“What About His Son?”: CNN’s Stelter is Latest Media Figure to Suddenly Discover the Hunter Biden Scandal

C-Span/YouTube

I recently wrote a column on the sudden shift in coverage of the Hunter Biden scandal in the mainstream media, a shift that has coincided with widespread pieces pushing President Joe Biden to change his mind about running for reelection. As political and media figures fret about Joe Biden endangering Democratic control of Congress and the White House, there is now increased willingness to acknowledge the long buried scandal. Few are as striking as the shift of CNN’s media pundit Brian Stelter, who seems to have suddenly discovered that there are serious allegations of influence peddling by the Biden family.  After previously calling the Hunter Biden story “manufactured” and “whataboutism,” Brian Stelter is now saying that the story “is not just a right-wing media story” while asking “What about his son?” For those skeptical of the sudden media-wide conversion, it sounded more like “what about his father.”

Stelter previously mocked those pushing this story as a complaint by those who do not “know how newsrooms work” while participating in a “disinformation conference” on how to shape news with insights from former President Obama and other democratic figures.

“How newsrooms work” today is precisely the concern. N.Y. Times’ Thomas Friedman recently declared “The New York Times felt it didn’t pursue it originally as much as it wanted to.” He did not explain what could possibly have overridden such journalistic interest until long after Biden’s election.

Now, with the Democratic control and its agenda in danger, the media appears to be living through a version of Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Trouble with Harry.” Call it “The Trouble with Joey?” or, as Stelter suggests, “What to do with Father?”

The criminal investigation holds some promise as a way out of the inconvenient body in the White House. However, as discussed earlier, the Hunter Biden scandal must be a “controlled demolition” — the scandal has to fall precisely on a narrow foundational footprint without causing collateral damage to others in the political and media establishment.

A scandal implosion can be achieved by avoiding the obvious need for a Special Counsel and prompting a plea on narrow criminal charges. That could be enough to contain the blowback for the political and media elite while prompting the President to take a powder soon after the midterm elections. (Indeed, if the President pardoned his son, he could admit to the obvious conflict of interest and decline to run for reelection as a self-imposed consequence for his abuse of the constitutional authority).

For Stelter, the shift is more painful than most. The figures who derided those of us pushing the Hunter Biden story as engaging in “Whataboutism” was now literally asking “What about his son?” and his scandal. The point is not just hypocrisy, it is the concern of what this change is really about.

182 thoughts on ““What About His Son?”: CNN’s Stelter is Latest Media Figure to Suddenly Discover the Hunter Biden Scandal”

  1. Of course Stelter is pivoting.
    The new CEO of CNN wants to move the company back to real reporting/news. Stelter does not play along, he could lose his job. There already talk of him getting the ax.
    The whole newsroom needs a shake down, thinning of activist journalists. Get back to what they started out as.

  2. Lyndon Johnson used the term “110% American.”
    It referred to men and women who were firm believers, and defenders, of this country and what made it different, and exceptional, among the nations on this planet.
    There are still plenty of 110% Americans out here from coast to coast.
    And they are keeping a ‘list’ so to speak of those men and women who are actively, and passively, working to destroy America.
    Brian Stelter is on the list, albeit way down on the list, as he is a symptom, not a leader. Nonetheless, if there is justice in the future, Stelter will be dealt with.

  3. Shouldn’t the FBI complete their investigation and then announce (on national television) “no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute the case”?

  4. President Donald Trump met with two Russian energy execs in the White House – the FIFTEENTH meeting with businessmen tied to his son’s company – who days later sent Eric a fawning email offering to fix his $102k luxury EV.

    That influence peddling = Bad. Also fake news.

    This influence peddling = Good. Also true.

    VP Joe Biden met with two Chinese energy execs in the West Wing – the FIFTEENTH meeting with businessmen tied to his son’s company – who days later sent Hunter a fawning email offering to fix his $102k luxury EV.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11084655/VP-Joe-Biden-met-two-Chinese-energy-execs-West-Wing.html

  5. If there’s any blame to be cast it should be directed towards those who cast a vote on a man who hid in a basement for the entire campaign. They allowed Stelter & Co to develop hate within themselves against man who wanted the best for Americans. Make no doubt the MSM is dangerous but the blame belongs on Americans who bought their lie’s, like Norman Bates and the Clown Crew who infect the blog.

