Category Archives: conspiracy

Trump legal team: Trump won in a landslide so massive, vote-counting was halted to ‘adjust’ rigged Dominion software

UPDATE: Sidney Powell told TheBlaze TV host Glenn Beck: “We will start putting documents online and sending them to people like you, as soon as we possibly can. I would hope that we could start that by this weekend.”

————————————————————————————–

The Trump campaign has charged voting irregularities in dozens of lawsuits since Election Day in a bid to slow the certification of state vote counts.

Two days ago on Thursday, November 19, 2020, at a press conference at the Republican National Convention headquarters in Washington, D.C., President Trump’s legal team presented a summary of the evidence they’ve collected thus far on a “massive, well-funded, coordinated effort to deny” U.S. voters their constitutional rights in the 2020 presidential election.

None of the national MSM, except for FoxNews, covered the press conference.

Representing Trump’s legal team were:

  • Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney and former New York governor.
  • Sidney Powell, a federal appellate attorney who has fought so valiantly for Gen. Michael Flynn.
  • Jenna Ellis, senior legal advisor to the Trump 2020 Campaign.

Here’s a video of the press conference (h/t FOTM reader BoyDownTheLane):

As reported by Washington Examiner‘s White House correspondent Katherine Doyle, in the press conference, Ellis pointed out if the voting irregularities are not investigated and corrected, “no election will be secure from here on out.”

Citing sworn affidavits and allegations of election fraud in several states, including Pennsylvania, Giuliani (who is now mocked for hair dye dripping down his face during the presser — can’t he afford a better hair dye?) said the team had “enough to overturn any election” and that “If you count the lawful votes, Trump won Wisconsin” because about 100,000 absentee ballots in Wisconsin were tallied that should not have been.  He also said the campaign was “about to file a major lawsuit in Georgia,” with more litigation ahead, possibly in New Mexico and Arizona.

The legal team linked voting irregularities across the country to a “centralized” conspiracy helmed by George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, Joe Biden, and the deceased Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Powell also claimed there is evidence of the “massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China, and interference with our elections.”

The Trump attorneys leveled their most inflammatory charges at the computer technology of Dominion Voting Systems Corporation which was used by some states to count votes. Powell said:

“The Dominion Voting Systems, the Smartmatic technology software … were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election after one constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out.

We have one very strong witness who has explained how it all works. His affidavit is attached to the pleadings of Lin Wood and the lawsuit he filed in Georgia. … As soon as he saw multiple states shut down the voting on the night of the election, he knew the same thing was happening here.”

According to Powell, although the Dominion software was rigged to “yank” votes from Trump by a pre-arranged ratio, Trump was winning so massively on election night that the Democrats went into a panic and stopped counting votes in the battleground states, so as to give themselves time to “readjust” the Dominion software to ensure a Biden win. Powell said:

“Trump won by a landslide, and we are going to prove it, and we are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom.”

Note: Attorney Lin Wood filed an affidavit from ex-GOP congressional candidate Russell Ramslad which reportedly showed more votes were cast in at least 19 precincts in Michigan during the 2020 presidential election than the entire population of eligible voters in those precincts. Below is a screenshot of the 19 precincts taken from the affidavit (source: Powerline):

In other Michigan precincts/twonships, the number of votes cast was 96% to 100% of the number of voters, which meant the voter turnout rate was a hard-to-believe 95% to 100%.

But according to John Hinderaker of the legal blog Power Line, who claims to have seen the affidavit, some of the precincts are actually located in Minnesota and other parts of the Midwest, not Michigan. Hinderaker writes:

Here’s the problem: the townships and precincts listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 of the affidavit are not in Michigan. They are in Minnesota. Monticello, Albertville, Lake Lillian, Houston, Brownsville, Runeberg, Wolf Lake, Height of Land, Detroit Lakes, Frazee, Kandiyohi–these are all towns in Minnesota. I haven’t checked them all, but I checked a lot of them, and all locations listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 that I looked up are in Minnesota, with no corresponding township in Michigan. This would have been obvious to someone from this state, but Mr. Ramsland is a Texan and the lawyers are probably not natives of either Minnesota or Michigan.

