>

My fave is that the right has claimed there is cp on the laptop and instead of turning it into police, Rudy held onto it for a year.  Makes sense.
My favorite thing about the Hunter Biden stuff is, at least with the "laptop", you have to be committed to believing all of the following, in order and in totality:

Hunter flew a laptop "containing evidence of his crimes" 2700 miles from Southern California to Delaware in the summer of 2019.
He took a water damaged laptop with evidence of his crimes to a computer repair shop in Delaware but left no payment method.
He took a water damaged laptop with evidence of his crimes to a computer repair shop in Delaware but left no contact method.
He took a water damaged laptop with evidence of his crimes to a computer repair shop in Delaware but never attempted to retrieve it.
There are no internal or external cameras in the repair shop to prove who dropped off the laptop.
The man accepting the laptop is blind, and could not see people, but could see a small sticker on the laptop.
That sticker meant the laptop could only belong to Hunter Biden and no one else.
The blind man was also a fervent MAGA supporter.
The blind MAGA supporter began working on the laptop for which he had not been paid, for a customer that he could not contact.
The blind MAGA supporter found EvIdEnCe oF CrImEs, but did not call the police.
The blind MAGA supporter found EvIdEnCe oF CrImEs, but did not call the FBI.
The EvIdEnCe oF CrImEs mostly consist of emails, voicemails, and .pdfs of multiple photos, and image scans of documents, which have had all of their metadata stripped and whose origins are untrace-able (and therefore rendered generally not admissible in court as evidence)
The blind MAGA supporter found the EvIdEnCe oF CrImEs, and called Rudy Giuliani personally.
Rudy Giuliani takes the laptop (and holds it from the summer of 2019, to the fall before the 2020 election). And therefore generally rendering the "laptop" inadmissible as evidence in court.
While the laptop is in Rudy's possession on the east coast, it is accessed four times from a west-coast IP range, and three new folders are added to the laptop, once of which was labelled "Salacious Pictures Package". The others were "Mail" and "Big Guy File" (ooo, potentially inserting false EvIdEnCe oF CrImEs, perhaps?)
Trump's DOJ eventually subpoenas and obtains the laptop before the 2020 election.
Republicans controlled the House, Senate, Supreme Court, White House, and the DOJ, and possessed the laptop, but declined to charge Hunter Biden with anything.
In fact, a Republican-led Senate investigation in 2020, chaired by Ron Johnson, found no wrongdoing by Hunter Biden in relation to his ties to Ukraine and Burisma.
The New York Post releases the Hunter Biden laptop story, but no one is willing to publish their name to say they worked on it.
Fox News declines to run the Hunter Biden laptop story out of disbelief in the integrity of the sourcing.
The blind MAGA supporter that found EvIdEnCe oF CrImEs later said that "there have been multiple attempts (after having taken possession of the laptop) to remotely insert questionable material onto the laptop, and passing off this misinformation or disinformation as originally coming from the laptop".
The blind MAGA supporter that found EvIdEnCe oF CrImEs, who admitted there were multiple attempts to remotely place questionable material onto the laptop to pass off as genuine, says that while looking at the contents of the laptop, "he saw a lot of photos, but he did not see a lot of the photos that are reported to have been seen". And that some of the stuff that he did originally see, wasn't there anymore.

You gotta get through that, and think, "yep, this is all above board and factually legitimate" >

While I concur with EVERYTHING you’ve written, I want to add that even the story of the laptop has changed. Most specifically around who the repair shop owner gave the laptop to. For example, there’s your scenario that you listed about him giving it to Rudy. There’s also a narrative that he gave it to a GOP Deleware operative and finally, there’s a narrative that he gave it to the FBI.
There’s also a few narratives about whether it was one laptop or two, or one laptop and a hard drive, or one laptop and the computer repairman made a copy of that hard drive.
I’ve read multiple accounts of these scenarios above and I cannot find one consistency. Even Giuliani has mentioned that he has two hard drives that belong to Hunter. 
I did read an article that the author interviewed the repairman, and his story was that he gave it directly to the FBI. He made no mention of making copies of the hard drive, which then begs the question of. How did Giuliani ultimately get his paws on it? >

Yep, I've also heard three different variations of who Jon Paul Mac Isaac contacted, upon discovering the "bad things on the laptop":
"The FBI called me", "I've been emailing with the FBI", and "The FBI sent a field agent from Baltimore".
He was unable to follow up with any specifics, and when pressed, apparently devolved into the "I went with Rudy because he's my lifeguard and I don't want to turn up like Seth Rich" >

Sounds conveniently like 'okay we planted the evidence, now call him and tell him the fbi will be coming to get it' to me. >

It must be so surreal to Hunter Biden that so many old guys want to see his penis and are essentially holding hearings about it within the halls of Congress. >

This will be Benghazi 2.0 with endless hearings intended to smear/weaken political opponents. There were something like 10 hearings/investigations into the Benghazi attack, including one done by a House select committee. I expect something similar here. >

If you are a source for breaking stories, the very least we should require is proof of your claims. We’re past “misinformation” at this point, and any public, online forum should be legally required to vet their posts or subject to massive fines. You simply cannot allow the public to have access false stories. We’ve lost the ability to tell truth from fiction. The first amendment is a great idea, but we’ve let it ride for almost 250 years. It’s time for an update. >

Not specific to Hunter, but at this point I'm honestly starting to question whether some public figures regularly consent or authorize this misinformation being posted on their behalf, with permission, or via an agent's authorization. Possibly even to "prove a point." That raises an interesting question: are some of these stories potentially "authorized" and what are the ramifications if authorized  misinformation is circled by the public after being published by a client acting on behalf of an agent or portfolio of clients.  
I speculate this may be probably in the news entertainment industry seeing as you rarely see actual legal recourses taken, like basic C&Ds. Nor do you really see serious attempts to lobby changes to these practices - despite it obviously being something that seem to make a lot of people 'unhappy.' >

Doing nothing to actually solve problems for the American people.  Focussing their new power on exposing inappropriate nude pictures of Hunter Biden.  Talk about a bunch of groomers.  Just sick and twisted retrumplican crap.