  6. JT, Is it really necessary to cover this Hunter Biden story so often? 5 recent posts seems too much — see July 25, 26, 28, Aug 3, and today.

    1. CC

      Turley writes HIS blog.

      Up to you to decide what to read or ignore.

      Turley has been very successful up to now without your advice.

      I think that he can do the rest without the benefit of your guidance.

      1. As a strong free speech advocate, I assume JT welcomes criticism and advice, which I have continually offered in my comments.

        1. 5 recent posts seems too much

          You asked and then answered your own question. While JT certainly supports your free speech, your “criticism and advice” are merely whining, if you cannot reasonably justify why he should welcome it. Here’s a thought experiment: Why not ask and then attempt to answer why he believes Hunter Biden is important to post about? For instance, did you have the same criticism and advice when there was non-stop coverage of the Trump/Russian collusion hoax?

    2. In the spirit of “misery loves company”, consider visiting Enigma’s blog since his web traffic is nonexistent.

      https://www.similarweb.com/website/williamspivey.medium.com/#overview

      OTOH we understand that you and your colleagues need a job, are paid to visit Professor Turley’s blog on behalf of your DNC aligned handlers, to hourly copy/paste the same talking points, and you need the HR benefits to cover your gender affirming hormonal treatments.

      😉

        1. Humor helps me cope. We have a saying in Spanish that applies:

          Hay que reir para no llorar, One has to laugh so as not to cry

          1. Estovir,

            This may be a universal human sentiment. The saying that I grew up with in SC is; “Sometimes you have to laugh because otherwise you will just end up crying.”

            This is a true sentiment and there is no doubt that I have “been there, done that” many times before. I have also been to the step beyond; the time that I found myself both laughing and crying at the same time was a moment of epiphany, a sad epiphany but one without which I would still be lost.

    3. Is it really necessary to cover this Hunter Biden story so often?

      🤣 Now that’s funny. That was very likely what Stelter was mumbling to himself as he posted his Hunter Biden story.

    4. “JT, Is it really necessary to cover this Hunter Biden story so often?”

      Guest to host: “What? Steak, again?! Can’t you serve me something different?”

      Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    5. JT, Is it really necessary to cover this Hunter Biden story so often?

      The Posts are NOT about Hunter Biden.

      The Posts are ABOUT the corrupt media, lying to the public, and being active Public Relations arm for the Democrat Party.

      The media has special constitutional protections. The media us supposed to be the light shining on the Government to expose hidden agendas and corruption. But the media has become active propaganda purveyors for Democrats.

      It just so happens the hunter laptop is such a great, simple example of exactly how the media is in on the govt corruption.
      An example

      Senator’s Chuck Grassely and Johnson were on this laptop story from the very start. They were poking around, investigating, verifying information and sending letters to the FBI asking pointed, specific, question. Not getting any answers. Then out of the blue their committee, Justice, got a notice the committee was getting a FBI briefing. A briefing no one asked for. At the briefing the FBI presented the notion the Lap top was Russia disinformation. Then the FBI leaked to the media the briefing and its subject. In affect, painting the Judiciary committee as partisan for looking into something the FBI had already briefed them about the phony story.

      Just one of dozens of examples that expose the corrupt media and corrupt govt, to aid the Democrat Party.

      So get it right, this is much more about govt and media collusion and corruption, and Hunter being a below the fold after thought. Me thinks you are too focused on defending Biden. Too intent on changing the topic away from what Prof. Turley is actually writing about

      1. It is necessary for what is essentially alternate media to make up for the deficits in both coverage and trust that we have of the Main Stream Media.

        Increasingly I get my information for alternate sources – mostly disaffected old school “liberals” who either left the tradition media or were thrown out.
        I follow people like Matt Taibi, Glenn Greenwald, Bret Weinstein, Barri Weis, and others like them.
        I follow people on substack – again mostly the disaffected left.

        People who are honest reporters. Who make an effort to be true to the facts.
        I do not always agree with them – but I trust them.

        I am hard pressed to think of any in the MSM that I would trust anymore.