Dominion has “categorically” denied charges of fraud, such as vote-switching and software errors. On Nov. 11, a panel of voting technology companies, including Dominion, issued a joint statement with Christopher Krebs, director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, vouching for the reliability of the 2020 election. “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,” the statement reads.

Six days later on Nov. 17, Trump fired Krebs in a tweet, saying that Krebs’ defense of the security of the election was “highly inaccurate.” Indeed, without having seen the evidence amassed by Trump’s legal team, how would Krebs know that the election had not been compromised?

Honest people do not fear transparency.

Despite its denial of any wrongdoing, on Thursday night after the legal team’s press conference, Dominion Voting Systems abruptly backed out of attending a fact-finding hearing that was set for Friday morning with the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee “to help identify and correct any irregularities in the election process.”

Committee Chair Seth Grove said he wants to know why a company with nothing to hide would back out, and that the 1.3 million Pennsylvanians who used Dominion’s voting machines have been “hung out to dry and slapped in their faces.” (ZeroHedge)

Additionally, tweeter Rosie memos discovered that over 40% (100+) of 243 Dominion employees have deleted their profiles on LinkedIn since election day.

For what you can do to help Trump’s legal team: “2020 election irregularities: Why President Trump is contesting supposed results”.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

We have a winner!

The writers of FOTM voted for what each considered to be the best (#1) and second-best (#2) captions. Each #1 vote is worth 4 points; a #2 vote is worth 2 points.

And the winner of the 233rd FOTM Caption Contest, with four #2 votes, totaling 8 points, is . . .

Cornell!

Here is the winning caption:

We’re not just computer nerds anymore, we’re revolutionaries now, Micronistas!

andre, boydownthelane, bry, Gunny T, Jackie Puppet and Reaper are in 2nd place, each with one #1 vote and 4 points. Here are their captions:

andre: “Lucifer pitching the “deal” to the Antichrist to rule the world.”

boydownthelane: “Do you like your conservatives fried, baked or roasted?”

bry: “Tim Cook: ‘My final offer…I’ll give you 6 programmers for the latest NSA backdoor passwords.'”

Gunny T: “Pichaii – I want Asia, China, and the Pacific Islands.
Cook – I want North and South America
Both – We can give Europe and Africa to @Jack
All – HAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

Jackie Puppet: “Here’s to getting rid of Trump once and for all!!”

Reaper: “‘What are we going to do today, Brain?’ ‘What we do everyday, Pinky, plot to take over the world!’”

Auntie Lulu and DFJ150 are in 3rd place, each with one #2 vote and 2 points:

Auntie Lulu: “The sheeple are so stupid, they will not realize what we have done until it is too late.”

DFJ150: “Explain to me again how we get the horse’s head into Trumps’ bed.”

WELL DONE, EVERYONE!

Cornell!!!

For all the other caption submissions, go here.

Be here later today for our next, very exciting Caption Contest! 😀

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Gallup Poll: Only 25% support a ban on handguns

With all the #BLM and Antifa riots and violence, it’s no suprise that according to the latest Gallup poll, Americans are less likely to call for increased gun control than they have been since 2016 .

From Sept. 30 to Oct. 15, 2020, in telephone interviews with a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, Gallup polled a national random sample of 1,035 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Here are the poll results:

  • Support for a ban on the possession of handguns:
    • Only 25% support a ban on handguns, which is a decrease of 18 percentage points from its 1991 high, and is near the lowest on record in Gallup’s 40-year trend.
    • 74% of U.S. adults say such a ban should not be put in place.

