Recently, the New York Post released a collection of emails and other data reportedly obtained from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden. Typically, a significant data leak involving a prominent individual connected to a presidential campaign would receive widespread media coverage; however, numerous concerns surrounding this particular instance have led many news organizations to exercise caution before publishing the information as factual.

A limited number of news sources have reported on the data and its origins as verified, and both Facebook and Twitter have restricted the sharing of articles from the Post while they seek additional details. This response is due to several factors.

When situations like this arise, a thorough investigation of the sources is essential. It is possible, as has been observed in previous cases, that foreign intelligence agencies may be directly involved. Considering that Russia, among others, is actively working to influence the election through online campaigns and cyber activities, any report of a political data leak – especially one that appears favorable to a particular candidate and relates to Ukraine – must be examined within that context. The data should be understood as potentially having been intentionally released, deliberately altered, or both.

Even assuming no international interference, establishing the authenticity of this alleged leak presents considerable challenges. This has prompted major news organizations to delay coverage, and has led Facebook and Twitter to limit the reach of the NY Post article.

In a public statement, Twitter explained that it is blocking links and images related to the material “in line with our hacked materials policy.” The questionable circumstances surrounding the data’s origin raise concerns about the possibility of it having been obtained through hacking or other unlawful methods. Furthermore, the documents shared by the Post included unredacted personal contact information for Biden, which further justified the restriction, Twitter clarified. (CEO Jack Dorsey later noted that blocking links to the articles in direct messages without explanation was “unacceptable.”)

Facebook has not yet issued a response to a request for comment.

The narrative states that an individual dropped off three MacBook Pro laptops at a repair shop in Delaware in April 2019, claiming they had water damage and required data recovery services. The shop owner “could not definitively identify the customer as Hunter Biden,” but one of the laptops had a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation.

The laptops reportedly contained numerous emails, many concerning Hunter Biden’s business dealings with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which President Trump has repeatedly claimed served as a means for providing access to Hunter’s father, who was then Vice President. (There is currently no evidence to support this claim, and Joe Biden has consistently denied it. The campaign specifically refuted a meeting mentioned in one of the purported emails today.)

In addition, the laptops contained private emails, images, and personal videos that are potentially damaging to the younger Biden, whose past struggles with substance abuse are a matter of public record.

The data was recovered, but the client could not be reached. The repair shop then reportedly reviewed the data, deemed it relevant to the public interest, and provided a copy to Trump ally Rudy Giuliani before turning it over to the FBI. Giuliani, through former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, shared the data with the New York Post, which published the articles today.

Numerous issues with this account make it difficult to assess its validity.

1. The notion that a laptop containing a video of Hunter Biden using drugs would be entrusted to a random repair shop for data recovery is implausible. Given the long-standing awareness of his drug use and Burisma involvement, professionals would likely have secured any relevant hardware or storage long ago. Providing an unencrypted device with sensitive data to a third party represents a significant security risk, although it could be a tactic to create the appearance of authenticity.
2. The repair shop allegedly could not identify Hunter Biden, despite the invoice (priced at $85 – a remarkably low amount for diagnosing, recovering, and backing up three damaged Macs) clearly listing “Hunter Biden” along with a phone number and an email address reportedly used by him. It seems unlikely that Hunter Biden’s personal laptop – containing personal and confidential information, and potentially communications with the Vice President – would be given to a small repair shop (instead of an Apple Store or authorized dealer) and that the shop would be provided with his personal contact details. Political organizations with substantial resources typically do not operate in this manner, although another party could have.
3. Even if this occurred, the fact that Biden or his staff did not return to retrieve the laptop or pay for the services is highly suspicious. These were supposedly the personal devices of someone who regularly communicated with the Vice President, and whose work had already attracted significant scrutiny. They would not have been disregarded or forgotten. Conversely, someone seeking to have this data examined might intentionally create this scenario.
4. The claim that the laptops were open and unencrypted is questionable. The laptop’s serial number suggests it was a 2017 MacBook Pro, likely running Mojave. Every Mac running Lion or later has readily available built-in encryption. It would be unusual for anyone to submit a laptop for repair without any password or file protection, especially someone like Hunter Biden – given the ongoing efforts to uncover personal data related to his work in Ukraine. An individual intending for this data to be discovered and read would likely leave it unencrypted.
5. The repair shop’s decision to inspect the data itself is also suspect. Data recovery from a damaged Mac typically involves cloning the drive and verifying its integrity. There is no inherent need to examine the files or applications during this process. Some shops utilize software to check file hashes against databases of known child sexual abuse material, and there have been instances of repair staff improperly accessing laptop contents to obtain personal data. However, there is no legitimate reason for this business to inspect the contents of the devices they are working on, let alone share that information with others, particularly a partisan operative. The owner, a known Trump supporter, provided an interview this morning with inconsistent details and suggested he investigated the laptops of his own accord and retained copies for personal protection.
6. The data presented by the Post is not entirely convincing. The publication of screenshots instead of full email text with metadata raises questions about authenticity. Verification is crucial for stories with potential political ramifications.
7. Finally, the fact that a copy was given to Giuliani and Bannon before being submitted to the FBI, and that this is unfolding just weeks before the election, evokes familiar concerns – reminiscent of similar pre-election events in 2016. The choice of the New York Post as the publication outlet is also noteworthy.

As demonstrated, many aspects of the story surrounding this data lack coherence. None of these significant issues are addressed or even acknowledged in the Post’s reporting. However, if one were to speculate about the data’s origin, the narrative becomes more plausible.

For instance, if Hunter Biden’s iCloud account were compromised – a situation that has affected many public figures – it could provide access to the emails and personal images and videos automatically backed up from his phone. However, this data would need to be “laundered” to create a credible origin that does not implicate hackers, whose motives would be easily discernible. Placing the data on a laptop with a politically charged sticker, leaving it unencrypted, and abandoning it at a repair shop with a questionable reputation, along with Hunter Biden’s personal contact information, would make it easy to alert associates to its existence and vulnerability.

This is purely speculative, of course. But it aligns remarkably well with the original account. Any news organization committed to integrity would be obligated to consider and address these possibilities, or at least explain their relevance, before evaluating the substance of the alleged leak.

This story is ongoing. Efforts are underway to gather further information and provide additional context.