Liberal Media ignores Biden Scandal

[Luvnit2]

For my liberal friends since the left media refuses to report on the Biden scandal.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/leftist-media-desperately-bury-biden-scandals-think-they-away

Just as they were wrong about Trump Russian Collusion (hoax), they again will be proven to be poor journalists on the biggest scandal ever in US politics.

Leftist media desperately bury Biden scandals and think they can get away with it
Journalists' primary mission isn't to inform, it's to get Biden reelected

It's sad when the only way Democrats can get info is from a message board forum or Fox News.

[Arturo Bandini]

Bring proof other than hearsay and maybe and they will.

[hollodero]

(09-01-2023, 09:15 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: For my liberal friends since the left media refuses to report on the Biden scandal.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/leftist-media-desperately-bury-biden-scandals-think-they-away

Just as they were wrong about Trump Russian Collusion (hoax), they again will be proven to be poor journalists on the biggest scandal ever in US politics.

That just gets difficult to handle really. You want liberals to look beyond their bubble, which I often think is fair enough, yet you yourself refuse to do so in any way and treat FOX as the bible that reports nothing but the fairest truth. That is an absurd stance to take. You literally demand other people to do something you are completely unwilling to do yourself. To look beyond the plate of your spectrum.

If you did so, you would realize that many issues are within a gray area. Like Russia. It is not a "hoax" when a campaign manager is found to be in cohouts (and deeply endebted) with Russian oligarchs, does crimes and gets sentenced to multiple years in prison. If that had happened with Hillary, you'd call it the biggest political scandal ever, as FOX would - even more so if president Hillary then pardoned that guy. There are dozens of additional issues that are not nothings or hoaxes, like the demonstrable election meddling, or Helsinki and then some. You might still see the coverage of Russia connections as overboarding and rightfully accuse the media of exaggerating certain aspects. But saying "hoax", that just makes you an narrow-minded person.

[*pally*]

(09-01-2023, 09:15 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: For my liberal friends since the left media refuses to report on the Biden scandal.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/leftist-media-desperately-bury-biden-scandals-think-they-away

Just as they were wrong about Trump Russian Collusion (hoax), they again will be proven to be poor journalists on the biggest scandal ever in US politics.

Leftist media desperately bury Biden scandals and think they can get away with it
Journalists' primary mission isn't to inform, it's to get Biden reelected

It's sad when the only way Democrats can get info is from a message board forum or Fox News.

an opinion piece isn't proof of anything  

We can also point out that right-wing media's mission isn't to inform it is to get Trump back in the or push revenge and get Biden impeached regardless of any actual proof of crimes

You get 18 million hits on a simple search of CNN Biden crime almost 30 million replacing CNN with Washington Post.  That is not ignoring a story,  You only get 5 million hits on a search of Fox Trump indicted...which story is getting ignored on which network,  Newsmax has only 144,000 hits on that search.  

The difference is the story outside of right-wing media lacks the hysteria and exaggeration you hear on Fox,  Newsmax, OANN, et al

[GMDino]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">HANNITY: You have evidence that Joe Biden benefitted financially himself, correct?<br><br>COMER: I think so, yes.<br><br>(sounds legit!) <a href="https://t.co/k8fpOKQ6MO">pic.twitter.com/k8fpOKQ6MO</a></p>&mdash; Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) <a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1697246565919019431?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 31, 2023</a></blockquote> 

Video (since nothing will embed): https://streamable.com/ug2kt9


Got Biden dead to rights!

[Luvnit2]

(09-01-2023, 10:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: That just gets difficult to handle really. You want liberals to look beyond their bubble, which I often think is fair enough, yet you yourself refuse to do so in any way and treat FOX as the bible that reports nothing but the fairest truth. That is an absurd stance to take. You literally demand other people to do something you are completely unwilling to do yourself. To look beyond the plate of your spectrum.

If you did so, you would realize that many issues are within a gray area. Like Russia. It is not a "hoax" when a campaign manager is found to be in cohouts (and deeply endebted) with Russian oligarchs, does crimes and gets sentenced to multiple years in prison. If that had happened with Hillary, you'd call it the biggest political scandal ever, as FOX would - even more so if president Hillary then pardoned that guy. There are dozens of additional issues that are not nothings or hoaxes, like the demonstrable election meddling, or Helsinki and then some. You might still see the coverage of Russia connections as overboarding and rightfully accuse the media of exaggerating certain aspects. But saying "hoax", that just makes you an narrow-minded person.

Our government spent over 50 million on the Mueller Russian Collusion accusations. We fine out what Fox reported in 2016, the dossier was a political opponent hit piece paid for by HRC (big whoop her campaign was fined for it. Sadly, Brennan briefed Obama, Biden, Comey, the F.B.I agent assigned to investigate the dossier in October of 2016.