      2. When have we seen this nonsense of the FBI giving classified briefings in order to leak the story that they gave a classified briefing before ?

        Oh, Yes, Comey did that to Trump after the 2016 election.

        “Defund the FBI!”

        To those here who think I am some flaming Trumpanzee.

        I have never voted for Trump.
        Nearly all my political positions predate Trump,
        Many of them are positions that Once were helped by those on the left.

        I have been fighting for election integrity since 2000.
        That election made me realize that the legitimacy of our government was in trouble,

        Democrats, republicans, it does not matter – we can not have a situation where a significant portion of people beleive the election was rigged.

        I get very very tired of the idiotic nonsense that mistrusting an election gets blamed on those who do not trust the results.

        The claims about the 2016 election needed to be investigated to reassure the left that the result was legimate.

        The problem is we conducted that investigation backwards and upside down.
        The first step in the investigation of the claims of russian collusion – was to chase the claims to their source and assess the credibility of the allegations.

        The DOJ/FBI in 2016 should have been quietly investigating the Steele Dossier – much as Durham did, rather than assuming it was credible.

        We now know they knew it was a hoax from the start. Someone must pay a price for that.

        This is not about Trump – it is about election integrity.

        If you claim a candidate is in bed with foreign powers, the first step is to check YOUR evidence – what are YOUR sources.
        The DOJ/FBI should have been doing that. The press should have been doing that.

        In very short order these claims should have been exposed as the hoax they were.

        That is how to restore the trust of those who were persuaded that the collusion delusion was real.

        With respect to the claims of 2020 Election fraud, and lawlessness.

        It is the duty of government to prove that it has conducted elections in a way that deserves trust.

        That is a BEFORE the election process. It means following the law or constitution – whether you like it or not.
        If you have problems with these – change them – through the normal process.

        The 2020 election was coonducted outside the law and state constitutions.

        Rahm Emanuel said the quiet part out load when he said – “never let a crisis go to waste.”

        Those not on the left fully understand that means the left will use any crisis to transform society.
        That is illegitimate.

        All the lawlessness of the 2020 election – and the massive lack of transparency REQUIRED deep scrutiny.
        Our courts failed at that.

        It is not relevant how outlandish you think Trump’s claims were.

        The government failed – by conducting the election lawlessly.
        The govenrment failed by lack of election transparency.
        and the government failed by not conducting the inquiry needed to restore trust in the elections.

        The left celebrates some bizarre number of court losses, But the real loss was to the integrity of the courts for falling
        to conduct inquiry.

        Core institutions have lost our trust – the press, the courts, govenrment – particularly election officials and those responsible to secure elections.

        We are STILL dealing with Covid. Is there anyone who thinks that Government could not have done worse ?
        Is there anyone that thinks defeating Covid was within governments power ?

        Masks did not work – it has taken years to get something that was obviously true at the start.

        I can say great job to the drug companies for getting Vaccines to us in record time.
        But they still did not work, and increasingly it appears they were a mistake.

        That is not to say we should not have tried. But it is to say that govenrment should not have ever mandated them for anyone and the results of tests and studies should have been made public much earlier.

        Regardless institution after institution has FAILED our trust.

  7. In the end Hunter will obtain some kind of guilty plea bargain with “Daddy’s Justice department and get fined (to be paid for by his benefactors) with probation. CNN will go back to declaring it a “nothing burger” with no involvement of the Big Guy. The MSM will let the story die before the mid-terms . If the Republicans still win the House, they will hold “grandstanding” hearings with no substance and get skewered by the MSM for carrying out political vendettas. They will forget about investigating CDC, Wuhan origins, Afghanistan and all of the other scandals and then appropriate more money for their congressional districts to ensure their own re-election while claiming Democrats are responsible for the deficit. And meanwhile China, Russia and Iran ………..

  8. Turley overlooks one important factor. Should Hunter plead to “narrow criminal charges,” he will need some reason not to testify when called before congress to explain his more expansive criminal past. The only way he can avoid having to testify is to sign a plea agreement that includes cooperating with the government. When called to testify before the House, he will simply say he cannot testify to ongoing criminal investigative matters, period. This will continue until the Big Guy decides to retire early and uses his last congent thought to pardon his kid. But alas, even this may not be the end because with a pardon, Hunter no longer is protected by the Fifth Amendment and must testify or face contempt charges. Justice, it seems, could prevail here but it may take a while.

