Biden Slams CBS Reporter For Asking About The Hunter Biden Scandal

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.

602 thoughts on “Biden Slams CBS Reporter For Asking About The Hunter Biden Scandal”

  1. 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.

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/19/john-ratcliffe-info-on-hunter-biden-laptop-not-russian-disinformation/?utm_source=maropost&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alert&utm_content=20201019&mpweb=755-9129976-720703111

    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.”.

    1. Wrong thread. (I already pointed out why Ratcliffe and those who uncritically swallow what he says missed the point in the right thread.)

      1. 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.

    2. 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…

    1. Anonymous, you have proven exactly what you are. You can believe whatever you wish, but I don’t need to hide behind a generic icon and name along with many pretend friends while using a generic alias.

      It’s laughable, but only to others and unfortunately not to yourself.

        1. I am happy that the text on the computer doesn’t fade. It demonstrates you weaseling your way through discussions in a rather sick manner depending on how one looks at a person with so many pretend friends. My name is there, unchanging. I stand behind what I write even when it gets trashy dealing with your low level of communication.

            1. “Yeah, Allan, you’re a real stand-up guy.”

              Absolutely correct. Unfortunately one cannot say the same about you or your pretend friends.

                  1. “Dishonest folk differ even more. ” — Allan

                    You would know, wouldn’t you, Allan.

                    I’m in the “honest” camp.

                    1. “I’m in the “honest” camp.”

                      Nah, Honest people protect their integrity. Dishonest ones don’t care about integrity. They will hide themselves among many others where they can blend in and escape from responsibility..

                    2. John, it might be more than just posting anonymously. He has body shame issues demonstrated when a discussion of nudity occurred yesterday and he acted prudishly. With such hangups I don’t understand why he leveled the attack he did on Trump, but it helps to understand his need for total anonymity and a lot of pretend friends.

  2. 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

    1. 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

      1. “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.

        1. 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.

          1. “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.

  3. 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.

    1. 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?”

    2. “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.

  4. There is no scandal. From Bloomberg, based at least partly on their review of Ukrainian documents and interviews with Prosecutor Shokin’s aide: The NYTs, WSJ, and WaPo came to similar conclusions in the in depth reporting. Note that Shokin’s lawyer are Fox “legal analysts” Joe DeGenova and Victoria Toensing.

    “President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer is raising the specter that Joe Biden intervened in Ukrainian politics to help his son’s business.

    But if that was Biden’s aim, he was more than a year late, based on a timeline laid out by a former Ukrainian official and in Ukrainian documents.

    The official described to Bloomberg details about the country’s political dynamic in the run-up to early 2016 when Biden, then the U.S. vice president, threatened to hold up U.S. funding to Ukraine unless it cracked down on corruption. Biden’s chief demand was the ouster of a top Ukrainian prosecutor who he said had been ineffective. The episode has come under the spotlight in the last week because at one point, that prosecutor had been investigating a natural gas company where Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board and received substantial compensation.

    U.S Vice President Joe Biden Visits China
    Joe Biden, right, with Hunter BidenPhotographer: Andy Wong/Pool/Getty Images
    There’s little question that the Bidens’ paths in Ukraine held the potential for conflict, and in a tweet last week, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said the U.S. should investigate the matter. But what has received less attention is that at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the probe into the company — Burisma Holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky — had been long dormant, according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko.

    “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview last week. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

    Kasko’s assessment adds a wrinkle to one of the first political intrigues of the 2020 election season. It undercuts the idea that Biden, now a top Democratic presidential candidate, was seeking to sideline a prosecutor who was actively threatening a company tied to his son. Instead, it appears more consistent with Biden’s previous statements that he was pressing for the removal of a prosecutor who was failing to tackle rampant corruption: According to public reports and internal documents from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office, U.S. officials had expressed concern for more than a year about Ukrainian prosecutors’ failure to assist an international investigation of Zlochevsky.

    Joe Biden declined to comment through a spokesman, who also said that Hunter Biden wouldn’t comment. Zlochevsky couldn’t be located for comment. Representatives for Burisma, which is based in Cyprus, didn’t respond to emails requesting comment.

    U.K. Probe

    Questions about the potential Ukraine conflict resurfaced with recent reports of a video in which Joe Biden described how he’d threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees from Ukraine unless its leaders dismissed Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. The New York Times reported on May 1 that Hunter Biden had a stake in the outcome because at the time he was on the board of Zlochevsky’s company, where he was paid as much as $50,000 a month for his work.

    Hunter Biden joined the board in April 2014, two months after U.K. authorities requested information from Ukraine as part of a probe against Zlochevsky related to money laundering allegations. Zlochevsky had been minister of environmental protection under then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in February 2014 after mass protests.

    After the U.K. request, Ukrainian prosecutors opened their own case, accusing Zlochevsky of embezzling public funds. Burisma and Zlochevsky have denied the allegations.

    The case against Zlochevsky and his Burisma Holdings was assigned to Shokin, then a deputy prosecutor. But Shokin and others weren’t pursuing it, according to the internal reports from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office reviewed by Bloomberg.