The POTUS and his administration knew it was HRC bought and paid for propaganda to hurt Trump in. the 2016 election. Fast forward and we find out the F.B.I. and D.O.J. could not verify anything in the dossier used to start a 50 million Plus investigation, they already knew the outcome.

I love the way you brag about they found Manafort broke rules when dealing with foreign countries is what you hang your hat o to justify spending 50 million dollars. We have the same F.B.I. and D.O.J. spending 5+ years investigating Hunter Biden, find major tax violations and major gun violation, and the biggest of all Hunter Biden was not registered as a foreign agent, just like Manafort.

The HB investigation has been a joke. As far as Fox, they have covered Trump indictments from his plane flying into the various airport to his appearances in court. Don't be confused just because the cover the story from a different angle, they are not covering it. The liberal fake news has yet to cover Joe Biden is accused by a reliable F.B.I. informant of taking a bribe from Burisma. Why?  Would  they refuse to cover the same story if it was Trump and one of his family members?

[hollodero]

(09-01-2023, 11:57 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Our government spent over 50 million on the Mueller Russian Collusion accusations. We fine out what Fox reported in 2016, the dossier was a political opponent hit piece paid for by HRC (big whoop her campaign was fined for it. Sadly, Brennan briefed Obama, Biden, Comey, the F.B.I agent assigned to investigate the dossier in October of 2016.

The POTUS and his administration knew it was HRC bought and paid for propaganda to hurt Trump in. the 2016 election. Fast forward and we find out the F.B.I. and D.O.J. could not verify anything in the dossier used to start a 50 million Plus investigation, they already knew the outcome.

I love the way you brag about they found Manafort broke rules when dealing with foreign countries is what you hang your hat o to justify spending 50 million dollars. We have the same F.B.I. and D.O.J. spending 5+ years investigating Hunter Biden, find major tax violations and major gun violation, and the biggest of all Hunter Biden was not registered as a foreign agent, just like Manafort.

The HB investigation has been a joke. As far as Fox, they have covered Trump indictments from his plane flying into the various airport to his appearances in court. Don't be confused just because the cover the story from a different angle, they are not covering it. The liberal fake news has yet to cover Joe Biden is accused by a reliable F.B.I. informant of taking a bribe from Burisma. Why?  Would  they refuse to cover the same story if it was Trump and one of his family members?

*Sigh*

You get no argument from me on many media outlets having leanings and not being unbiased. None at all. But that does not prove or disprove anything either.

Your whole angle on the Russia investigation is just as incredibly one-sided and partisan as you accuse the left leaning media to be when covering the Biden issues. You just pick an overly narrow, false narrative and leave out anything that does not fit your world view. Many things and issues that many people tried to tell you, especially with the Mueller investigation, but you do not care. You are pro-Trump, pro-conservatives, pro-GOP and all information and narratives you pick are shaped by that. Just what you critisize the left for. The tired cliché is true with you, you are projecting. You accuse others of behaviour you yourself deploy at all times.

And on top of that, you're often pretty abrasive towards anyone that is not just as biased and partisan as you are. Eg. I do not "brag" and I dislike this kind of accusation.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-01-2023, 10:27 AM)pally Wrote: an opinion piece isn't proof of anything  

Clarence Thomas says.. Aye

[Dill]

(09-01-2023, 11:57 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Our government spent over 50 million on the Mueller Russian Collusion accusations. We fine out what Fox reported in 2016, the dossier was a political opponent hit piece paid for by HRC (big whoop her campaign was fined for it. Sadly, Brennan briefed Obama, Biden, Comey, the F.B.I agent assigned to investigate the dossier in October of 2016.

The POTUS and his administration knew it was HRC bought and paid for propaganda to hurt Trump in. the 2016 election. Fast forward and we find out the F.B.I. and D.O.J. could not verify anything in the dossier used to start a 50 million Plus investigation, they already knew the outcome.

I love the way you brag about they found Manafort broke rules when dealing with foreign countries is what you hang your hat o to justify spending 50 million dollars. We have the same F.B.I. and D.O.J. spending 5+ years investigating Hunter Biden, find major tax violations and major gun violation, and the biggest of all Hunter Biden was not registered as a foreign agent, just like Manafort.

The HB investigation has been a joke. As far as Fox, they have covered Trump indictments from his plane flying into the various airport to his appearances in court. Don't be confused just because the cover the story from a different angle, they are not covering it. The liberal fake news has yet to cover Joe Biden is accused by a reliable F.B.I. informant of taking a bribe from Burisma. Why?  Would  they refuse to cover the same story if it was Trump and one of his family members?

Only one way to stop Hollo from "bragging" about Manafort. You must show him a link establishing that Hunter Biden passed campaign data to Russian agents, like Manafort did. That will shut him up for sure.

Regarding that 2016 Fox report about the dossier as "political hit piece"--when, exactly, did the document become public?

Why is it "sad" if a CIA officer briefs the president on a dossier of raw intel about presidential campaign sprouting new Russia connections every week?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-02-2023, 04:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Only one way to stop Hollo from "bragging" about Manafort. You must show him a link establishing that Hunter Biden passed campaign data to Russian agents, like Manafort did. That will shut him up for sure.

Regarding that 2016 Fox report about the dossier as "political hit piece"--when, exactly, did the document become public?

Why is it "sad" if a CIA officer briefs the president on a dossier of raw intel about presidential campaign sprouting new Russia connections every week?

Didn't both Hillary and the DNC pay a settlement on it?

[Dill]

(09-02-2023, 10:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Didn't both Hillary and the DNC pay a settlement on it?

On what? The Dossier? It started as Republican "oppositional research,"
Then Hilary's campaign took it over and paid for the rest.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-03-2023, 01:15 PM)Dill Wrote: On what? The Dossier? It started as Republican "oppositional research,"
Then Hilary's campaign took it over and paid for the rest.

So you agree it was nothing but a political hit piece.

[hollodero]

(09-03-2023, 01:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you agree it was nothing but a political hit piece.

It was a piece of raw, unconfirmed intelligence, collected on behalf of several Trump opponents, Hillary amongst them. It did not meet any standards of proof or of journalism, and it never intended to. It was meant to give political campaigns certain weaknesses or avenues to pursue or maybe investigate further. It is dirty, that's for sure, but probably also commonplace.

Some things in the dossier were corraborated, some were refuted, many remain unproven. That's what the Steele dossier was, and it is not taken more seriously than that. The Russia investigation did not stem from this dossier. Which is what makes it so frustrating when people claim the dossier's nature is the one and only undisputable proof that the whole investigation was a hoax.

[Dill]

(09-03-2023, 01:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you agree it was nothing but a political hit piece.

As for WHAT the dossier is, Hollo just nailed that far more succinctly than I could.

I would only add that it has become a "hit piece" for the Right
in that now a host of misrepresentations have been attached
to it, to make it "proof" that Hilary and Obama and the Dems
were up to something illegal.

E.g., Despite numerous corrections, Luvnit still thinks it triggered
the Russian investigation. If you listen to Sean Hannity, you know
that he describes it as if opposition research is illegal and
Hilary and the Dems got away with it--double legal standards.

(What Hilary and the DNC "settled" was a Federal Election Commission
investigation into whether they had misreported funds for the Dossier
as "Services" rather than "Research"--both of which are entirely legal.)

[Mike M (the other one)]

Ok everyone and their mother knows Russia had a political campaign strike going.

They've made it very clear and as to why they don't like Hillary, they were going to do anything to keep her from winning. The opponent didn't matter.

Even Mueller couldn't find collusion from anyone in the Trump campaign that conspired or coordinated in any way with Russia despite multiple attempts from Russian-affiliated individuals.

As far as Manafort goes, if what he did was so egregious, then why wasn't he convicted on it? Instead was convicted of Tax and Bank fraud not collusion so what he did likely wouldn't have held up else they would have added that on as well.

[hollodero]

(09-04-2023, 10:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Even Mueller couldn't find collusion from anyone in the Trump campaign that conspired or coordinated in any way with Russia despite multiple attempts from Russian-affiliated individuals.

Well, there was Roger Stone who communicated with Assange about the release of hacked Podesta emails. That were hacked by Russian operatives, namely a person called Guccifer that was in direct contact with Stone. I think that counts as conspiring with Russia, and Stone imho counts as being part of the Trump campaign.

(09-04-2023, 10:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As far as Manafort goes, if what he did was so egregious, then why wasn't he convicted on it? Instead was convicted of Tax and Bank fraud not collusion so what he did likely wouldn't have held up else they would have added that on as well.

I think part of the answer is that not everything that is egregious is also criminal. Eg. I find it highly egregious for a campaign manager to be in deep debt with a Russian oligarch and therefore giving him private briefings. It imho counts as coordinating with Russia too. I also find it egregious for a campaign manager to have secretly (unregistered) lobbied for a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, namely Yanukovich, and getting 17 million in the process before. Enormous scandals in the eyes of many, had it come out about Podesta for example. Working with Klimnik to propagate a false 'Ukraine was meddling instead of Russia' narrative might also meet the threshold of coordinating with Russia. Also a grave counterintelligence threat according to the senate committee.
His associate, a man called Rick Gates, plead guilty to engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States, so there's that. As later did Manafort in Columbia. Which resulted in 30 months of prison time. The whole financial fraud cases from Virginia were a cherry on top, but not the entirety of his convictions.

[Dill]

(09-04-2023, 10:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ok everyone and their mother knows Russia had a political campaign strike going.

