For my last post on election concerns, Was-The-Election-Rigged, I focused much on the 2016 election, following revelations from federal prosecutor John Durham regarding that election. Now I shift focus to the 2020 election dispute, one which was rife with claims of tampered voting machines, secret suitcases counted in the middle of the night, and all sorts of other election day shenanigans. Those claims are hotly disputed and such cloak and dagger stuff can be difficult to establish and prove, but what is not difficult to prove is what happened right out in the open, and there is so much undisputable evidence right in front of us.
In mid-October 2020, just a few weeks prior to the presidential election, the New York Post broke a story with information garnered from an abandoned Hunter Biden laptop. President Biden’s son’s laptop was left at a repair shop in April 2019 and neither Hunter Biden nor his associates returned for it. Per their policy, the shop took possession of what was now considered an abandoned laptop. After the store owner discovered the shocking contents on the laptop, he notified the FBI and later Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who shared the information with the New York Post.
The New York Post article was, of course, disseminated on social media and not surprisingly garnered much interest. But then, Twitter removed the article altogether. In other words, one of the most influential social media distributors extant, censored this article at a time when it was pivotal to the election. This was a potential scandal regarding a presidential candidate and many voters were excluded from this information until after the election. Is that not shocking in itself? The whole laptop incident was downplayed by our one-channel media watchdogs. After all, it is not as if they had something credible like a dossier concerning prostitutes peeing on a bed in Moscow.
The desired result was achieved (Biden’s election), so it is now safe to admit the laptop’s legitimacy as was done this week by the New York Times, the liberal outlet in NYC.
The original Post article was not censored by all social media, but in an election that was one of the closest in history (decided by a aggregate of 40,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin), slight changes made a difference. Plus, it the was the first of its kind attack, so the waters were tested by Twitter. The water is warm, so everyone can get in now.
What might have happened if the information had not been suppressed? In addition, what is the justification for suppressing a legitimate news story from a legitimate source? Was the story total garbage (as Biden suggested)? Possibly, but who makes that call: Twitter or the American public? And if it were garbage, don’t we usually hear both sides of the story and let people decide who is telling the truth? That’s the way that debates occurred before 2020. Besides, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, et. al. invent stories all the time. Just look at their nonsense claims of Ivermectin as strictly “horse medicine” Quick Hits: Vaccine Safety/Who Killed Ivermectin? – Seek the Truth (seek-the-truth.com). They aren’t censored for all the questionable and patently silly stories they tell, so why start with Hunter Biden’s laptop?
The First Amendment which has been a hallmark of American liberty the last few centuries says the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While Twitter is not a Congressional entity, they are, in this instance, acting in the best interests of one political party and to the detriment of another. In other words, while Congress is expressly prohibited from making laws to abridge free speech, they can skirt this law using social media outlets as proxies. Yes, you might ask, but have they actually meddled in this way or just longed wistfully for it? In fact, they have been quite public about their interest in directing social media. Facebook was literally blamed for losing the 2016 election (one of Hillary Clinton’s myriad of reasons she lost in 2016 despite being an awful candidate; democrats-blame-facebook-for-2016-loss). Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg has responded more favorably after being chastened (more on his undue influence in 2020 in a future post). In addition, here a small sample of political leaders who want social media to do what they cannot legally do themselves:
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Zuckerberg during her questioning what Facebook had done to quell “the spread of misinformation” by Trump with regard to his posts about winning the 2020 presidential election.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) urged Dorsey to go further in his platform’s efforts to fight “misinformation,” urging the CEO to clamp down on communication linked to “climate denialism.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) pressed Zuckerberg on his unwillingness to ban former White House adviser Steve Bannon from his platform for saying, in a posted clip from his podcast, that the heads of infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray should be put “on pikes.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) blasted Zuckerberg for allowing conservative news outlets such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller to take part in its group of “third-party fact-checkers,” an outside panel of reporters it allows to assess content for veracity. She went on to accuse him of pandering to conservatives, insisting he shut them out in order to “stop driving division.”