  9. Ah… but what to do about cameltoes? Will Harris suddenly become the most compitent VP in history (according to the democrat propaganda arm of the dimdems)? You know that corrupt media can make that happen in the minds of the dimly lit left.

  10. As usual, an excellent encapsulation of the issue provided in one handy-dandy column. The overwhelming majority of media function as the marketing arm of the Dem party. The ability to control what we see and hear determines what we think. The Dems know this and that’s why they went bats**t crazy when Musk said he wanted to purchase Twitter. Moral- support unwoke media at all costs.

  11. Svelaz says “Influence peddling is completely legal.” Really. Wonder if he would say that if Trump, or any other president of a republican tilt was in the President’s chair. The President represents the American people and was elected or “ hired”, by them, to represent their interests and safety, not the President’s interest or family. I don’t think there is an addendum to the President’s oath that says. “Oh and By the way you can use the office to enrich yourselves and your family along the way”.

    1. “ Svelaz says “Influence peddling is completely legal.” Really. Wonder if he would say that if Trump, or any other president of a republican tilt was in the President’s chair.”

      I did mention Trump multiple times and pointed out that his own kids engaged in influence peddling and profited from their father’s position. All legal actions according to Turley AND the Supreme Court. I pointed out that as wrong as it is for both it’s still legal.

      “ Oh and By the way you can use the office to enrich yourselves and your family along the way”.

      There’s really no law that says you can’t. Trump did that when he was in office. No conservatives complained about such “crimes”.

      1. You are such a know-nothing. The Trump Presidency was likely a disaster for the family fortune. The family turned down all sorts of international business adventures that before the Trump Presidency, were their bread and butter.

        With all your proven ignorance and errors, intentional or otherwise, one would think you would be embarrassed by now, but you aren’t. All sorts of potential reasons exist, but none of them are good.

  12. It was flagrant partisanship by the press from the beginning, and that has not changed. The tiger has not changed his stripes, it’s just that partisanship requires a complete 180 now.

  13. “…if the President pardoned his son” If. Not when?

    That is the question, the implications of which are far more interesting.

  14. Bingo. It’s a wash job, hunter will plead to minor charges w no jail time and all his real crimes will be washed away by this plea. Then the mantra by LE / regime will be hunter plead to such and such and investigation(s) are closed re his real crimes which involve his father and others.

  15. Pretty simple: IMO Biden was never in charge, Kamala was an attempted voter magnet for people as shallow as the Dems and nothing more, and it is becoming increasingly clear that if we don’t flip things around this year, we may never. The leftist grip on our government (not to be confused with our populace, mind you) is what we used to term a ‘choke hold’. Stelter is part of the regime. It has been written about by many posters here – your usefulness ends to the regime, so do you, in one way or another. I guarantee you the only reason they keep AOC around, as they all think she’s a maroon just like we do, is because she remains popular with her cohort. I suspect they only floated the notion of her running for president to do polling.

    People don’t trust the media because by and large we have ceased to have one.

  16. When you desperately need to take the focus of Trump criminal and civil investigations, go to Hunter Biden. How many Hunter Biden stories has Turley done? Well into double figures. How many on Eric Trump stealing cancer money from charities, the Trump Foundation shut down for fraud, Ivanka & Don Jr’s fraud case mysteriously being dropped by NY courts, the Panama condo’s Ponzi scheme? You know the answer.

    1. RE:”When you desperately need to take the focus of Trump criminal and civil investigations,” The focus has never been off Hunter Biden. There remain those who are yet able and willing to multitask.. It appears that CNN has merely rediscovered that.

    2. enigma—-again I say: you are so gullible. The Dims have told you to keep clapping so that Tinkerbell won’t die, and by gawd that’s what you’re going to do! LOL. I’d like to be a fly on the wall when you discover that Tinkerbell is a fictional character and Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny don’t exist, either. Oh, the humanity!

      1. Staying on topic. How many Hunter Biden articles have we seen from Turley the last six months, most repeating the same themes? How many about the Trump kids and Trump other than telling you he sees no wrongdoing?

