The Joe Biden Family Corruption Thread - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15131261
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No more compromised than President Trump is personally. They both tried to do business in China, and both basically failed.

Wulfschilde wrote:So you're saying that Hunter got compromised by videos of himself with the Chinese prostitutes but he didn't even get the money?

I have no idea if any videos exist of Hunter with prostitutes. Even if they do, that would indeed put him on a par with Donald Trump senior, known to have paid off a porn actress who he screwed shortly after his third wife gave birth. And this is the point: Donald Trump senior is the candidate, Hunter is not.

Igor Antunov wrote:Except this is much more substantial, because the premise is that Biden can't even control his own family.

This is fucking ridiculous. You're not meant to "control" your adult children. This is the 21st century, not the 15th. That was not "substantial", it was an air shot.
#15131313


CBS finally reports on the Hunter Biden scandal because now it comes out the Feds are investigating.

Lol at Sinclair Group reporting this under the logo of ABC, CBS and whatever other affiliates they have. Well if they won't report on it, run it under their fucking logo anyway because that's what most people will see, myself included. Lol.
#15131338
@colliric

Don't you find it a tad convenient that Fox News lost the 'smoking gun' proof, a stash of documents, in the post?

In other news...

"One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden’s laptop, a fake “intelligence” document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving Joe Biden’s son and business in China.

The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of Trump, appears to be the work of a fake “intelligence firm” called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.

The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen’s profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.

One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.

Despite the document’s questionable authorship and anonymous sourcing, its claims that Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to the Communist Party of China have been used by people who oppose the Chinese government, as well as by far-right influencers, to baselessly accuse candidate Joe Biden of being beholden to the Chinese government.
"

NBC News – How a fake persona laid the groundwork for a Hunter Biden conspiracy deluge


:lol:
#15131386
skinster wrote:The weirdest part about this story is not that somebody in Joe Biden's family is corrupt, something that's not a shock given Daddy Biden's own history, but how social media sites like Facebook and Twitter banned people from sharing the article about said corruption but also the NY Post's Twitter page was frozen because of their report.




This short clip with Glenn Greenwald on the topic is censored on Twitter and YouTube too. He didn't say anything controversial.
Glenn Greenwald on media 'cone of silence' around Hunter Biden email scandal: https://www.foxnews.com/media/glenn-gre ... nter-biden


Greenwald is an interesting guy. He has mastered the fine art of staying relevant and keeping his name in the news while being a political dissident. While I consider him to be a limited hangout, I often respect more so than not.

Speaking of Twitter, I followed Greenwald's original post and the comments from his detractors. A lot of it was what you'd expect; just smears and name calling from mentally ill individuals with severely defected ideologies. Very interesting reading nonetheless.



My Resignation From The Intercept

The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.

Today I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, as well as from its parent company First Look Media.

The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.

I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.

The censored article will be published on this page shortly (it is now published here, and the emails with Intercept editors showing the censorship are here). My letter of intent to resign, which I sent this morning to First Look Media’s President Michael Bloom, is published below.

As of now, I will be publishing my journalism here on Substack, where numerous other journalists, including my good friend, the great intrepid reporter Matt Taibbi, have come in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country.

This was not an easy choice: I am voluntarily sacrificing the support of a large institution and guaranteed salary in exchange for nothing other than a belief that there are enough people who believe in the virtues of independent journalism and the need for free discourse who will be willing to support my work by subscribing.

Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice. I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.

But the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept. These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom. I began writing about politics fifteen years ago with the goal of combatting media propaganda and repression, and — regardless of the risks involved — simply cannot accept any situation, no matter how secure or lucrative, that forces me to submit my journalism and right of free expression to its suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates.


cut

The current iteration of The Intercept is completely unrecognizable when compared to that original vision. Rather than offering a venue for airing dissent, marginalized voices and unheard perspectives, it is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties, a rigid and narrow range of permitted viewpoints (ranging from establishment liberalism to soft leftism, but always anchored in ultimate support for the Democratic Party), a deep fear of offending hegemonic cultural liberalism and center-left Twitter luminaries, and an overarching need to secure the approval and admiration of the very mainstream media outlets we created The Intercept to oppose, critique and subvert.