Maybe you think censorship is a good thing when it supports your causes or targets your opponents. I would ask you then: should we also censor everyone who claimed Trump was a tool of Vladimir Putin? Is that claim any worse than what Steve Bannon said about Dr. Fauci? I suppose your opinion depends on your perspective, but try to see both sides. Banning anything questionable until facts are established (and approved by your hand-picked “fact checkers”) would certainly be an effective way to win an argument. It is much easier to win when you pay the referee under the table.
If I question climate change policy, even in some minor detail, I suppose I should be labeled a “climate denialist” and, according to Senator Coons, censored as well. But should we really believe Senator Coons’s claim that his side has all the answers to the climate? He is that smart? Science has never changed once it establishes a position on climate (or anything else)? That’s not the way it worked when I was in school. Why do we allow these politicians to get away with such open attacks on long established American freedoms? Are the bad guys in the world that much different today that we need such extraordinary measures to protect us from such sophisticated lies? They want us to believe that we need to limit freedom for some to save freedom for all.
I believe the Democrat Party and their liberal media cohorts simply were not going to allow social media off the hook for the crime of 2016. They vowed 2020 would be different.
To put this in context, consider allowing Ma Bell to decide which phone calls are allowed and which are not. Clearly, much illicit activity is conducted over the phone and that could be curtailed greatly by such monitoring, but at what cost? We have never considered that the phone company might independently censor illegitimate activity; it would put a chill in our confidence in using this form of communication. Isn’t that the job of the police, not the phone company? So, whether you agree with the New York Post article’s conclusions or not, how can you countenance Twitter’s censorship of it and its potential impact on votes? Perhaps this activity should be considered voter suppression? Certainly, it is more harmful than voter ID laws, laws created to prevent illegal voting, not to manipulate legitimate voters.
Twitter’s, Biden’s and Others Response
Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, was questioned about this incident by Congress. The following interaction between Mr. Dorsey and Senator Ted Cruz clearly highlights the two sides of the issue.
Senator Cruz points out that Donald Trump’s tax return information, information that is protected by law for every taxpayer, was distributed on Twitter just prior to the Hunter Biden story. That illegal activity was tolerated, yet, the explosive, but not yet triple-fact-checked-by-our-favorite-censors claim from the New York Post, is too dangerous for public consumption? Jack Dorsey told Senator Cruz the Twitter policy was, in fact, a mistake and was changed within 24 hours, but the fact remains that the story was frozen almost two weeks, two weeks during which millions of folks voted early. All the while, Mr. Dorsey proclaims he is a white knight championing “transparency” on his platform. If Mr. Dorsey’s platform refuses to censor the Iranian religious leaders who vow the destruction of Israel, how can he credibly censor anyone?
Not only was the New York Post article censored by Twitter but the New York Post’s account itself was blocked for almost two weeks. They could distribute nothing at all. Why would this be? Mr. Dorsey repeatedly said the New York Post could have access restored but was required to remove the old, wrongly censored, tweet first. He went to add they could re-send the exact same one once restored. Why was that Dorsey’s demand? Why couldn’t his company just unlock the original tweet and the paper’s account? I have to believe this was just another way to limit the distribution of the story while pretending to be honest, open, and transparent.
But Twitter wasn’t the only in the game. We have the Directors of National Intelligence (James Clapper) and CIA (John Brennan), former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, along with 48 other high ranking intelligence officials who signed a letter claiming the laptop story was false. The letter included the phrase: “has the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation”.
This was the talking point immediately seized by the one-channel media throughout Fall 2020: the Russians were behind this story, just as they had been on the side of Donald Trump in the 2016 election. They duped Giuliani who was apparently too dumb to see through this simple Russian ploy (which the media saw through themselves). Giuliani was Putin’s stooge just like his boss had been in 2016.
In a presidential debate Joe Biden echoed this talking point: “There are fifty former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant,” and added: “five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage.”
But the fact remains Hunter Biden was already under investigation by the federal government since 2018, as was revealed after the election.
Just the News explained, “The New York Times reported Wednesday the federal investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings began in 2018 and is focused on issues like whether he legally was obligated to register under FARA, whether he violated tax laws or laundered any money.”