        1. There is a treasure trove of information on Hunter’s laptop that implicate President Biden. You still think the laptop is Russian disinformation.

          Biden is President.

          1. That information is not reliable. Ever since Rudy Giuliani got access to the hard drive and provided copies to a multitude of people there has been a problem with the possibility of data being manipulated or altered. We already know Rudy Giuliani is not credible.

            1. s been a problem with the possibility of data being manipulated or altered.

              There is no such problem. Even you can’t find a source to quote.

            2. So far nothing has been proven wrong by Hunter, Joe, the people mentioned in the laptop or even Anonymous the Stupid. If Anonymous the Stupid can’t find the manipulation of the laptop, it didn’t happen.

            3. anonymous…….Rudy made sure NYC was clean and vibrant and safe, keeping crime to a minimum during the years our daughter lived there. We will be forever grateful to him!

        2. telling you he sees no wrongdoing?
          The Jan 6 Democrat selected comittee is a good example of how you get facts wrong

          Turley only points out EVIDENCE presented lacks any elements of a crime to prosecute. ‘Wrong doing” is exactly the ambiguous meaningless twaddle leftist are forced into using, hoping to keep the stupid, and ignorant riled up.

          1. Name a few facts the Jan 6th committee got wrong? Be sure they are actually wrong as opposed to your favorite bubble media saying so.
            I haven’t critiqued Turley’s evidence though some of his suppositions seem stretched. I criticize his focus.

            1. Enigma, I never said the Jan 6 had things wrong. They have been caught editing texts and video to skew the full context. We do know they ignore ALL exculpatory testimony, We know the committee used hearsay when they could have used first person testimony.

              I said YOU get the facts wrong. Just like now you trying to claim I questioned the committee facts, I have not.

              Turley is NOT presenting evidence….only stated the evidence presented by the committee lacks needed elements to charge a crime.

              But thanks for your help in twisting my comment to fit your preferred narrative.

              1. Okay, tell me what facts I got wrong from the hearings? You can also share any exculpatory testimony that was left out. It isn’t like we didn’t hear from any Republicans, we heard almost exclusively from Republican witnesses.

                1. Okay, tell me what facts I got wrong from the hearings?

                  Aaand there you go again. I never said anything about the hearings. I plainly said YOU got wrong. And I explained it. Its not about Hunter, its about the media in collusion with the govt.

                  Of course exculpatory evidence is left out. What is public is perhaps 5% of the interviews and documents the committee has in its possession. No sane person believes no exculpatory evidence exists. An of course ONLY the Republicans that agree to push a phony narrative would have their interviews made public. The ingnorant and ill-informed might buy into the one sided Democrat selected committee, work product, but knowledgable people have seen dems in action with their secret basement hearings for scam-peachment 1, and the Muellers hoax special counsel. Wild narrative during, and nothing in the conclusion.


                  1. I said YOU get the facts wrong. Just like now you trying to claim I questioned the committee facts, I have not.”

                    Tell me what facts I have gotten wrong about anything? Take your time because I’ll be following up on the FBI raid of Mar-a-lago.

                    1. I literally have done that repeatedly already.

                      My original post, pointed out most of the Turley posts with Hunter mentioned is using the story to expose the media lies, propaganda, and collusion with the govt.

                    2. Maybe I’m also wrong about the definition of probable cause to issue a federal search warrant.

                      “Federal warrants may only be issued upon a showing to a neutral magistrate that probable cause exists to support the proposed search. The U.S. Supreme Court has described “probable cause” as a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

        3. So professor Turley is posting too many Hunter Biden articles. The dims spent 4 years going after Donald Trump.

            1. There is a huge difference between a sitting President, even a former one, and the son of a vice-president which is what Hunter Biden was at the time.

              If your motivation was principled, you would have a concern that any politician had sold their position of power. But by ignoring the fact a sitting vice president received compensation for the influence his son sold, and more importantly, ignoring the national security implications for a sitting president has potential kompromat on him as a result of that compensated influence, you prove yourself to be absolutely unprincipled in your concern. Not a fact? A principled person would demand as thorough an investigation of a Democrat President as had been conducted on a Republican President.