  • Support for stricter laws governing the sale of firearm:
    • While a majority of 57% support stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, this is a seven-percentage-point decline since last year. Note that in 1990, as many as 78% of U.S. adults wanted stricter laws for the sale of firearms.
    • 34% of U.S. adults prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now.
    • 9% would like gun laws to be less strict.
  • Those who want stricter gun-sales laws:
    • More women (67%) than men (46%).
    • More Democrats (85%) and Independents (60%) than Republicans (22%).
    • More non-gunowners (72%) than gunowners (26%).
    • More blue than red states: East (68%), West (63%), Midwest (50%), South (49%).
    • More residents of cities (65%) and suburbia (58%) than rural (46%).
  • Mass-shooting false-flags like Sandy Hook and Parkland work, but only for a time. Gallup points out that “Americans’ preferences for tougher gun control have generally peaked in the wake of prominent mass shootings and waned as the memory of each fades.”

President Trump is a staunch supporter of our Second Amendment right, whereas Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party are for gun control. See:

Given these poll findings — of a decline in Americans’ support for gun control — it’s all the more curious that supposedly Biden won the 2020 presidential election.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

US ambassador Jim Jeffrey lied about number of troops to thwart Pres. Trump’s policy of withdrawing from Syria

No U.S. President had ever been as lied about by the media, plotted against by the FBI/CIA, unceasingly harassed by the opposition party — the Democrats — with baseless accusations and impeachment, with those working in the administration not just disobeying but outright countermanding his policies and decisions as President Donald John Trump.

Here’s the latest, stunning example.

The State Department is notoriously left-leaning and a part of the D.C. swamp.

Despite Trump’s efforts to drain that swamp (see “Draining the Swamp: Mass exodus of senior staff from State Dept.” and “More ‘Drain the Swamp’ of the State Department“), from the beginning of Trump’s presidency, the State Department has been rebellious. See:

Now that the Demonrats believe Joe Biden has won the presidential election, James “Jim” Jeffrey, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Syria, is admitting his team lied about the number of troops in Syria so as to thwart President Trump’s policy of ending the war in Syria by withdrawing all U.S. troops from Syria.

Trump’s announcement in December 2018 of withdrawing from Syria led to the resignation of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and then-Ambassador to Syria Brett McGurk.

Mattis has since become a dogged never-Trumper. But it must be noted that his resignation over Trump’s Syria policy was indisgenuous because months before resigning as defense secretary, Mattis had plotted to challenge Trump in the 2020 GOP primary.

Why Jim Jeffrey was appointed ambassador defies understanding because he had signed the infamous “Never Trump” letter while Trump was a presidential candidate in 2016. Jeffrey also gives foreign policy advice to Joe Biden.

In an interview with Defense One, Jeffrey said: “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had” in northeast Syria. The actual number of troops is “a lot more than” the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.

In 2018 and again in October of 2019  when Trump repeated the withdrawal order, the president maintained that ISIS had been defeated. But each time, he was convinced to leave a residual force in Syria and so the war continued.

Jeffrey said: “What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal. When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”

Defense One reporter Katie Bo Williams concludes:

Officially, Trump last year agreed to keep several hundred U.S. troops — somewhere between 200 and 400, according to varying reports at the time — stationed in northeast Syria to “secure” oil fields held by the United States’ Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS. It is generally accepted that the actual number is now higher than that — anonymous officials put the number at about 900 today — but the precise figure is classified and remains unknown even, it appears, to members of Trump’s administration keen to end the so-called “forever wars.”

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Election 2020 voter fraud: What you can do

There is mounting evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election. See, for example:

That is why President Trump has a team of lawyers filing lawsuits to contest the media-declared win for Joe Biden.