Again, why was this information, that it really was Hunter Biden’s laptop and was not Russian disinformation, withheld from the public? Were it one of Trump’s children, I doubt it would have been called disinformation (in fact, Trump’s son Donald Jr. was subjected to hours of Congressional inquiry; no charges or claims of impropriety resulted).
Square the fact that Hunter Biden had been under federal investigation for two years with President Biden’s claim during the 2020 debates that all the stories about his son were “Russian disinformation”. Are we to believe a well connected person like him didn’t know that his son had been under federal investigation since 2018? He, his wife, his lawyers, his personal staff, and who knows who else certainly knew. President Biden also said at one point his son Hunter was one of the smartest people he knew. Wow, what support for a guy that’s lived the life of a degenerate well into his adulthood.
The revelations from Hunter Biden’s laptop could have been explored more fully in the presidential debates, but one debate was canceled for suspect reasons (to limit Biden’s public exposure, I would surmise), and the format didn’t allow for much back-and-forth like the one exchange below.
JOE BIDEN: Speaking of my son, the way you talk about the military, the way you talk about them being losers and being– and– and– and– and– and just being suckers. My son was in Iraq. He spent a year there. He got the– he got the Bronze Star. He got the Conspicuous Service Medal. He was not a loser. He was a patriot. And the people left behind there–
DONALD TRUMP: Oh, really?
JOE BIDEN: –were heroes.
DONALD TRUMP: Really?
JOE BIDEN: And I resent–
DONALD TRUMP: Are you talking about Hunter? Are you talking about Hunter?
JOE BIDEN: I’m talking of my son Beau Biden. You’re talking about–
DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know– I don’t know Beau. I know Hunter.
JOE BIDEN: Yeah, you know Beau–
DONALD TRUMP: Hunter got thrown– Hunter got thrown out of the military. He was thrown out, dishonorably discharged–
JOE BIDEN: That’s not true–
DONALD TRUMP: –for cocaine use. And he didn’t have a job until you became vice president. And once you became vice president–
JOE BIDEN: None of that is true.
DONALD TRUMP: –he made a fortune in Ukraine, in China, in Moscow, and various other places.
JOE BIDEN: That is simply not true.
DONALD TRUMP: He made a fortune–
JOE BIDEN: My son– my son–
CHRIS WALLACE: Gentlemen–
DONALD TRUMP: –and he didn’t have a job.
JOE BIDEN: My son, like a lot of people, like a lot of people you know at home, had a drug problem. He’s overtaken it. He’s– he’s– he’s fixed it. He’s worked on it. And I’m proud of him. I’m proud of my son.
By the way, the charge was not fabricated by Donald Trump. Hunter Biden almost immediately tested positive for cocaine while in the military and was promptly discharged. All this, after obtaining an exception to enter at the age of 42 (the military does not generally allow new entries of people in their 30’s or 40’s). Trump was incorrect about the type of discharge, but the basic claim is true. During the debate, Joe Biden left the impression his son has not been discharged from the military, and refused to acknowledge any of the credible charges against him. As a military veteran, I can tell you anything but a honorable discharge is shameful.
Since he was discharged from the military, there have been many more questions about the money Hunter Biden was paid by government and private entities in Ukraine, China, and Russia and more questions about who else benefited from those paydays. Hunter Biden has been in the news for years, but the real problem is that his story has not been well covered by certain media outlets. After all, the recent New York Times article on Hunter Biden is entitled: “Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues”. How about this instead: “Hunter Biden’s Abandoned Laptop is Real and is Not Russian Disinformation”? They do admit the laptop is real, but bury the information in the story and the title makes it seem as if the Feds are unnecessarily subjecting Hunter Biden to more scrutiny.
If our media refuses to hold a portion of our politicians accountable, we will have corrupt politicians by default. They will be no better than Vladimir Putin who is propped up by propagandist state media. The Democrat party is not well served (nor the American people) by this cozy media relationship.
The cabal that was cobbled together for Joe Biden’s protection worries me. If fifty high ranking intelligence officials, people who currently are or once were in authority and should guard their credibility carefully, can be so wrong about such a claim (which I suspect most of them knew to be false, in any case), how can we trust these same people to manage critical national security interests, like managing our response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? I want to trust them in such important national security matters, but when they are openly partisan in this way and so willing destroy their own credibility (at least to my view of things), how can we feel secure as a nation?
Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed much of his drug excesses and sexual exposes along with his suspect financial dealings and the implication of his father in this sordid mess. This story was further bolstered by the evidence provided by Tony Bobilinksi, an erstwhile business partner of Hunter Biden’s. Mr. Bobulinski is also a veteran, but his service was a bit more distinguished than Hunter Biden’s.
Do you know who Tony Bobulinski is and what he had to say about Hunter Biden? If not, it may because he was censored as well. This bombshell news conference which implicates both Hunter and his dad were also news stories just prior to the 2020 election. They should have made a difference and been discussed more.
During this seven-minute video, Mr. Bobulinski shares the following:
- He was approached by Hunter Biden to be a CEO for a deal the Bidens were striking with the Chinese business, CFC, China Energy (remember the Chinese communist government has their hands in all businesses in China).
- Joe Biden has been involved with Hunter’s business despite the President’s repeated denials.
- He mentions a text message which stated; “10% is being held by H for the ‘Big Guy'”. He indicates “H” is Hunter and that Hunter often referred to his father as the “Big Guy”.
- Hunter Biden told him that CFC was investing in “The Biden family”.
- He indicated he was speaking with Congress the next day and that he was providing evidence, including three cell phones to the FBI.
I am only scratching the surface on this topic. Peter Schweitzer wrote an entire book on the corruption of the Biden family: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Empires-American-Political-Corruption/dp/0062569368?msclkid=9b1908d0a7e111ec9a81878fd23ef55d
I am afraid few people really know the Biden family story. It is not all that complex, but it is very sordid and highly censored. Here are a few more stories regard Hunter Biden and cover-ups for your edification:
Did you know Hunter Biden’s former business associate, Devon Archer, was recently jailed?
Did you also know that while out of office, President Biden spoke in an interview of his dealings with Ukraine on behalf of the Obama Administration:
He openly admits to forcing Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor, but he doesn’t say why he needed to be fired. It just happens this prosecutor is the same one that was investigating the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, where his son Hunter (who has no experience in the energy business) served on the board of directors and was being paid apparently for little more than carrying the last name of Biden. The impeachment of Donald Trump, you might remember centered around a conversation Trump had with his Ukrainian counterpart; in part, they spoke of the Biden’ s shady dealings in Ukraine.
Twitter was the bad guy in this Hunter laptop fiasco, but other social media have engaged in similar tactics in other instances since now that the trail has been blazed:
Senator Josh Hawley as well gives Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg his come-uppance in this clip:
Sometimes liberal commentator Bill Maher has moments of clarity. I would unite with Democrats if they were as honest Maher and The Atlantic reporter are in this video.
These two are saying the obvious: we all need work from the same set of facts. So many discussions break down because we cannot agree on facts. Of course, when you have been lied to so often, it becomes rather difficult to establish those facts, and that is the dilemma we find ourselves in today.
The Story Doesn’t Change:
Last week, White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki was asked about the new revelations, mainly that all media now acknowledges the Hunter Biden laptop and has moved on from the Russian disinformation nonsense.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday declined to comment on a new report from the New York Times confirming the authenticity of emails and a laptop attributed to Hunter Biden in a censored New York Post story prior to the 2020 presidential election.
She commented on it when it was still Russian disinformation, but there is not much to say about it now.
Many people never heard the Hunter Biden story until after the election. The sinister goal was not to keep it out of media altogether; the goal was to limit the audience. Several recent polls asked how votes might have changed if they had known more before the election. Some of those reveal that the percentage of those who would have changed votes away from Biden is in double digits.
The impact that Twitter, government officials, and others in the media had in just this one instance was significant. This story alone should have sunk the Democrats in 2020 and brought Trump to a second term, even given all the other attempts at voter manipulation (to be covered in later posts). Our media is facilitating these lies and in turn the quality of politicians we have are diminished because they know they know they can lie with relative impunity. This must stop. They need to be held accountable. Let’s pray that justice will prevail for the good of our country.
Another surprising revelation this week was the following story: