It is so heartbreaking to see that this is what not just you but everyone on the Left believes - and that's not your fault. The media runs cover for the Democrats and you WANT to believe. You won't accept any evidence. Admit that at the outset. You support, in fact, BURYING evidence, calling it Russian disinformation as the FBI did, as the media did, as the Democrats did. The evidence is on the laptop - the money trail is on the laptop. Hunter texted that he provides the wealth for the family. Joe Biden is disgustingly and horrifically, allowing Hunter to take the fall. A man who has been in government since the age of 30, his entire life, is never going to make the kinds of mistakes someone who hasn't been in government his entire life. He knew what his son was doing. He plays the role of the spaced out know-nothing because easy marks like you believe it. Fine. Who cares. Just don't waste anyone's time pretending like you actually have an interest in the truth here. You do not.
Thank you for your response. Regretfully I do not agree with you as to who is and is not following the evidence.
To cite just one point: In your initial post you accused CNN and the NY Times of not covering the Archer Devon testimony. I posted links showing that that was not true.
Can i suggest the in the interest of truth you post an update to your story?
When I wrote it they had not yet covered it. Their news angle, which I heard this morning is untrue: "Republicans can't find any connection to Hunter's dealings..." Find me one article -- one news story -- that in any way tells the story in a way that reflects the truth: This was clear influence peddling. It isn't that hard -- and it's not complicated. Watch the first hour of Ben Shapiro's story today (which hasn't yet posted on YouTube).
Show me one story at CNN or NBC that reflects accusations of corruption, and not a defense of Joe. Way down on Page One of the Times today is this headline, "Biden Spoke With SonтАЩs Associates, but Not About Business, Former Partner Says" -- that's all they say. How the mighty have fallen. It remains heartbreaking, shocking and horrifying.
Thank you so much for your response. I really appreciate it.
I fully understand that what happened was you wrote your piece and that shortly after you posted it CNN and the NY Times posted their stories. That is why I suggested that you update your piece. I do not think that you want to mislead your readers.
It isn't misleading my readers. I can you show me where, on CNN.com, which is what I posted yesterday, there is any major headline about Hunter and Joe Biden's influence peddling? I just did a quick look at it's not above the fold. https://www.cnn.com <---see for yourself.
Now, look at The NY Times and then look at the Washington Post. What do you see? TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.
Thank you again for your response and for taking the time to try to correct my errors. Apparently I am just a very slow stubborn learner. My bad. :-(
Regretfully what you posted says that CNN and the NY Times are not reporting the story of Monday's House Oversight hearing. At the time that you posted your remarks, that was true. However shortly after your post both CNN and the NY Times did post stories about the committee hearings. While your original post was accurate at the time that it was written, clearly it no longer is.
Hence my recommendation that you add an update stating this later information. I believe that that is what responsible journalists would do. Were I in your shoes that is what I would do.
As regards the content of the story itself, please note that CNN, the Washington Post, and the NY Times stories all reported the facts, the Democratic perspective, and the Republican perspective. I understand that you would prefer that this information be presented differently. However to do so would be inconsistent with Devon Archer's actual testimony.
As I have already noted elsewhere in this discussion, one of the Republican Congressmen on the committee, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., acknowledged that the Republicans' widely-hyped witness in their probe of the Biden family's business dealings, Devon Archer, "didn't know anything" about unverified allegations that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden had accepted millions in bribes.
To my mind, that sounds pretty clear.
Thank you again for your time. I greatly appreciate it.
This is semantics. I posted pictures of the front pages of CNN, NYTimes and WaPo. Those front pages remain unchanged within the context of this conversation. They are burying the story -- and if they do talk about it at all, as usual, they downplay it.
That wasn't your comment initially. You said I was misleading my readers. I wasn't. I used the front pages of the prominent news sites as an example of how the media was treating the story. My complaint would be that we no longer have journalists who will tell the people the truth. You seem to think that just covering the story is adequate. I do not.
I have not changed my opinion that your initial post is now misleading.
I was asking you whether your current complaint simply is that CNN and the NY Times did not give the story the prominence that you think it deserves.
If so, please note that the prominence that a story receives is an editorial judgment based upon how important the editor perceives the story to be. In this particular case, given that Devon Archer's testimony was a dud, CNN and the NY Times gave it less prominence than you wish. I am certain that had Devon Archer testified under oath that Joe Biden had done something illegal the story would have been given great prominence.
For all of the right wing media claims to the contrary, no one has yet produced actual court admissible evidence of a specific chargeable criminal act by Joe Biden.
"Evidence? Sworn testimony? Physical documents? A money trail?"
Give me a break.
Explain to us how Hunter - with zero expertise in anything - got a lavish salary from Burisma as Joe was threatening withholding U.S. funds from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.
Sorry, but the charge that you are making is a bit stale. Suffice it to say that three Republican led investigations have yet to produce any hard evidence of Joe Biden acting inappropriately.
For background, you may want to check out the following:
So you use the corrupt deep-state operation Wikipedia and its equally corrupt MSM sources to "disprove" what is a plain and unambiguous quid pro quo - which includes this whopper:
"United States intelligence community analysis released in March 2021 found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens"
This is the garbage they promoted to social media companies to grease the skids for the very same "intelligence community" to claim that the laptop was "Russian disinformation" and get the NY Post story - later acknowledged as true even by the NYT - censored from social media, which impacted the election, aka election interference.
Still waiting for a plain explanation as to how Hunter got a big $ salary from Burisma.
1.) Zero expertise in anything nor was any work required = big salary, while
2.) Daddy bragged about getting the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired or he would withhold U.S. funds.
I am perfectly willing to concede to you that Hunter Biden might be guilty of all sorts of nefarious acts. However to most of us those actions are of interest only if they in some way involve Joe Biden in something illegal.
The relation of Joe Biden to the removal of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was already been thoroughly investigated in 2020 by two Republican Senate committees. Neither found court admissible evidence of actual criminality.
If you have the missing evidence, perhaps you should call Fox News, Mitch McConnell, and Leo McCarthy and then share the evidence with the rest of us. Otherwise I have something more important to do, namely read the just released four court Federal indictment against Donald Trump.
I am not a shill and I resent the accusation. We may disagree but that is no reason for you to attack my motives and then verbally abuse me.
Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are two people. That one of them does something nefarious does not show that the other did anything wrong. I am perfectly willing to concede to you that Hunter Biden may have acted improperly. However that does not show that Joe Biden acted improperly.
At the risk of reminding you of a little history, this is not the first time that a member of the President's family has tried to capitalize on their family ties. Something similar happened in the late 1970s with Jimmy and Billy Carter. When Billy Carter tried to market himself as the President's brother, Jimmy carefully avoided entanglement in his brother's activities.
"I did not have sex with that woman." -Bill Clinton
"this is not the first time that a member of the President's family has tried to capitalize on their family ties"
So now your BS line is that Hunter indeed used Joe to make money, but that Joe - who was a Senator, VP and now POTUS and in D.C. for FIFTY+ YEARS - remained blithely unaware of Hunter's activities. Of course, we now have the testimony that Hunter brought daddy into his business meetings, so that doesn't quite add up, does it?
Try again.
This time, give us a PLAUSIBLE explanation for how Hunter - a guy with no expertise in anything except drugs and prostitutes - fooled savvy old Joe forever and made millions by merely invoking his name, as Joe, pure as the driven snow, did nothing for the lad and nothing for the businesses Hunter made million$ from.
And, again, how did Hunter get a big $ salary from Burisma for doing nothing. I'm sure it is just an unbelievable coincidence that daddy was AT THE SAME TIME holding U.S. funds hostage until Ukraine fired the prosecutor who was going after - wait for it - Burisma.
Evidence? Sworn testimony? Physical documents? A money trail?
I understand that you do not like Joe Biden. However your dislikes do not prove criminality in a court of law.
When you have the evidence, please share it. I and the country would like to see it.