They've made it very clear and as to why they don't like Hillary, they were going to do anything to keep her from winning. The opponent didn't matter.

Don't you think that Russians would view Trump as kind of a bonus though?

They couldn't know for sure how friendly he would be to authoritarian regimes, and Russia especially,

but there were plenty of clues he would damage U.S. foreign policy, alliances and credibility abroad,

and that's what he did.

At least some infer the Kremlin thought Trump "mentally unstable" and wanted him to win.

Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-05-2023, 10:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, there was Roger Stone who communicated with Assange about the release of hacked Podesta emails. That were hacked by Russian operatives, namely a person called Guccifer that was in direct contact with Stone. I think that counts as conspiring with Russia, and Stone imho counts as being part of the Trump campaign.



I think part of the answer is that not everything that is egregious is also criminal. Eg. I find it highly egregious for a campaign manager to be in deep debt with a Russian oligarch and therefore giving him private briefings. It imho counts as coordinating with Russia too. I also find it egregious for a campaign manager to have secretly (unregistered) lobbied for a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, namely Yanukovich, and getting 17 million in the process before. Enormous scandals in the eyes of many, had it come out about Podesta for example. Working with Klimnik to propagate a false 'Ukraine was meddling instead of Russia' narrative might also meet the threshold of coordinating with Russia. Also a grave counterintelligence threat according to the senate committee.
His associate, a man called Rick Gates, plead guilty to engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States, so there's that. As later did Manafort in Columbia. Which resulted in 30 months of prison time. The whole financial fraud cases from Virginia were a cherry on top, but not the entirety of his convictions.

Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy.


If they truly had concrete evidence of him working with Russia, they would have nailed him for it, which would have given them a path to Trump.


Sounds like some of the things that HB could be charged with. 


At the moment though, wouldn't Daddy be able to Pardon him before he leaves office? Maybe that's why they were trying to work out the plea deal so he couldn't be charged in the future. 


'The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached Statement of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea



To me that says you did something and now everyone is trying to cover it and bury it so in case the next Administration decided to re-open the case and file charges you're covered.


If there was nothing there, you wouldn't need that added protection.




Anyways, still needs to play out.

[hollodero]

(09-05-2023, 07:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy.

That was the Virginia case. There also was the Columbia case, where Manafort was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States and actually did agree to a plea deal. Condition of that deal was that Manafort cooperates with the Mueller investigation. He later was found to have violated that agreement by lying to the investigators. He then was sentenced to 73 months in prison, 30 of which on conspiracy against the United states.

Which sure is not proof of a Trump-Russia collusion, but there's more to the dirt on Manafort than just tax and finance stuff. Not to mention the millions he took in for lobbying on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian parties, the whole "Hapsburg group" affair (quite an interesting quick google search if you've never heard of that) or his private briefings to Deripaska. Something he was not charged for, but which still happened nonetheless.

(09-05-2023, 07:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sounds like some of the things that HB could be charged with. 

Sure, except for the conspiracy charges (as far as I know now). Also, Hunter never was part of the Biden campaign and as far as I know was not involved in lobbying.

(09-05-2023, 07:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: At the moment though, wouldn't Daddy be able to Pardon him before he leaves office? Maybe that's why they were trying to work out the plea deal so he couldn't be charged in the future.

Possible, or possibly because the next DOJ might be considered less favorable for him. As for the pardon, I have no indication that Joe would actually do that. Not if he wants to be reelected.

(09-05-2023, 07:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If there was nothing there, you wouldn't need that added protection.

It's possible. Never wanted to appear like I don't think it is, I see that whole plea deal with quite some scepticism too. But imho, at this point it's way more speculation as when the Trump campaign and its coordination efforts with Russian intelligence is concerned. The Roger Stone connection alone seems stronger than anything linking Joe Biden to the misdeeds of his douchebag son. As soon as that changes, I will not defend Joe Biden.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-05-2023, 06:13 PM)Dill Wrote:
Don't you think that Russians would view Trump as kind of a bonus though?

They couldn't know for sure how friendly he would be to authoritarian regimes, and Russia especially,

but there were plenty of clues he would damage U.S. foreign policy, alliances and credibility abroad,

and that's what he did.

At least some infer the Kremlin thought Trump "mentally unstable" and wanted him to win.

Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house

The bonus is that Trump had a good chance vs Hillary and had no ill will towards Putin. 

Maybe maybe not, at that point it was just speculation as far as foreign policies and allies. Some allies were against him just for being elected. 

He made his mistakes for sure, but also had some success, what war did we get into that everyone said we would get into if he won? The 3 before him all got us into costly wars. 

I think if the COVID hadn't happened, he would have Cruised to a 2nd term.

As i said, didn't matter who it was, Putin hates Hillary.