I felt sorry watching the duopoly debate. As a Green, my candidate didn't even get invited (Howie Hawkins is my candidate), but that might have been a good thing. I'm a Green, I'm married to a Democrat (Cedric). I felt so sorry for my husband as I watched Joe Biden flounder around onstage looking lost and senile. When he did manage to muster a bit of a focus, he just looked like a crook.
Howie wasn't invited to the debate but he did tape the following.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Thursday, October 22, 2020. Joe Biden continues to be coddled and protected by the corporate media leading Margaret Kimberley to issue a warning and THE NEW JERSEY STAR-LEDGER to have a scoop in the Hunter Biden scandal -- a scoop everyone's trying to ignore.
Vanessa Williams' "Oh How The Years Go By." These days? It's "Oh How The Stupid Goes Round." The latest effort by the press to avoid asking the needed questions of Joe Biden about corruption and ethics regarding Hunter Biden's money making scams and schemes involves the repeated assertion that the e-mails had been 'shooped' in Ukraine.
Oh, you poor, pathetic fools with your faced pressed up against the glass. Of course they were shopped around. That's not a new development. I've noted this here. I buy information (usually letters and journals). So does Rudy G -- he was on a huge buying spree in 2007 and 2008 (the only time I know of that we were competing to get the same information). Information, when shopped, is shopped to the highest bidder. They don't just, for example, notify Rudy G, "Hey, we got some stuff!" They put the word out and the tight circle of buyers then competes -- supply and demand.
The article in question is a questionable article. The always in over his head Simon Shuster wrote the article and it's nothing but allegations. No one is on the record. Is there a reason two people -- if they exist -- in Ukraine can't go on the record with their own names or the name or names of people shopping around information about Hunter?
So you've got anonymice you never met making claims that can not be proved. The press relies far too much on aonmyice period but in the average US report? The justification is that these Americans could lose their jobs or suffer harms as a result but, please understand, this is an FBI official or a this or a that. Not only are the sources unAmerican, they aren't even identified in any way as to give the reader reason to believe them. Are they in Ukraine intelligence? We don't know. We don't know a damn thing about them.
It gets worse. The whole point of Simon's report is to make it appear that the e-mails first reported on last week by THE NEW YORK POST might not be real.
So Simon Shuster is telling readers that the trove THE POST went through was shopped a year ago in Ukraine?
Beyond the headline, beyond the opening paragraphs, you discover that these two 'expert' witnesses who are unnamed by TIME magazine can't tell you if the e-mails THE POST is reporting on were the ones being shopped around.
Oh, so this is two unnamed people (with no credentials provided) who aren't Americans and who don't know anything about the e-mails they're supposedly saying existed and their comments might influence an election? I believe that is the definition of attempted foreign influence.
TIME printed a story that they can't back up to discredit . . . a story by THE POST that they think didn't have enough backing?
Hunter Biden was involved in business in Urkaine. I'm sure there are many people shopping information around with his e-mails or purported e-mails. This is not news. The failure to connect a 2019 possible trove with the one that THE POST is reporting on now makes the article as useless as everything else Simon Shuster has written in his sad and pathetic life.
Let's talk about efforts to discredit. Why did we spend so much time on "hacked" with regards to this Hunter scandal? Because we have a built-in focus group. Kat, Wally, Ava and I still do some limited public speaking but the bulk has been transferred over to online talks. We are interacting and we get how the stories are playing out. Most people only read headlines (TIME knows that and they know Simon's hideous article will be a push back to try to silence this discussion). "Hacked."
Let's give liars the benefit of the doubt and say that they didn't realize that there were two ways "hacked" could go. But one way it went, with one student group after another, was that they felt -- from headlines and brief on air mentions -- was that Hunter's e-mails were 'hacked' from his computer -- that they were private and on his computer and the mean old repair guy had no right to them. Hunter is a notorious deadbeat and that was well established in the public record. He made himself a deadbeat dad and in that court case tried to plead that he was bankrupt and shouldn't have to pay child support. He's a deadbeat who doesn't pay his bills. Not a struggling American, understand, a deadbeat who spent vast sums of money on hookers and drugs -- and if you don't like that, don't blame me, I'm quoting from the divorce papers when he left his wife and the mother of his first children so that he could go shack up with his dead brother's widow: "Kids meet Aunt Mommy!"
The first wife had to fight for the children to be protected -- and these are the kids that Hunter and Joe claim. They refuse to acknowledge the child Hunter had with the stripper -- she got pregnant while he was shacking up with his sister-in-law. I don't know that she's the stripper who used the dildo on him in the club, I don't know that she isn't. We do know, from the other performers present, that Hunter wanted to practice safe sex and insisted on a fresh and unused dildo. He's a safety boy.
Intended by liars like Adam Schiff or not, the "hacked" was creating a false impression among some and that's why we emphasized here what we emphasized. Most of what we talk about comes from those public discussions that we do on a daily basis. It's our focus group that allows me to gauge what to emphasize and what needs correcting and what's not been amplified enough.
The instant take away from TIME's bad 'report' should be: So what? It has nothing to do with THE POST's report. Now grasp that. Grasp that instead of investigating the claims published by THE POST, TIME decided to go off an adventure to try to discredit THE POST report. And grasp that they can't discredit it because the TIME 'report' can't even connect what took place in 2019 to the trove THE POST has.
Wisconsin Public Radio is prepping a story on the media's coverage of the Hunter Biden scandal. Good, it'll air later today. We need media analysis of it. We really need strong analysis which would mean calling out people who are lying or shading the truth.
People like Karl Baker shouldn't be allowed to practice journalism because they refuse to report the truth. The liar for THE DELAWARE JOURNAL offers a story about Rudy G turning the computer hard drive in question over to the FBI and Baker types up the following:
On Oct. 14, the publication ran a story that the hard drive contained emails from 2015 indicating that then-Vice President Joe Biden held a meeting with a high-ranking official at Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company company whose board employed his son.
Biden’s campaign said, “No meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”
Is that what they said? How difficult is it to be honest?
David Folkenflik is a whole host of problems but we'll note him from NPR (and his problem would not be going against Joe Biden, it would be lying for Joe):
Biden's campaign spokesman, Andrew Bates, responded, "We have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place." There is some wiggle room in that denial. But that's not proof, either. The New York Post nonetheless asserted, breathlessly, and assuredly, that there was a "never-before-revealed meeting."
Even Folkenflik can include the full quote. And, yes, wording does matter, as well learned when Bill Clinton advised the world, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Brent Batten (NAPLE DAILY NEWS) argues that the scandal's a story regardless of whether it's true or not because, if true, it's a story of corruption and, if false, it's a story of a false attack that's an attempt to influence the election. Batten notes:
It seems to me the question of which version of the story is the correct one could be resolved with a few well-placed yes or no questions to Joe Biden or his spokespeople.
Did the laptop computer in question belong to Hunter Biden?
Did he drop it off for repairs at a shop in Delaware?
If it was his, were the contents of the hard drive, as reported by the New York Post after receiving a copy from Rudy Giuliani, altered or fabricated?
To my knowledge, the Biden campaign has not answered those questions, if they’ve even been asked.
Here's Jimmy Dore's take on the whole thing.
Paul Mulshine (NEW JERSEY STAR-LEDGER) reports on a little noted development that gives further credence to the assertion that these are Hunter's e-mails and it was his computer:
When the contents of that infamous laptop were revealed they were handed a father-son drama right out of Shakespeare. And they haven’t even followed up an obvious lead on the story’s veracity.
I’m talking about the call that Hunter Biden’s lawyer made to the owner of that Delaware computer shop just a day before the Post broke the story.
That was unearthed by a long-time source of mine, Larry Johnson.
Johnson is a former CIA agent who also happens to be a golfing buddy of Steve Mac Isaac, the father of John Paul Mac Isaac, the guy who runs the shop in Delaware where the computer was deposited for repairs last year but never picked up.
The contract said that if the computer was not picked up in 90 days it became the property of the shop. The FBI later confiscated it but Mac Isaac kept a copy of the hard drive, which he gave to Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, who in turn gave it to the Post.
After the New York Post story broke last week, a lot of people questioned whether the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden.
But as Johnson wrote on the Sic Semper Tyrannis blog last Friday, “that changed last Tuesday, October 13, 2020. A person claiming to be Hunter Biden’s lawyer called John Paul Mac Isaac and asked for the computer to be returned.”
Mac Isaac was not available for comment but Johnson posted a copy of a follow-up email to him from lawyer George Mesires thanking him for discussing the matter.
When I called Johnson, he asked the obvious question:
“Why would you want a computer back if it’s not your guy’s computer?”
Indeed. And why isn't that a major part of the story? How is it that we can find that news but THE DELAWARE JOURNAL and others can't seem to?
Related, WISN is burying their own report. They spoke to Joe and got some sort of comment from him.
That video should be available in a basic search on GOOGLE or YOUTUBE but it's not. Possibly, it's not because Joe Biden sounds like he's struggling to speak -- he really is too old to be president, he really is someone who needs to step aside. As for his 'response.' He does not deal with the e-mails. He tries to make it about where's he's already won -- 2019 when the press kept insisting no law was broken. First, they didn't know if any law was broken or not since they showed no interest in the story. Second, the standard by which we judge is not whether or not you're a criminal. We judge ethics. Joe has none. He's refused -- even the clip above -- to address the specifics reported. He's refused to answer to the people. He wants to be their servant but he doesn't think they deserve answers.
Not to Hunter's scandal, not to where he stands on court packing, not to anything really.
Grasp that many of the same people and institutions that want to reward Joe for lying and withholding are the same people and institutions who want to punish Julian Assange for telling the truth.
Looking at the Hunter scandal and the way Joe's many protectors have responded, Margaret Kimberley (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) warns:
The left must beware. The corporate media and their liberal friends may pretend to target the right, but it is leftists who they really want to silence. They are the threat to the fake progressive party which gets support from people who should have abandoned them long ago. The left reveal the plot twists of the kabuki play and must be shut up and shut down.
Joe Biden got protection when he needed it most. The New York Post story revealed what smart observers already know. The Democratic party holds on to support with a shaky coalition of white people who intensely hate Trump, black voters determined to keep Republicans, particularly Trump, out of office, and progressives who won’t vote for what they really want for fear of being “spoilers.” Any scandal that might hurt Biden will be hushed up lest the house of cards falls down.
But all of the people don’t take part in the charade. While Biden uses COVID as an excuse for not holding large events, and lets social media make excuses for him, Trump still draws crowds. Election day in 2020 could potentially be a repeat of 2016, when millions of people defied convention wisdom and put their great white hope into office. Democrats are prepared with excuses, and are already claiming that Vladimir Putin was somehow involved in getting a laptop out of a Delaware computer repair shop.
The public remains at the mercy of platforms that ought to be regulated while the Democrats strive to keep everyone in the dark and prop up one of the worst presidential candidates of all times. If they succeed their friends in Silicon Valley will come to Washington with them and the people will be the losers.
The following sites updated:
Post a Comment