              1. I have never objected to an investigation of Hunter Biden, I am comparing Turley constantly pressing for a Special Counsel for Hunter and dozens of articles about him while not only turning a blind eye to all the Trumps except when he was actively excusing them.

                1. enigmainblackcom: OK, enough is enough. 1) “DOZENS” of articles about Hunter BIden.????
                  I challenge you to a $100 bet for you to come up with more than ONE dozen (let alone “dozens”), in the last 12 months, of articles “ABOUT him [Hunter].” We can each put our $100 in escrow at this site.
                  2).I also request that you identify specific articles in which the professor “actively excused them [Trump’s kids].
                  Accept? thanks.

                  1. I don’t want your money. Go to Jonathanturley.com and search Hunter Biden. You’ll find 12 articles within the last 6 months. Dates are Aug 8th, Aug 3rd, July 26th, July 25th, July 21, May 22, April 24, April 13, April 7, Mar 19, March 1, and Feb 23. Since you were kind enough to only require 12 I stopped there but could have gone on much further.

                    I see you limited me to using articles excusing the Trump children and not Donald J Trump. Turley barely mentions the children at all but you can find articles about Don Jr on Feb 3, 2022 indicating it wouldn’t be fair for Vindman to sue Don Jr because “where would we draw the line” and on July 10, 2017 indicating his meeting with a Russian lawyer wasn’t a smoking gun.
                    Ivanks gets mentioned on June 26, 2017 about her failure to quash a deposition and finds it unfair that her public comments are being used against her.
                    I hope you recognize that I would have won the bet, especially if you had let me use examples of him excusing Donald. Maybe you’ll at least agree Turley has spent a lot of time and energy on Hunter Biden?

                    1. Well, sir, I will apologize and pay, if need be. I will honor my challenge.
                      But when I went to “Jonathanturley.com,” nothing came up. I removed the upper case and tried “jonathanturley.com” and up came a bearded man advertising his new blog. He was clearly not the good professor.
                      Are you able to tell me where you got those dates?
                      Second, I expressly and verbatim used your words, “about him,” –not articles about his father Joe, in which Hunter is merely mentioned. To that end, I find today, Aug 3, July 25, and early April. Would you like to clarify? Thanks

                  2. I can’t check back but I may have referred you to Jonathanturley.com when I should have put Jonathanturley.org You also asked for more than a dozen so I give you Feb 4, 2022 which takes it to thirteen. My bad!

                    1. Sorry-just reading this after I already responded. In any event, I believe you are including RERUN articles, in which the professor states on the res ipsa site, e.g., “This is the article I wrote today for _______.” I still have found less than six. Thanks.

                    2. Glad you found it. Every article was a separate article though they may have been published elsewhere as well. I stand by my number and can add more within the year if you like.

                2. I am comparing Turley constantly pressing for a Special Counsel for Hunter and dozens of articles about him while not only turning a blind eye to all the Trumps except when he was actively excusing them.

                  Now why do you suppose JT is constantly pressing for a Special Counsel for Hunter Biden? There are any number of citizens in this country with evidence suggesting they have done illegal things. Yet JT isn’t pressing for a Special Counsel for them. Why not? That’s right. Because their fathers were not a sitting Vice President and now the President of the United States. Because as the evidence piles up against Hunter Biden, it’s also piling up on a President who would be very vulnerable to foreign actors as a result of his son’s allegedly illegal influence peddling. That’s called being a very serious national security implication. That’s why JT is pressing it.

                  Like I said, no principled individual would challenge JT’s principled position.

    3. You forgot another complaint of yours. Donald Trump is a racist because 20 years before he was born, Fred Trump was thought to be in the vicinity of a march.

      Why don’t you add that he is an anti-Semite even though he has Jewish grandchildren?

      When will you stop sliming?

        1. In Fred Trump’s world the KKK is synonymous with the KKK. Like Sen. Byrd. Hard to be a mover and shaking during Freds era without running in the same circles as the KKK.

        2. You know neither to be true. We all have a degree of bias, but extending that word to racist is Stupid even for you.

          You can try and prove your case, but without such proof, why would anyone believe you?

          1. Everyone knew he was associated with the KKK, even the FBI who arrested him at at KKK rally.

            1. You are lying through omission. There was a KKK rally going on. People were arrested at the rally, and some were charged.