Here’s what you can do to help:

  1. Donate to the President’s official Election Defense Fund.
  2. Report any voter fraud you’d witnessed to the Republican National Committee. Click here to report. It is best that you submit your statement in a sworn affidavit that can be accepted in a court of law. You can upload your affidavit or photo(s) you had taken of the fraud.
  3. Sign this petition asking the Supreme Court to recount or redo the 2020 presidential election. 2,530,597 people have signed; the goal is 3 million.
  4. Pray for the law firms involved in the ballot challenges and recount efforts, whistleblowers testifing to having witnessed voter fraud, and the battleground states. Here is a partial list of the law firms fighting for truth:
    • Marquis -Aurbach -Coffing
    • Taylor- English – Duma, LLP
    • Lathrop-Gage
    • Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller
    • Michael Beth Fridrich
    • Arent Fox
    • Jones -Day
    • Porter Wright Morris Arthur

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

New Yorker fires Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating in Zoom simulation of a coup to remove President Trump

Remember the recent incident of 67-year-old, Harvard-educated New Yorker legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin masturbating in a Zoom video conference?

See “Another Demonrat pervert: New Yorker legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin masturbated in Zoom call,” Oct. 21, 2020.

New Yorker magazine immediately suspended Toobin.

To my surprise, yesterday, after a 3-week investigation, the magazine actually had the integrity to fire Toobin. He had been a staff writer for the magazine for 27 years.

We were told that the Zoom group meeting was a “simulation” of the 2020 election by key New Yorker writers and WNYC radio. What we were not told, however, which was only reported by Lee Smith for The Spectator, is that the simulation was actually “about forcibly removing Donald Trump from office and throwing him in jail.

In Smith’s words:

In preparation for November 3, the two media organizations were playing out various scenarios of what’s likely to happen the first Tuesday in November, and after. New Yorker staff writers were cast as principal players. Biden was played by Evan Osnos, Trump by Masha Gessen. Jane Mayer dressed up as ‘establishment Republicans’. Clearly any election role-playing game would have parts for the candidates and their parties. But why fill roles for the US military and ‘the courts’, performed by Toobin himself?

Because it was a coup scenario: what happens if Trump fails to respect the outcome of an election that the New Yorker and other standard-bearers of the liberal order have already decided in favor of Biden? Answer: when the courts rule in favor of Democratic party lawyers litigating every district lost by Biden, and Trump locks himself in a White House bunker, the Pentagon will order the same SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden to frogmarch the Orange Man in an orange jumpsuit out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the steady applause of a grateful nation.

The New Yorker exercise was part of a subgenre of fantasy fiction that has grown in popularity with the Acela [Washington, DC] establishment as the election draws nearer. Washington Examiner columnist Byron York coined the phrase ‘coup porn’….

A scenario concocted by two retired Army officers assumed a Biden victory and Trump’s refusal to accept the ‘peaceful transfer of power’. That would leave Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Mark Milley to decide between enforcing the Constitution and turning a blind eye to tyranny.

I wonder if President Trump’s firing of Defense Secretary Mark Esper a week after the 2020 election has something to do with this coup scenario?

According to the New York Times:

Esper’s downfall had been expected for months, after he took the rare step of disagreeing publicly with Mr. Trump in June and saying that active-duty military troops should not be sent to control the wave of protests in American cities….

Esper had taken pains to hew to the Trump line during his tenure. But concern over invoking the Insurrection Act to send troops to quell civil unrest across the country was deep in the Pentagon. Under heavy public criticism, Mr. Esper ultimately broke with the president.

But this paragraph from the New York Times seems to give credence to my speculation:

Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor and a Defense Department official during the Obama administration, led a group of 100 current and former national security officials and election experts from both parties this year in exercises to simulatethe most serious risks to a peaceful transition of power.

That exercise anticipated an 11th-hour switch of the defense secretary, particularly if Mr. Esper was perceived to suggest to the president that he should accept an election loss.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

2020 election irregularities: Why President Trump is contesting supposed results

President Trump is contesting the vote-counting and declared election results of several states. He demands recounting of votes and his lawyers have instigated lawsuits.

Donate to the President’s legal defense fund here!