As a result, it is a rare event indeed when a radical freelance voice unwelcome in mainstream precincts is published in The Intercept. Outside reporters or writers with no claim to mainstream acceptability — exactly the people we set out to amplify — have almost no chance of being published. It is even rarer for The Intercept to publish content that would not fit very comfortably in at least a dozen or more center-left publications of similar size which pre-dated its founding, from Mother Jones to Vox and even MSNBC.

Courage is required to step out of line, to question and poke at those pieties most sacred in one’s own milieu, but fear of alienating the guardians of liberal orthodoxy, especially on Twitter,
is the predominant attribute of The Intercept’s New-York based editorial leadership team. As a result, The Intercept has all but abandoned its core mission of challenging and poking at, rather than appeasing and comforting, the institutions and guardians most powerful in its cultural and political circles.

Making all of this worse, The Intercept — while gradually excluding the co-founders from any role in its editorial mission or direction, and making one choice after the next to which I vocally objected as a betrayal of our core mission — continued publicly to trade on my name in order to raise funds for journalism it knew I did not support. It purposely allowed the perception to fester that I was the person responsible for its journalistic mistakes in order to ensure that blame for those mistakes was heaped on me rather than the editors who were consolidating control and were responsible for them.

The most egregious, but by no means only, example of exploiting my name to evade responsibility was the Reality Winner debacle. As The New York Times recently reported, that was a story in which I had no involvement whatsoever. While based in Brazil, I was never asked to work on the documents which Winner sent to our New York newsroom with no request that any specific journalist work on them. I did not even learn of the existence of that document until very shortly prior to its publication. The person who oversaw, edited and controlled that story was Betsy Reed, which was how it should be given the magnitude and complexity of that reporting and her position as editor-in-chief.

It was Intercept editors who pressured the story’s reporters to quickly send those documents for authentication to the government — because they was eager to prove to mainstream media outlets and prominent liberals that The Intercept was willing to get on board the Russiagate train. They wanted to counter-act the perception, created by my articles expressing skepticism about the central claims of that scandal, that The Intercept had stepped out of line on a story of high importance to U.S. liberalism and even the left. That craving — to secure the approval of the very mainstream media outlets we set out to counteract — was the root cause for the speed and recklessness with which that document from Winner was handled.

But The Intercept, to this very day, has refused to provide any public accounting of what happened in the Reality Winner story: to explain who the editors were who made mistakes and why any of it happened. As the New York Times article makes clear, that refusal persists to this very day notwithstanding vocal demands from myself, Scahill, Laura Poitras and others that The Intercept, as an institution that demands transparency from others, has the obligation to provide it for itself.

The reason for this silence and this cover-up is obvious: accounting to the public about what happened with the Reality Winner story would reveal who the actual editors are who are responsible for that deeply embarrassing newsroom failure, and that would negate their ability to continue to hide behind me and let the public continue to assume that I was the person at fault for a reporting process from which I was completely excluded from the start. That is just one example illustrating the frustrating dilemma of having a newsroom exploit my name, work and credibility when it is convenient to do so, while increasingly denying me any opportunity to influence its journalistic mission and editorial direction, all while pursuing an editorial mission completely anathema to what I believe.


Despite all of this, I did not want to leave The Intercept. As it deteriorated and abandoned its original mission, I reasoned to myself — perhaps rationalized — that as long as The Intercept at least continued to provide me the resources to personally do the journalism I believe in, and never to interfere in or impede my editorial freedom, I could swallow everything else.

But the brute censorship this week of my article — about the Hunter Biden materials and Joe Biden’s conduct regarding Ukraine and China, as well my critique of the media’s rank-closing attempt, in a deeply unholy union with Silicon Valley and the “intelligence community,” to suppress its revelations — eroded the last justification I could cling to for staying. It meant that not only does this media outlet not provide the editorial freedom to other journalists, as I had so hopefully envisioned seven years ago, but now no longer even provides it to me. In the days heading into a presidential election, I am somehow silenced from expressing any views that random editors in New York find disagreeable, and now somehow have to conform my writing and reporting to cater to their partisan desires and eagerness to elect specific candidates.

