I can't reply directly to macspoofing above, so to explain it clearly: the story wasn't Biden's son enriching himself with his name -- that story has been covered by every news organization for over a year, and didn't need a new article on the eve of the election. The new story specifically relates to Joe Biden being a part of it, and enriching himself, and that's the part that no news organization has been able to verify.
>and didn't need a new article on the eve of the election.
What the heck does that mean??!??! What do you mean it "didn't need a new article on the even of the election". WHY NOT?! Because you're voting for Biden?
And by the way, Biden has denied all wrongdoing by Hunter. It is certainly relevant when you have concrete proof that his denial was wrong.
For the same reason that the NY Times suddenly publishing a front-page article on the 26 women who have accused Trump of rape [1] the week before the election would be a blatant partisan hack move.
It's well-trodden ground, it's been covered (some might say not enough, but regardless), there's no significant new news, and it would be a blatant attempt to influence the election.
In this case, the Times has written numerous stories on Hunter's use of his name to try and make money. That story isn't new. The new part of the story is the insinuation that he did this with Joe Biden's permission, and that Joe himself may have been making money. That part hasn't been verified by anyone.
>For the same reason that the NY Times suddenly publishing a front-page article on the 26 women who have accused Trump of rape [1] the week before the election would be a blatant partisan hack move.
What are you talking about??! That story was reported EVERYWHERE. If it was 'old news' why was it reported EVERYWHERE?
The fact that it didn't change the election outcome (which is what you're really complaining about) is not the same thing.
>the Times has written numerous stories on Hunter's use of his name to try and make money. That story isn't new.
Hold on a second here. There is plenty 'new' here:
- Joe Biden STILL denies any wrongdoing by himself or Hunter Biden. As it pertains to Hunter Biden's conduct, we now have direct evidence that's false. You don't think that's a story?
- How about the fact that we have direct evidence of Joe Biden being introduced (and taking photos with) with corrupt business partners of Hunter Biden?
- How about the fact that the emails show Hunter Biden trying to induce VP Biden to take actions that benefit Burisma and Chinese business deals?
- How about the fact that Hunter Biden's former business partner, Tony Bubolinski, has gone on record that Joe was planned to be involved in at least the Chinese business deal (and even if that turns out to not have happened, it isn't the salient point - his son is attempting to influence policy through his father)?
- How about the fact that Hunter Biden is being investigated by the FBI for money laundering?
- How about the fact that many outlets, including the Biden campaign and anonymous CIA officials make claims that this is Russian disinformation, when we have clear evidence it is not?
- How about the fact that a journalist that broke the Snowden story, says there is something worth reporting here but was told he couldn't by his editors and lays out his case quite cogently[1]. Greenwald is not the only one. Taibbi also noted the hypocrisy and the unprecedent nature of how this news is bing squelched. [2]
It is such a clear self-serving double-standard you're setting. You don't think it's a story, therefore it isn't a story. Meanwhile every two-bit conspiracy theory against Trump is given front-page treatment.
The irony of it all is that even if all the allegations are true, it isn't enough to sink Joe Biden. This low-level of corruption is par for course for political actors. The real story really is the abrogation of journalistic standards by mainstream news, the ad hoc censorship by social media, and the defense of these actions by Joe Biden supporters, present company included. We literally had the account of a major US newspaper banned for putting out a TRUE story, and journalists vilified or muzzled for waiting to report on it.... but it's all OK if it means Joe Biden is elected ..?
>That part hasn't been verified by anyone.
You're setting up a strawman, that the only way this story is relevant is if there is direct evidence that Joe Biden has been making money from Hunter Biden's adventures. There is certainly implications of that but that's not the most salient part of this story.
Besides if only news organizations were able to do things like ... you know .. VERIFY reports? You know, maybe by ASKING questions of the candidate?
And of course Greenwald puts your ridiculous and hypocritical standard to rest with this quote:
"First, the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified ... 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."