It is so heartbreaking to see that this is what not just you but everyone on the Left believes - and that's not your fault. The media runs cover for the Democrats and you WANT to believe. You won't accept any evidence. Admit that at the outset. You support, in fact, BURYING evidence, calling it Russian disinformation as the FBI did, as the media did, as the Democrats did. The evidence is on the laptop - the money trail is on the laptop. Hunter texted that he provides the wealth for the family. Joe Biden is disgustingly and horrifically, allowing Hunter to take the fall. A man who has been in government since the age of 30, his entire life, is never going to make the kinds of mistakes someone who hasn't been in government his entire life. He knew what his son was doing. He plays the role of the spaced out know-nothing because easy marks like you believe it. Fine. Who cares. Just don't waste anyone's time pretending like you actually have an interest in the truth here. You do not.
Sasha,
Thank you for your response. Regretfully I do not agree with you as to who is and is not following the evidence.
To cite just one point: In your initial post you accused CNN and the NY Times of not covering the Archer Devon testimony. I posted links showing that that was not true.
Can i suggest the in the interest of truth you post an update to your story?
When I wrote it they had not yet covered it. Their news angle, which I heard this morning is untrue: "Republicans can't find any connection to Hunter's dealings..." Find me one article -- one news story -- that in any way tells the story in a way that reflects the truth: This was clear influence peddling. It isn't that hard -- and it's not complicated. Watch the first hour of Ben Shapiro's story today (which hasn't yet posted on YouTube).
Show me one story at CNN or NBC that reflects accusations of corruption, and not a defense of Joe. Way down on Page One of the Times today is this headline, "Biden Spoke With SonтАЩs Associates, but Not About Business, Former Partner Says" -- that's all they say. How the mighty have fallen. It remains heartbreaking, shocking and horrifying.
Sasha,
Thank you so much for your response. I really appreciate it.
I fully understand that what happened was you wrote your piece and that shortly after you posted it CNN and the NY Times posted their stories. That is why I suggested that you update your piece. I do not think that you want to mislead your readers.
It isn't misleading my readers. I can you show me where, on CNN.com, which is what I posted yesterday, there is any major headline about Hunter and Joe Biden's influence peddling? I just did a quick look at it's not above the fold. https://www.cnn.com <---see for yourself.
Now, look at The NY Times and then look at the Washington Post. What do you see? TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.
Sorry, man. Live with it.
Sasha,
Thank you again for your response and for taking the time to try to correct my errors. Apparently I am just a very slow stubborn learner. My bad. :-(
Regretfully what you posted says that CNN and the NY Times are not reporting the story of Monday's House Oversight hearing. At the time that you posted your remarks, that was true. However shortly after your post both CNN and the NY Times did post stories about the committee hearings. While your original post was accurate at the time that it was written, clearly it no longer is.
Hence my recommendation that you add an update stating this later information. I believe that that is what responsible journalists would do. Were I in your shoes that is what I would do.
As regards the content of the story itself, please note that CNN, the Washington Post, and the NY Times stories all reported the facts, the Democratic perspective, and the Republican perspective. I understand that you would prefer that this information be presented differently. However to do so would be inconsistent with Devon Archer's actual testimony.
As I have already noted elsewhere in this discussion, one of the Republican Congressmen on the committee, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., acknowledged that the Republicans' widely-hyped witness in their probe of the Biden family's business dealings, Devon Archer, "didn't know anything" about unverified allegations that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden had accepted millions in bribes.
To my mind, that sounds pretty clear.
Thank you again for your time. I greatly appreciate it.
This is semantics. I posted pictures of the front pages of CNN, NYTimes and WaPo. Those front pages remain unchanged within the context of this conversation. They are burying the story -- and if they do talk about it at all, as usual, they downplay it.
Sasha,
So your complaint is simply that they do not accord this story the prominence which you wish they accorded it?
That wasn't your comment initially. You said I was misleading my readers. I wasn't. I used the front pages of the prominent news sites as an example of how the media was treating the story. My complaint would be that we no longer have journalists who will tell the people the truth. You seem to think that just covering the story is adequate. I do not.
Sasha,
There may be a misunderstanding.
I have not changed my opinion that your initial post is now misleading.
I was asking you whether your current complaint simply is that CNN and the NY Times did not give the story the prominence that you think it deserves.
If so, please note that the prominence that a story receives is an editorial judgment based upon how important the editor perceives the story to be. In this particular case, given that Devon Archer's testimony was a dud, CNN and the NY Times gave it less prominence than you wish. I am certain that had Devon Archer testified under oath that Joe Biden had done something illegal the story would have been given great prominence.
For all of the right wing media claims to the contrary, no one has yet produced actual court admissible evidence of a specific chargeable criminal act by Joe Biden.
"Evidence? Sworn testimony? Physical documents? A money trail?"
Give me a break.
Explain to us how Hunter - with zero expertise in anything - got a lavish salary from Burisma as Joe was threatening withholding U.S. funds from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.
You want a smoking gun, here it is.
Sorry, but the charge that you are making is a bit stale. Suffice it to say that three Republican led investigations have yet to produce any hard evidence of Joe Biden acting inappropriately.
For background, you may want to check out the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory
You clearly aren't concerned with truth.
So you use the corrupt deep-state operation Wikipedia and its equally corrupt MSM sources to "disprove" what is a plain and unambiguous quid pro quo - which includes this whopper:
"United States intelligence community analysis released in March 2021 found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens"
This is the garbage they promoted to social media companies to grease the skids for the very same "intelligence community" to claim that the laptop was "Russian disinformation" and get the NY Post story - later acknowledged as true even by the NYT - censored from social media, which impacted the election, aka election interference.
Still waiting for a plain explanation as to how Hunter got a big $ salary from Burisma.
1.) Zero expertise in anything nor was any work required = big salary, while
2.) Daddy bragged about getting the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired or he would withhold U.S. funds.
Connect the dots. After all, there are only TWO.
I am perfectly willing to concede to you that Hunter Biden might be guilty of all sorts of nefarious acts. However to most of us those actions are of interest only if they in some way involve Joe Biden in something illegal.
The relation of Joe Biden to the removal of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was already been thoroughly investigated in 2020 by two Republican Senate committees. Neither found court admissible evidence of actual criminality.
If you have the missing evidence, perhaps you should call Fox News, Mitch McConnell, and Leo McCarthy and then share the evidence with the rest of us. Otherwise I have something more important to do, namely read the just released four court Federal indictment against Donald Trump.
"to most of us those actions are of interest only if they in some way involve Joe Biden in something illegal."
I've fought against shills like you all my life. You're as transparent as a sheet of glass.
You continually avoid the question and the ONLY possible answer to it:
How did Hunter - a guy whose only "talent" was that daddy was in a position of power - make millions of$?
You know as well as I do there's only one answer, which is why you do the Texas two-step to avoid it.
Back to shill school for you, sonny.
I am not a shill and I resent the accusation. We may disagree but that is no reason for you to attack my motives and then verbally abuse me.
Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are two people. That one of them does something nefarious does not show that the other did anything wrong. I am perfectly willing to concede to you that Hunter Biden may have acted improperly. However that does not show that Joe Biden acted improperly.
At the risk of reminding you of a little history, this is not the first time that a member of the President's family has tried to capitalize on their family ties. Something similar happened in the late 1970s with Jimmy and Billy Carter. When Billy Carter tried to market himself as the President's brother, Jimmy carefully avoided entanglement in his brother's activities.
"I am not a shill" -williamj
Uh huh.
"I am not a crook." -Richard Nixon
"I did not have sex with that woman." -Bill Clinton
"this is not the first time that a member of the President's family has tried to capitalize on their family ties"
So now your BS line is that Hunter indeed used Joe to make money, but that Joe - who was a Senator, VP and now POTUS and in D.C. for FIFTY+ YEARS - remained blithely unaware of Hunter's activities. Of course, we now have the testimony that Hunter brought daddy into his business meetings, so that doesn't quite add up, does it?
Try again.
This time, give us a PLAUSIBLE explanation for how Hunter - a guy with no expertise in anything except drugs and prostitutes - fooled savvy old Joe forever and made millions by merely invoking his name, as Joe, pure as the driven snow, did nothing for the lad and nothing for the businesses Hunter made million$ from.
And, again, how did Hunter get a big $ salary from Burisma for doing nothing. I'm sure it is just an unbelievable coincidence that daddy was AT THE SAME TIME holding U.S. funds hostage until Ukraine fired the prosecutor who was going after - wait for it - Burisma.
What universe do you live in?
Heretic,
Thank you for your remarks. Alas, this conversation is degenerating. So I am going to say good bye.
Buh bye!