To say that such censorship is a red line for me, a situation I would never accept no matter the cost, is an understatement. It is astonishing to me, but also a reflection of our current discourse and illiberal media environment, that I have been silenced about Joe Biden by my own media outlet.



cut

Prior to the extraordinary experience of being censored this week by my own news outlet, I had already been exploring the possibility of creating a new media outlet. I have spent a couple of months in active discussions with some of the most interesting, independent and vibrant journalists, writers and commentators across the political spectrum about the feasibility of securing financing for a new outlet that would be designed to combat these trends. The first two paragraphs of our working document reads as follows:

American media is gripped in a polarized culture war that is forcing journalism to conform to tribal, groupthink narratives that are often divorced from the truth and cater to perspectives that are not reflective of the broader public but instead a minority of hyper-partisan elites. The need to conform to highly restrictive, artificial cultural narratives and partisan identities has created a repressive and illiberal environment in which vast swaths of news and reporting either do not happen or are presented through the most skewed and reality-detached lens.

With nearly all major media institutions captured to some degree by this dynamic, a deep need exists for media that is untethered and free to transgress the boundaries of this polarized culture war and address a demand from a public that is starved for media that doesn’t play for a side but instead pursues lines of reporting, thought, and inquiry wherever they lead, without fear of violating cultural pieties or elite orthodoxies.

Last edited by maz on 30 Oct 2020 16:20, edited 1 time in total.
#15131391
^ Yeah, I saw that. I've liked Greenwald as soon as he came on the journalist scene a few years after the war on Iraq. I always wondered why he stayed with The Intercept after it increasingly aired liberal bullshit you can get in many places all over the MSM. I'm glad he finally left, albeit it's 10 years too late. :D

The censorship re: Biden by the MSM (and The Intercept) is unreal. The powers that be and their buddies who own the major social media sites have gone completely wild lately.
#15142181
This ain't good. I see a special council in the future. What a perfect ironic way for creepy uncle Joe to start out. Illegitimate presidency and a corrupt son. I wonder what the Chinese have on the Bidens to extort them.


Hunter Biden under federal investigation for possible tax fraud

This ain't good. I see a special council in the future. What a perfect ironic way for creepy uncle Joe to start out his illegitimate presidency. I wonder what the Chinese have on the Bidens to extort them.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/09/hunter-bi ... tax-fraud/
#15142185
Finfinder wrote:This ain't good. I see a special council in the future. What a perfect ironic way for creepy uncle Joe to start out. Illegitimate presidency and a corrupt son. I wonder what the Chinese have on the Bidens to extort them.


Hunter Biden under federal investigation for possible tax fraud

This ain't good. I see a special council in the future. What a perfect ironic way for creepy uncle Joe to start out his illegitimate presidency. I wonder what the Chinese have on the Bidens to extort them.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/09/hunter-bi ... tax-fraud/


@Finfinder ;

You know that this is a mirror of what the Liberals were saying about Trump and the Russians, right?

''illegitimate presidency''

''I wonder what the ______ have on the _______to extort them/him?"
#15142197
annatar1914 wrote:@Finfinder ;

You know that this is a mirror of what the Liberals were saying about Trump and the Russians, right?

''illegitimate presidency''

''I wonder what the ______ have on the _______to extort them/him?"


The main difference is facts verses their fiction and there is no Carter Page who BTW just filled a 75 million dollar lawsuit. :lol:

It's hilarious if not treasonous. How about Pee Pee Pants Eric Swalwell calling Trump a Russian asset when he was compromised by sleeping with a Chinese spy. Still serving on the house Intel committee.

Fact 1 Hunter Biden admits to being under federal investigation
Fact 2 It's indisputable Swalwell and the Chinese sex spies connection
#15142200
Who cares about Hunter Biden? They caught a burglar in my town today. What else is new?

That all you got Finfinder?

Oh. And I thought I would remind you that Trump is under a number of state and federal investigations. Just in case you forgot.
#15142204
Drlee wrote:Who cares about Hunter Biden? They caught a burglar in my town today. What else is new?

That all you got Finfinder?

Oh. And I thought I would remind you that Trump is under a number of state and federal investigations. Just in case you forgot.


