The obvious point is that for a country to have a democracy that's free from manipulation by foreign entities it needs to strongly act against foreign influences attempting to interfere. If media publications credulously publish explosive accusations in the month before an election then you have a very easy way for foreign entities to influence elections.
Even if you buy Bobulinski as a credible witness it's difficult to discount the fact that his allegations have been deliberately timed to be as politically damaging for the election as possible, whilst giving the smallest amount of time to fact check his story. Specifically since the allegations could've been brought to light years ago. We don't have to be credulous - we all know that the unsubstantiated accusations can be damaging even if they turn out to be utterly baseless (which is what seems to be the case given the lack of coroborating evidence).
To put this in context - the 2016 relevation of Hilary Clinton's emails in the last weeks before the election coincided with a shift in the polls that pushed that election into a tossup, and when actually investigated, were found to be duplicates of emails that she had already been investigated for.
It seems natural given that we know about this dynamic, the reasonable thing is to raise your threshold for publishing accusations in the last weeks before an election.
If it is true that these accusations really are as damning as Bobulinski claims then they'll be coroborated and investigations will start, and frankly we've got 3 months before Biden even takes office. But those should be real criminal investigations, not baseless accusations made in the 2 weeks before the election - or more reasonably, made at the time that Bobulinski claims these conversations took place over a year ago.
He's clarified the timing in his interview with Tucker. The only reason he's coming forward is because the campaign dismissed his presence as Russian disinformation, which hurts his reputation. He is under no obligation to wait till after the election to repair his reputation.
The timing is definitely suspicious for the laptop contents to be released, but as for Bobulinski, I think his timing came down to two things:
1) He only had part of the picture to begin with. It was the release of some of the laptop's contents that made it clear (in his mind) that Joe Biden was in fact receiving bribes from foreign governments through his son.
2) Given his own involvement in Sinohawk, the leap to portraying the emails as part of "Russian disinformation" cast a shadow over his own reputation, and he asked the Biden campaign to issue a retraction of that characterization. I think many people naturally don't want to be involved in controversies like this because of the personal costs, but he felt it was necessary in part to protect his own reputation.
Even if you buy Bobulinski as a credible witness it's difficult to discount the fact that his allegations have been deliberately timed to be as politically damaging for the election as possible, whilst giving the smallest amount of time to fact check his story. Specifically since the allegations could've been brought to light years ago. We don't have to be credulous - we all know that the unsubstantiated accusations can be damaging even if they turn out to be utterly baseless (which is what seems to be the case given the lack of coroborating evidence).
To put this in context - the 2016 relevation of Hilary Clinton's emails in the last weeks before the election coincided with a shift in the polls that pushed that election into a tossup, and when actually investigated, were found to be duplicates of emails that she had already been investigated for.
It seems natural given that we know about this dynamic, the reasonable thing is to raise your threshold for publishing accusations in the last weeks before an election.
If it is true that these accusations really are as damning as Bobulinski claims then they'll be coroborated and investigations will start, and frankly we've got 3 months before Biden even takes office. But those should be real criminal investigations, not baseless accusations made in the 2 weeks before the election - or more reasonably, made at the time that Bobulinski claims these conversations took place over a year ago.