    In a December 2014 letter, U.S. officials warned Ukrainian prosecutors of negative consequences for Ukraine over its failure to assist the U.K., which had seized Zlochevsky’s assets, according to the documents.

    Those funds, $23.5 million, were unblocked in 2015 when a British court determined there wasn’t enough evidence to justify the continued freeze, in part because Ukrainian prosecutors had failed to provide the necessary information.

    No Action
    Shokin became prosecutor general in February 2015. Over the next year, the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund criticized officials for not doing enough to fight corruption in Ukraine.

    Shokin took no action to pursue cases against Zlochevsky throughout 2015, said Kasko, who was Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation and helping in asset-recovery investigations. Kasko said he had urged Shokin to pursue the investigations.

    The U.S. stepped up its criticism in September 2015, when its ambassador to Ukraine, during a speech, accused officials working under Shokin of “subverting” the U.K. investigation.

    Kasko resigned in February 2016, citing corruption and lawlessness in the prosecutor general’s office.

    The U.S. plan to push for Shokin’s dismissal didn’t initially come from Biden, but rather filtered up from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation. Embassy personnel had called for U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine to be tied to broader anti-corruption efforts, including Shokin’s dismissal, this person said.

    Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion if Ukraine didn’t crack down on corruption reportedly came in March. That same month, hundreds of Ukrainians demonstrated outside President Petro Poroshenko’s office demanding Shokin’s resignation, and he was dismissed.

    Shokin has denied any accusations of wrongdoing and declined to provide immediate comment for this article. In an interview with the Ukrainian website Strana.ua published on May 6, Shokin said he believes he was fired because of his Burisma investigation, which he said had been active at the time.

    In October 2017, Burisma issued a statement saying Ukrainian prosecutors had closed all legal and criminal proceedings against it….”

    1. All this crap has been debunked long ago.

      There was a flurry of activity on the PG investigation of Burisma immediately before Biden’s demand to fire Shokin.
      Hunter Biden was scheduled to be interviewed the day after Shokin was fired.

      The claims that Shokin was corrupt should be trivial to prove – they never have been. He lives quite modestly on his government returement income.

      Forgotten is that all the claims about Shokin originate with the FBI task force run by Joe Biden.

      The IMF and EU claims – all rest on the nonsense coming From Biden’s task force.

      You fail to grasp the scale of the problem.

      Further you are ignoring the ethical issues here.

      Hunter Biden is free to do business with Burisma. But The Vice President (and everyone in government) is ethically barred from participating in decisions that will directly impact businesses their relatives own. Not only is that the law – it was specifically part of the ethics in government documents that Obama made everyone sign – including Biden and Clinton.

      While you and NYT are totally wrong about the few facts they are reporting – and there is no problem at all with the time line.
      In fact it is damning.

      It would not matter if you were right. Biden would still be ethically barred from the actions he took.

      And he would be legally barred from getting money from his son for work that was impacted bhy the actions of Biden as VP.

    2. Is the left honestly so morally bankrupt as to be able to delude themselves like this ?

      There are people in jail for far less than this.

      Duke Cunningham went to jail for less than this Dan Rostenkowski. ……

    3. Why not investigate so as not to take the word of Shokin or Kasko? Why not find out who’s lying? It’s undeniable that the Dem MSM lied when they told America it was all “debunked.” The impeachment scam was to keep Hunter and Joe’s dealings too hot for Trump or his lawyer, the only one’s motivated enough to take on the hornets nest of the deepest darkest secret of the corrupt Obama White House.

      1. The FBI had all this information near the start of the Dem’s impeachment hearings and SAT ON IT.

        That alone is a serious issue.

        If Brady applies to impeachment hearings it is a violation of the law.

        Even if it does not it is politically corrupt.

  5. Glenn Greenwald, in response to Michael Tracey:

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1317527819686191104

    “Glenn Greenwald
    @ggreenwald
    ·
    12h

    50 years go, when Daniel Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the NYT, Kissinger and HR Haldeman, on Nixon’s orders, spread the rumor he was a Russian spy acting for the Kremlin.

    This is the playbook the CIA has been using for decades – but now liberals & the media are on board.

    Quote Tweet

    Michael Tracey
    @mtracey

    · Oct 16

    The “hacked” materials presented thus far aren’t even that revealing, but the campaign to discredit them using the standard Russiagate playbook is highly revealing of how the corporate media/security state nexus has functioned over these past few years https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1317307227963678721

  6. CNN is running flattering documentary on what a great guy Joe Biden is…..would that be an “in kind” campaign contribution? Where is the wonderful documentary on Trump?

    Look what Maria Shriver tweeted out: (gag)

    ‘Watching a special on Joe Biden on CNN and it’s so moving. I just can’t wait for him to be our President. A man who has this decency, this empathy, this humanity. I’m counting the days… I can’t wait.’

    Yo Maria, you gonna be waiting a loooooong time….

    Trump 2020!

      1. No, we can count on Joe Biden losing. And he will lose big enough that it is a decisive win on election day for President Trump.

Leave a Reply