:lol: :lol: Dr Lee you said there was nothing to Hunter Biden and it was all lies yet he himself admits he is under federal investigation you are not fooling anybody (that it's nothing) with how defensive you are. Don't worry if Joe Biden is not able to cover this up it will lead back to him. Father son indictments. :D

You must be a lover of the Chicoms aren't you. Despicable, all because you have an issue with admitting how wrong you are most of the time.
#15142210
Finfinder wrote:The main difference is facts verses their fiction and there is no Carter Page who BTW just filled a 75 million dollar lawsuit. :lol:

It's hilarious if not treasonous. How about Pee Pee Pants Eric Swalwell calling Trump a Russian asset when he was compromised by sleeping with a Chinese spy. Still serving on the house Intel committee.

Fact 1 Hunter Biden admits to being under federal investigation
Fact 2 It's indisputable Swalwell and the Chinese sex spies connection


@Finfinder

I'm just talking about perception. At some point people have to leave each other room to reconcile, or we're going to break apart as a country. And that would be both sad and tragic.
#15142223
annatar1914 wrote:@Finfinder

I'm just talking about perception. At some point people have to leave each other room to reconcile, or we're going to break apart as a country. And that would be both sad and tragic.


Giving the left room to reconcile will lead to their tyranny and that can never be allowed to happen.
#15142254
And yet again we see that @Finfinder and his ilk do not care about the constitution.

News flash for republicans that you could have learned from democrats. A person is not guilty because they are "under investigation". This is because of that silly and inconvenient thing we have here called "the law".

But I have to say that I am deeply suspicious of any investigation Barr started. I was not suspicious of the Trump investigations because they were started by a republican attorney general in a government where the presidency, the house and the senate were all controlled by republicans.
#15142257
If he's done something wrong, NAIL HIM TO THE WALL!

It would also be good to see Trump and his family investigated further, but he will likely pre-pardon himself, family, and cronies.
#15142271
Finfinder wrote:Giving the left room to reconcile will lead to their tyranny and that can never be allowed to happen.


You're conflating the Left with the Liberals, but aside from that, these are people, conservative and liberal, we share a country with. We have to resolve this one way or another.
#15142272
Drlee wrote:And yet again we see that @Finfinder and his ilk do not care about the constitution.

News flash for republicans that you could have learned from democrats. A person is not guilty because they are "under investigation". This is because of that silly and inconvenient thing we have here called "the law".

But I have to say that I am deeply suspicious of any investigation Barr started. I was not suspicious of the Trump investigations because they were started by a republican attorney general in a government where the presidency, the house and the senate were all controlled by republicans.


Either you are trolling and simply don't believe a single word of that, or your TDS has advanced to a stage of breathless hypocrisy.


Rancid wrote:If he's done something wrong, NAIL HIM TO THE WALL!
It would also be good to see Trump and his family investigated further, but he will likely pre-pardon himself, family, and cronies.


Trolling? Why not just cut to the chase and imprison all registered Republican.
#15142279
annatar1914 wrote:You're conflating the Left with the Liberals, but aside from that, these are people, conservative and liberal, we share a country with. We have to resolve this one way or another.


Left, liberal, opposition whatever you want to call them. There is no resolving this, look at Drlee and Rancids last posts (or trolls) they want to imprison Republican presidents and don't recognize anything the Republicans legislate or any failures and corruption of people they support. I have said all along for the last 4 years Democrats (the left ) can not govern unless they lie cheat or rig the system. They will never change.
#15142287
Finfinder wrote:Left, liberal, opposition whatever you want to call them. There is no resolving this, look at Drlee and Rancids last posts (or trolls) they want to imprison Republican presidents and don't recognize anything the Republicans legislate. I have said all along for the last 4 years Democrats (the left ) can not govern unless they lie cheat or rig the system. They will never change.


@Finfinder

This is how Civil Wars start. The idea rightly or wrongly that the other side is not agreement capable and is desiring only their opponent's destruction and removal from society.

But here I am on PoFo, with a idiosyncratic political idealism and yet I'm able to have decent conversations with people on all parts of the modern political spectrum.

In 1876, things were a lot worse than now with the Tilden versus Hayes election. Bad memories of the Civil War, and even hotheads talking about another one if their guy didn't get in, in an election that was very obviously rigged against Tilden who really won both the popular and the electoral vote. But they made an ugly and messy compromise nobody liked at the time, which however worked; Hayes for President, and an end to the Federal government's occupation of the South with US Troops.

I don't believe in democracy as such, not anymore. But what I do believe in is peace and civil order. If we can't have that than we all might as well negotiate a peaceful break up of the Union rather than have another civil war.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]