Here are the reasons for us to be skeptical about the declared election results, including empirical evidence of voting irregularities:

(1) Mail-in ballots are banned in most developed countries, except the United States, due to demonstrated fraud:

John R. Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center writes:

Most developed countries ban absentee ballots unless the citizen is living abroad or require Photo-IDs to obtain those ballots. Even higher percentages of European Union or other European countries ban absentee for in country voters. In addition, some countries that allow voting by mail for citizens living in the country don’t allow it for everyone. For example, Japan and Poland have limited mail-in voting to those who have special certificates verifying that they are disabled….

France banned absentee voting in 1975 because of massive fraud in Corsica, where postal ballots were stolen or bought and voters cast multiple votes. Mail-in ballots were used to cast the votes of dead people. [For examples of mail-in ballot fraud in other countries, go to SSRN to download Lott’s report.]

(2) No blue-wave in House and Senate races, but we are supposed to believe there was a blue-wave only in Trump-Biden race:

Pre-election polls had predicted a massive increase in the Democrats’ majority in the House, and the GOP losing their majority in the Senate, but what actually happened:

  • In House elections, the GOP retained every seat, while the Democrats appear to have lost at least 8 seats, though still retaining their majority hold. (CBS News)
  • In the Senate, Democrats flipped one seat in Colorado, but failed to oust Republican targets in Iowa, Montana, Maine, and Texas. Democrats’ chances of taking back the US Senate, in Republican hands since 2015, now look slim. (Business Insider)

See also “Predictions of a Trump landslide victory so huge ‘people’s heads will explode’

(3) Honest people do not fear or resist transparency, but Republican poll-watchers were prevented from watching the vote-counting in their respective locales, including:

  • Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona). He was denied entry into the Maricopa County Elections Center as the ballots were counted.
  • A Republican lawyer and another poll-watcher in Philadelpia, Pennsylvania. (@willchamberlain)
  • Poll-watchers in Georgia’s Fulton County were told to leave because the vote-counting were “closing up” for the night, but the county actually “continued to count ballots in secret.” (Breitbart)
  • In Detroit, Michigan, windows in absentee ballot counting center were covered up to prevent people from observing. (Breitbart)

(4) On election night (Tuesday), just when the vote counts showed President Trump leading and winning, vote counting was abruptly halted in critical battleground states. Then, when the vote counting resumed the next morning (Wednesday) and after, suddenly Joe Biden was receiving more votes than Trump.

Particularly damning is the fact that elections officials in Michigan and Wisconsin — which have declared Biden the winner — refused to explain Biden’s sudden and dramatic vote tally increase Wednesday morning:

  • Thomas Catenacci of The Tennessee Star reports that in a press conference, Michigan Sec. of State Jocelyn Benson said she was unfamiliar with the specifics of the vote count; her office also would not comment on the specifics of the tally in question.
  • Michigan Department of State spokesperson Aneta Kiersnowski told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement: “We cannot speculate as to why the results lean one way or another.”

(5) Ballot dump: Magic ballots suddenly are discovered –

As an example, on Wednesday, in Georgia, 61,367 absentee ballots suddenly materialized. Georgia’s Secretary of State’s Office said there were actually 50,000-60,000 uncounted ballots remaining as of 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, “more than initially thought early this morning.” (WSB-TV)

(6) Mail-in ballots irregularities:

  • A U.S. Postal Service employee told Project Veritas that they are ordered by their superiors to back-date late mail-in ballots as having been received on November 3, so the ballots are accepted as valid. (See DCG’s post)
  • In Georgia, the Democrat Party sent people to go door-to-door helping voters “to fix their mail-in ballots so they count.” (Georgia Democrats) But the Democrat operatives were told to “minimize” helping Republicans to fix their mail-in ballots. (Breitbart)

(7) Non-residents and dead people voted:

The Trump campaign is filing a federal lawsuit in Las Vegas today, to stop the counting of “illegal votes” in Nevada. The campaign claims to have evidence that “tens of thousands” people who are deceased and nonresidents have cast ballots in the 2020 election. (Fox5)

It is not as if dead voters haven’t voted before. See “The Coming Democrat Vote Fraud: dead voters in Ohio; non-citizen voters in Texas; Pelosi tells Dems to be unscrupulous”.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

CENSORED: Glenn Greenwald’s article on Biden

Glenn Greenwald is a journalist best known for his 2013 reporting for The Guardian on mass-surveillance documents leaked by then-NSA contractor Edward Snowden. His reporting won the Pulitzer Prize.

On Thursday, Oct. 29, Greenwald resigned from The Intercept, a news organization owned by eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar which Greenwald had co-founded in 2014, after editors refused to publish an article he wrote about the New York Post‘s exposé of documents retrieved from a Hunter Biden laptop. Twitter and Facebook both censored the New York Post‘s exposé.

Greenwald wrote in a blog post:

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…. [T]he 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.

Responding to editor Peter Maas’ rationalization of why The Intercept rejected the article, Greenwald writes (New York Post):

[Y]ou know that you can’t explicitly say you don’t want to publish the article because it raises questions about the candidate you and all other TI Editors want very much to win the election in 5 days. So you have to cast your censorship as an accusation — an outrageous and inaccurate one — that my article contains factually false claims.

Greenwald wrote that he was particularly disturbed that The Intercept referred to the Hunter Biden hard drive as Russian disinformation, without evidence.

Below is Greenwald’s censored article in its entirety, which he posted on his blog.

THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER’S EMAILS

By Glenn Greenwald

Oct. 29, 2020

Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family’s pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories.

One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions — the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election — journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.

After the Post’s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father.

Individuals included in some of the email chains have confirmed the contents’ authenticity. One of Hunter’s former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist that Hunter along with Joe Biden’s brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of the published email chains, appeared to confirm the authenticity as well, though he refused to answer follow-up questions about it.

Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that “text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”

But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated — so the conclusion that one had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing.

Beyond that, the Journal’s columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of documents and “found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post,” including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar conclusion: while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, “records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy,” and “make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his ‘family’s brand’ as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture.”

These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, “that the countries that Hunter Biden, James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe Biden had previously been involved as vice president.” Strassel noted that “a May 2017 ‘expectations’ document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for ‘the big guy’—who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden.” And the independent journalist Matt Taibbi published an article on Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden’s attempt to replace a Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma.

All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son’s business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation’s most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them.

The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution) to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims.

Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked a highly unusual censorship campaign by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its “fact-check,” one that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for Twitter’s handling of the censorship and reversed the policy that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation’s fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as the election approaches, for almost two weeks.

After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs have donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation’s media outlets and former CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin responsibility for the story.

Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept, quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security state claiming that the documents have the “classic trademarks” of a “Russian disinformation” plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times reported that “no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation” and the paper said even the FBI has “acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.”

The Washington Post on Sunday published an op-ed — by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories — that contained this extraordinary proclamation: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”

Even the letter from the former intelligence officials cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was all part of some “Russian disinformation” scheme explicitly admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” though many media outlets omitted that crucial acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot:

Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he’s doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation,” said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden emails at Thursday night’s debate. Biden’s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: “if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation.”

The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman had her name trend all morning along with the derogatory nickname “MAGA Haberman.” CBS News’ Bo Erickson was widely attacked even by his some in the media simply for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer, accusing Erickson of spreading a “smear.”

That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in an anazing statement representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified NPR’s refusal to cover the story on the ground that “we do not want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers’ and listeners’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

To justify her own show’s failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl resorted to an entirely different justification. “It can’t be verified,” the CBS reporter claimed when confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program’s failure to cover the Hunter Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the laptop, Stahl simply repeated the same phrase: “it can’t be verified.”

After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel mocked the story as too complex and obscure for anyone to follow — a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the network’s media reporter Brian Stelter noted with pride, the story has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times noted on Friday: “most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed Hunter Biden emails…. CNN’s mentions of “Hunter” peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC’s at 24 seconds one day last week.”

