For years, many of us have criticized President Donald Trump for his attacks on the media when they asked him about controversies involving him or his family. The media however has been largely silent as Democratic leaders have ratcheted up attacks on any journalists who question their positions. That was evident recently when Speaker Nancy Pelosi bizarrely attacked CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer as an apologist for the Trump Administration simply because he pressed her on blocking the stimulus package. Other liberals attacked Blitzer after the interview. Now Joe Biden slammed the first network reporter who asked for a response to the unfolding scandal involving his son Hunter Biden. In emails found on the laptop, Joe Biden is named in communications with foreign figures seeking influence over U.S. policy. Biden refused to comment and then disparaged CBS News reporter Bo Erickson for even asking him the question.
Erickson simply asked “Mr. Biden, what is your response to the New York Post story about your son, sir?”
Biden responded “I have no response.” Then Biden added “I know you’d ask it. I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask.”
Biden has been hammered for refusing to tell voters whether he will support packing the Supreme Court. This however concerns emails where there are not just allegations of influence peddling worth millions coming from China, Russia, and Ukraine but references his possible knowledge or involvement. As I wrote recently, there is a striking refusal of the Biden campaign to offer the expected responses to such allegations.
I have expressed my skepticism over how this laptop was found and when it was disclosed publicly. This could very well be the work of foreign intelligence. However, as I discussed this morning in the Hill, that does not mean that the emails and photos are fabricated. Many of us have long denounced Hunter Biden’s work as a classic influence peddling scheme. That does not make it a crime, but it is a common form of corruption in Washington. These emails however, if true, would contradict Joe Biden’s past statements of his lack of knowledge or involvement. Moreover, it would shatter Joe Biden’s repeated assurance that his son did “nothing wrong.” One can argue over whether this is a crime, but few would say that there is nothing wrong with raw influence peddling worth millions with foreign entities.
Now however the question is how other journalists will respond. ABC has yet to even air the allegations and failed to ask a single question to Biden on the scandal during the recent town hall event. Whether these emails are fabricated or authentic, this story is major news. The question is whether there are major news organizations willing to report it.
583 thoughts on “Biden Slams CBS Reporter For Asking About The Hunter Biden Scandal”
it’s Hunter’s laptop alright. his lawyer wants it back.
With all too many looney’s on this blog I think any misperceptions about what Adam Schiff said should be rectified. One can hear a video of Radcliff calling Schiff a liar but in a nicer way. Here is the site and the text. There is no editing because one member of the blog is a data miner looking for the slightest thing to hang her claws on to prove herself right when she is absolutely wrong.
DNI John Ratcliffe says info on Hunter Biden laptop isn’t Russian disinformation
By Mark Moore
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said the information contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed by The Post last week “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”
During an appearance on Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria,” Ratcliffe shot down allegations by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, that emails showing former Vice President Joe Biden knew about his son’s business dealings in Ukraine are a “smear” created by Moscow.
“Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” Ratcliffe said.
“Let me be clear: The intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress,” he said.
Ratcliffe then blasted Schiff.
“It’s funny that some of the people who complain the most about intelligence being politicized are the ones politicizing the intelligence,” Ratcliffe said. “Unfortunately, it is Adam Schiff who said the intelligence community believes the Hunter Biden laptop and emails on it are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”
The Post reported last Wednesday that an email showed Hunter Biden introduced his father, who was at the time President Barack Obama’s vice president, to a top executive at Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm whose board he sat on.
The alleged meeting took place a year before Biden called for the ouster of a top Ukrainian prosecutor. Biden’s campaign has said there is no record of such a meeting.
Enlarge ImageJohn Ratcliffe
John RatcliffePOOL/AFP via Getty Images
Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the Burisma board, thanked Hunter Biden for the “opportunity” to meet his father in an email sent on April 17, 2015.
The messages were found on the hard drive of a laptop that the son allegedly dropped off at a Delaware computer shop and never returned to pick up.
Ratcliffe said the computer is “in the jurisdiction of the FBI.”
“The FBI has had possession of this,” he said. “Without commenting on any investigation that they may or may not have, their investigation is not centered around Russian disinformation and the intelligence community is not playing any role with respect to that.”
Enlarge ImageHunter Biden
Hunter BidenGetty Images
He also warned Schiff and others not to “leverage the intelligence community for a political narrative that’s not true.”
“In this case, Adam Schiff saying this is part of a disinformation campaign and that the intelligence community has assessed and believes that — that is simply not true,” Ratcliffe said. “Whether it’s Republicans or Democrats, if they try to leverage the intelligence community for political gain, I won’t allow it.”.
Wrong thread. (I already pointed out why Ratcliffe and those who uncritically swallow what he says missed the point in the right thread.)
That was a new posting and meant for all the loonies not just one. I said “With all too many looney’s on this blog” but suddenly you didn’t look at the words. I chose to post it here, but you have the chance to post it where you wish. Your comments on the subject were the same type of word salad you have used elsewhere.
As this case continues slither down the road it seems like a case where the reflection reveals more than the shiny object in the stream. The story will reveal itself in its own time. The lack of reactions by the Bidens, the silence by his cooperating Mainstream media, the reaction of Twitter and Facebook, the indisputable stuff, reveals all I need to know 2 weeks before an election…
As we hear the debate back and forth about what is or isn’t real what we are seeing are individuals that will believe anything in print as long as it conforms with leftist beliefs.
An Example: TAMPERING WITH REALITY: Facebook “Fact Check” cites USA Today hit piece on Veritas
Facebook should be careful. Project Vertias sues and wins.
Section 302 protects FB from defamation suits based on the contents of OTHERS,
Not its own.
When they post a fact check – they are not a distributor, or an editor, they are an author, And the DMCA does not change author liabiluity
I hadn’t thought of that, yet it is obvious when stated clearly as you have done. Good point.
“Facebook should be careful. Project Vertias sues and wins.”
That is true but FB has a huge amount of money so if they lose a case they can afford to pay and it will not significantly affect its bottom line.
What I would like to see is that section 302 remains, howevever, companies that have abused that section loose the 302 protection while other competing companies still have the protection. It provides competition and at the same time creates a self regulatory mechanism.
I also question if FB and Twitter can’t be sued successfully despite section 302. I haven’t read it but that section has been used against the public interest and there are many parts to what the companies have done. I think there is likely a chink in that armor which can be better utilized. The problem is too many are in on the fix.
Take note how poorly Congress writes laws. It always leaves openings for its biggest customers.
Recently in a slip oppinion Thomas made some clarifications regarding S302 and the law, and its current application,
Thomas’s remarks are not a majority. but they are an interesting picture of the law.
One of the things Thomas noted is that there is a history of defamation law that makes distinctions between creators, publishers, distributors and sub distributors. The language of the DMCA in places uses the same language. But the court decisions on DMCA has assumed the law provides blanket immunity for internet content providers.
Thomas is suggesting that DMCA does little to alter distributor and sub distributor liability – which has always been LOW.
It also does nothing to creator liability which is always high.
That is changes publisher Liability – but does not change it to zero liability.
Thus far lower courts have presumed that the DMCA changed publisher liability to distributor liability.
There are other issues because the DMCA is flawed, and arguably flawed in an unconstitutional way.
S302 essentially gives publishers similar immunity to government. And it clearly uses the same languages are government free speach cases – such as Neutral Public Platform. BUT it allows publishers to censor in ways that government can not.
Government can not circumvent the constitution by delegating government powers to private actors.
If content providers are required to provide a neutral public platform – they are as restricted in their ability to censor as government is.
“But the court decisions on DMCA has assumed the law provides blanket immunity for internet content providers.”
My assumption is and has been that there are almost always noticeable holes in legislation and in legal decisions because politics enters the picture. Though I am not a lawyer I add things to contracts to seal up potential problems. Legislation often doesn’t do that. I go through all the what if’s I can think of and address them in contract along with the solutions to those problems. I’ve prevailed in court based on my simple additions in English that otherwise would have led to lots of questions.
“Government can not circumvent the constitution by delegating government powers to private actors.” Absolutely, but that is based on a court that enforces the Constitution.
Biden today getting ice-cream with granddaughter, Finnegan, at in Durham, NC
Hard hitting questions from reporters? Nah.
One shouted “Mr. Biden! Mr. Biden! What flavor did you get?”
And not surprisingly, THAT is a question Joe Biden stopped to answer.
Unbelievable how the absurd “coddling” of Democrat politicians, specifically during the Obama/Biden years, has made them all completely incapable of doing their jobs.
Another hard-hitting reporter heard shouting a question in the wake of the Hunter Biden email scandal: “Mr. Vice President, which flavor enchanted you the most?”
“There has never been a presidential candidate less scrutinized than the 2020 Democratic nominee. And this is after political media screaming about transparency for the past four years. You either hold the powerful (or potentially powerful) accountable or you don’t.” (Joe Concha)
Guess what? The lamestream Fake News media fails to do its job when it comes to fairly covering Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or any Democrat. It is truly sickening. Trump is 100% correct when he refers to the Fake News as the ‘enemy of the people.’ They certainly are.
Comments are closed.