were on this laptop, it would have been impossible — to forge this as Russian disinformation.

BUCK: A few of my friends in the media, Clay, had the mirror image of this hard drive and were offering it out to other news organizations. ‘Ccause let’s be very clear, even when they talk about the Facebook ads that were supposed to sway the election, as you pointed out many have done the analysis on this, I mean, that’s like saying you’re changing the temperature of the ocean by pouring a glass of hot water into it.

It was $100,000 that was spent virtually. It’s a joke. But even that you’d see, there are misspellings. There are things… The Russian disinformation actually looks like at some level it’s being done by Russians. There’s usually pretty clear signs. When you have intimate photos of Hunter Biden, if you were faking those, it would be pretty easy for, one, Hunter Biden to come out and say, “These are fake.”

And two, you would see. There would be telltale signs that this was altered imagery. They don’t know what the interior of Hunter Biden’s home or the hotel or motel or wherever he was staying looks like! It would be so easy to disprove this. What they did was create a false standard of, “Unless you can guarantee me 100% that there’s no way this could have ever been fake, I’m going to act like it’s fake,” which is insane. You could do that with anything.

BUCK: Wait, significant charges coming against who?

CLAY: Against Hunter Biden. Like, I think that they’re going to be… When you look —

BUCK: No way. I want some barbecue out of this, Travis.

CLAY: We will bet. I think that Durham is going to have the goods. Now, I don’t know exactly what those charges are going to be.

BUCK: Against Biden’s son?

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: That would be contra everything we’ve seen, especially back to James Comey, who straight up baled Hillary Clinton out from taking a criminal plea — which she should have to do — over the emails. Everything we’ve seen from Comey holding the memos and then they were classified but they weren’t. You think they’re going to — this Department of Justice is willing to — bring a single charge against Hunter Biden?

CLAY: I do. I think so, and I think that’s why… Think about it: Why would the New York Times suddenly decide…? So just take a step back, this is maybe me going down into the wormhole of media. The New York Times has spent 17 or 18 months, Buck, basically pretending that the Hunter Biden laptop doesn’t exist and that it’s not significant. And, by the way, let me play the audio of Jen Psaki. Well, we’ll play the audio later in the show.

But let me ask you this. Go into the wormhole with me, if it were. Why would the New York Times, Buck, suddenly decide after 17 months, 18 months of the Hunter Biden laptop story: It isn’t real it’s Russian disinformation, there’s nothing to it. Why would they suddenly decide to write an article? Now they did write an article saying that Hunter Biden had paid off his million dollars in debt.

BUCK: I think your analysis is moving in the right direction. It’s just a conclusion that I would be differing with. Again, I don’t know; you don’t know. There might be some fancy pork ribs for my friends in Nashville that I’m feasting on as a result of this. Let me say this. The headline… Remember we pulled the-laptop-is-true story out of a piece that was…

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: We should pull up the headline to read it again just so we have it. But the Hunter Biden/New York Times story was meant to be as boring and it’s sort of anodyne, not as big a deal as possible.

CLAY: Actually, even favorable that he paid off his million dollars in debt.

BUCK: Here you go. “Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Federal Investigation Goes On.” To me that’s not, “Oh, they’re finally coming clean and lining us up for charges against Hunter Biden.” To me, this is, “Nothing to see here. No big deal. Everybody makes mistakes!”

CLAY: Why cover it at all?

BUCK: “Just an issue with the taxman.”

CLAY: Why cover it at all?

BUCK: Because they’re not the only news outlet. By covering it, they go first. They set the narrative. They set the talking points for CNN and everybody else, right? So now to your point, Clay, were there others? The New York Post, Wall Street Journal, were they about to break something on this or working on pieces on this federal investigation. Think about what the title could be.

“President’s Son Is an Influence-Peddling, Federal Tax-Dodging Disaster,” right. There’s so many ways you could have gone. “Hunter Biden paid tax bill” is the first thing they do here. They’re acting as the Biden regime lawyers through the pages of the New York Times. I think in a sense, Clay, to speak your language, it’s like this was part of discovery. They had to handle it. They had to hand it over. So they’re trying to give it the most positive spin possible. That’s how I see it.

CLAY: My thought here is Hunter Biden’s team knows they’re in trouble. They’re going to favorable media outlets to try to color the coverage in a favorable way. This headline, to your point, the headline, is, “Oh, holy crap! The New York Times is finally acknowledging that the Hunter Biden laptop is real,” which everybody out here knew.

BUCK: Not the New York Times headline.

CLAY: But that’s our headline pulling out of it. But implicitly in the article they’re acknowledging it and they’re trying to curry favor. Even in that article, Buck, it says when you pay your bill that’s owed for tax issues, it doesn’t take away from the fact that you committed tax fraud. It just helps your defense in the event that charges are brought.

To me, this is Hunter Biden’s team going to the New York Times and saying, “Hey, we want to try to control this narrative. Things are not going well for us.” The fact that he paid the million-dollar tax bill… By the way, where did the money come from? (chuckles) Probably illicit funds in some way. Maybe art gallery sales. Who knows? But I do believe that there are going to be charges brought against Hunter Biden. I will wager you a fine steak dinner there will be charges brought against Hunter Biden.

BUCK: All right. You’ve got a bet, my friend, because here’s how I see it. Who will…? Now, will there be the possibility of charges? Will there be some…? Remember the Comey speech, which was bizarre, by the way? He wasn’t the attorney general. He was the FBI director. Hillary Clinton. One thing I do know about are the protocols for handling classified information, because the CIA terrifies the crap out of you when you work there about:

“If you mess up on this, we’re going to lock you in the deepest, darkest hole you’ll never see your family again,” unless, apparently, you’re Hillary Clinton and the rules no longer apply. She was State Department, but it was still classified. Comey came forward and said, “Well, yeah, technically a violation of law here but…” The way I see it playing forward is clearly Hunter Biden is a legal catastrophe in many ways and the media has covered for him as much as they can up to this point.

But what prosecutorial authority at the federal government is going to bring charges against the president’s son? Who is going to be the ASUA or U.S. attorney, U.S. attorney or even attorney general level? You think there’s a world in which this attorney general says, “We’re bringing charges against Hunter Biden?” because that’s never seemed to happen.

CLAY: I think the Durham probe is going to uncover clear evidence of crime.

BUCK: They can only refer. They don’t bring the charge, right?

CLAY: But they lay it out. They lay it out, yes, I think it’s going to be impossible. Now, the timing on this is also interesting, right? Because it’s taken forever.

BUCK: You’re calling a shot, by the way, not even the upper deck here. You’re calling out of the stadium, the ball hitting the parked car.

CLAY: I’m not saying he’s going to get convicted. I’m not saying there’s not going to be some sort of plea agreement down the line. But to me the timing becomes interesting here, too, Buck, because do you want these charges coming out before the midterms? If so, you need to do soon, like the report, report out sooner rather than later. And on top of that, if you don’t get them out sooner rather than later, maybe wait until after the midterms? I think this is such a big story that I believe is going to get bigger and bigger. That’s my theory.