On Sunday, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC’s Elizabeth Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: “We’re not going to do your work for you.” Watch how the U.S.’s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic front-runner:

These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi wrote on Sunday about this tawdry press spectacle: ” The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies.”

All of those excuses and pretexts — emanating largely from a national media that is all but explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win — served for the first week or more after the Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it.

The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and, when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the absolute right to know, including:

  • whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific ones);
  • whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store;
  • whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did so;
  • whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and,
  • how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement — Yuriy Lutsenko, someone who had no experience in law; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself had a history of corruption allegations — was acceptable if Biden’s goal really was to fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal affairs for some other objective.

Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept’s questions, they have not done so. A statement they released to other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden “has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business overseas.” To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that anyone discussing this story is “amplifying Russian disinformation,” neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents — which they and the press continue to label “Russian disinformation” — are forgeries or whether they are authentic.

The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal scrutiny:

First, the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified — the excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others — is blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014 and the Intercept’s Brazil Archive over the last year showing corruption by high-level Bolsonaro officials), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden’s emails has been verified in ways quite similar to those.

With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected.

This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process.

The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake.

Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant? Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event in the reporting’s authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not kill the credibility of the reporting.

The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material’s authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large archives.

Second, the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published emails and texts were “Russian disinformation” was, from the start, obviously baseless and reckless. No evidence — literally none — has been presented to suggest involvement by any Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible — when one does not know for certain what the provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out — but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was “Russian disinformation” was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA officials.

Worse is the “disinformation” part of the media’s equation. How can these materials constitute “disinformation” if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions about “Russian disinformation” is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were “disinformation,” became their placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these documents.

Third, the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden’s aggressive efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing $1 billion in aid.

But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son’s highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was?

The standard answer to the question about Biden’s motive — offered both by Biden and his media defenders — is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S. and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently vigilant in fighting corruption.

“Biden’s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine’s Western benefactors wanted to see as,” wrote the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a “fact-check.” Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. “The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine’s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky,” Kessler claims.

But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies.

Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption vigilance were really Biden’s goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable? Lutsenko, after all, had “no legal background as general prosecutor,” was principally known only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to “resign as interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and disorderly,” and “was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his defenders said the sentence was politically motivated.”

Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that’s exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden’s motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it.

As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied — that firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations against Burisma — the evidence does not justify that assertion.

It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden’s motive in demanding Shokhin’s termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that “no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general’s dismissal,” this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and Burisma:

[Biden’s] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament.

Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.

The Times added: “Mr. Shokhin’s office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma’s billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma.” By contrast, they said, Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, “initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office.”

So whether or not it was Biden’s intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding Shokhin’s firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced Lutesenko “cleared [Burisma’s founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office.”

The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed:

For all the negative press about Shokhin, there’s no doubt that there were multiple active cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like “dormant.” Here’s how Ken Vogel at the New York Times put it in May of 2019:

“When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources.”

Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during that time.

“There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14,” says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General’s Office, when asked how many Burisma cases there were.

“There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so I don’t know the exact amount.” But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin.

The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another “13 or 14” cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky.

Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi concludes, “one can’t say there’s no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky’s assets] that got him fired.”

And, Taibbi notes, “the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement — Yuri Lutsenko — who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular.” In sum: “it’s unquestionable that the cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin’s successor, chosen in consultation with Joe Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of $50,000 per month.”

The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden’s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son’s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried — regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump family has.

But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President’s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi’s headline put it: “With the Hunter Biden Exposé, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.”

The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years — cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated.

It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their eagerness to help Biden win.

But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign, news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked, and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly reported on their contents.

Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic — large-city, college-educated professionals — has vanishingly little Trump support. A New York Times survey of campaign data from Monday tells just a part of this story of cultural insularity and homogeniety:

Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in the last two months….It is not just that much of Mr. Biden’s strongest support comes overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does…. [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486 million to only $167 million — accounting for almost his entire financial edge….One Upper West Side ZIP code — 10024 — accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York City in total delivered $85.6 million for him — more than he raised in every state other than California….

The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was actually ahead by $53.4 million.

Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post’s Executive Editor Marty Baron, for instance, issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt.

That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump’s tax returns and — despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? — the Times reported on its contents.

When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source’s motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow compellingly explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions — (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? — but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them:

The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.

A media outlet that renounces its core function — pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people — is one that deserves to lose the public’s faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.

As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: “The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear.” Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: “The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it’s true.”

~ End of Greenwald article ~

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Vimeo goes to the dark side: Censors video on Black Lives Matter’s connection with Chinese Communist Party

Several years ago, when YouTube began censoring videos for political reasons, especially videos on the Sandy Hook false flag, some of us sought refuge at Vimeo, a NYC-headquartered video hosting, sharing, and services platform with more than 200 million members across more than 150 countries. Unlike YouTube, Vimeo operates on an ad-free basis, deriving its revenue from  subscriptions by video content producers, and other services.

Since 2017, Vimeo’s CEO is Anjali Sud, 37, who was born in Flint, Michigan, of Indian immigrants.

But video producers can no longer go to Vimeo as a refuge from political censorship. Vimeo has gone to the dark side, joining YouTube, Facebook, Google, and Twitter in restricting or censoring content dispproved by the Left.

Fred Lucas reports for The Daily Signal, Oct. 29, 2020, that Vimeo has removed a video critical of apparent connections between the Chinese Communist Party and a founder of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization. 

New Zealand investigative journalist and author Trevor Loudon told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that he had posted on Vimeo for only “a few hours” and had about 1,600 viewers before Vimeo took it down: “It really touched a nerve for Vimeo to take it down after just a few hours.”

The 6-minute video, produced by Choose Freedom, a conservative group with which Loudon is associated, highlights various connections among activists. One group is Asians for Black Lives, founded by members of the Chinese Progressive Association of San Francisco, a pro-China group with ties to the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party. The video also underlines connections between the San Francisco-based Chinese Progressive Association and Black Futures Lab, a group started by Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza.

Kevin Roose

The Daily Signal first reported on the connection between China and the Black Futures Lab in an analysis by Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former editorial writer and reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

Gonzalez’s reporting was immediately criticized by left-leaning media outlets, including New York Times reporter Kevin Roose.

Vimeo sent Loudon this message:

Your video ‘BLM and Communist China’ has been removed for violating our guidelines. Reason: You cannot upload videos that depict or encourage self-harm, falsely claim that mass tragedies are hoaxes, or perpetuate false or misleading claims about vaccine safety.

Loudon said he didn’t see how the video fits into any of the categories: “They said it violated their community standards,” Loudon said. “I think it upset the [Chinese] Communist Party, or the local communists, or both.”

Here’s the video, which is also posted on Rumble and The Daily Signal.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

The High-Tech Conspirators Caption Contest

This caption contest is now closed.

—————————————–

This is the 233rd world-famous FOTM Caption Contest!

Here’s the pic:

About the pic, see “Google and Apple conspire in secret pact to control the Internet“.

You know the drill:

  • Enter the contest by submitting your caption as a comment on this thread (scroll down until you see the “LEAVE A REPLY” box).
  • FOTM writers will vote for the winner.
  • Any captions proffered by FOTM writers, no matter how brilliant (ha ha), will not be considered. :(

This contest will be closed in two weeks, at the end of Tuesday, November 10, 2020.

To get the contest going, here’s my caption:

Pichai to Cook: “And if anyone accuses Google and Apple of conspiring to control the Internet, we’ll sic our media lapdogs on them with the label tinfoil hat-wearing ‘conspiracy theorists’.”

For the winner of our last Caption Contest, go here.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0