              There is no legal proof that Fred Trump was arrested on that day. It might have been another using his name. The news reports don’t say what any of them did, but what the news reports say is that the others were charged but Fred Trump was released. Was he arrested in a police sweep where they arrested some who had nothing to do with anything? The news reports don’t tell us.

              What we know is that someone calling himself Fred Trump was arrested but let go because there were no charges placed against him.

              Does stupidity reign in your world?

              1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

                “ There is no legal proof that Fred Trump was arrested on that day. It might have been another using his name.”

                Yes there is. Fred Trump. Donald’s father is the one who got arrested at the KKK rally. How do we know? Because Donald Trump acknowledged it. It’s even in FBI records.

                There is only one Fred Trump.

                Your poor attempt to lie like that should be embarrassing.

                1. We cannot trust anything you say. I don’t know what Donald Trump said about his father. You will have to provide the quote and a citation. You are not to be trusted.

                  Svelaz, look at the newspaper reports of the day. Whoever was arrested under the name of Trump was let go without charges. Others were charged.

                  The stupidity you bring to the table never stops.

              2. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

                “ There is no legal proof that Fred Trump was arrested on that day. It might have been another using his name.”

                It was Donald Trump’s father.

                “ Donald Trump’s father was arrested at Ku Klux Klan riot in New York in 1927, records reveal”

                “ One of those arrested was Fred Trump of 175-24 Devonshire Road in Jamaica.”

                https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/charlottesville-latest-donald-trump-father-fred-arrested-ku-klux-klan-kkk-rally-riot-queens-new-york-1927-white-supremacy-nazism-a7891701.html?amp

                It’s Donny’s dad.

                1. Svelaz—–even if it’s true, who cares? Was Donald Trump President in 1927?
                  He wasn’t even born yet. You are such a pointing-fingered tattler.
                  Grow the hell up, please.

                2. I will quote from the article:

                  “It’s not clear from the context what role Fred Trump played in the brawl. “

                  But the names and bail amounts of people arrested at the same time were listed. They had to set bail. “Trump” did not because he was released without charges. That happens in sweeps. Was that Fred Trump, Donalds father? No one knows for sure but since he was released one has to presume innocence. Was it Fred Trump? Even that we cannot be sure of.

                  But assuming it was Fred Trump, based on the police records he did nothing wrong. There is no mention that he did anything wrong. Could he have punched a KKK rioter in the face? We don’t know. We have no information.

                  Earlier you said Donald Trump said his father was arrested. But this news article says something different so you erred or lied in your prior comment.

                  ” Donald Trump vehemently denied his father’s arrest. “He was never arrested. He has nothing to do with this. This never happened. This is nonsense and it never happened,” he said to the Daily Mail. “This never happened. Never took place. He was never arrested, never convicted, never even charged. It’s a completely false, ridiculous story. He was never there! It never happened. Never took place.”

                  This is exactly why Svelaz is a waste of time. He is wrong almost all the time. There is no reason to treat this troll decently. He is guilty of intentional trolling and terminal stupidity.

    4. Ban The Antithetical Anti-American Troll Fraud For Life

      As Persistently Comprehensively Non-Contributory

      Apropos Of Knee-Taking Sista Griner

      He Hates The Star-Spangled Banner

      Send Him To Her Russian Gulag

      They Won’t Have To Hear

  17. “ Few are as striking as the shift of CNN’s media pundit Brian Stelter, who seems to have suddenly discovered that there are serious allegations of influence peddling by the Biden family.”

    Influence peddling is completely legal. Turley knows this and this is why there is no “scandal”.

    Turley sure loves beating this dead horse so much that it seems anything that injects life into this lifeless issue gets him all excited.

    Turley has been pushing his own version of “whataboutism” with this “scandal”. When the Trump children engaged in influence peddling it was certainly not a “scandal”, because it’s legal.

    1. RE:”Influence peddling is completely legal. Turley knows this and this is why there is no “scandal”.” What remains to be known is whether or not having done so has presented a clear and present danger to the national security, to what extent the Biden family has profited from same, and whether or not any such outcomes are deemed unlawful. These might indeed be cause for impeachment or resignation. Agnew and Nixon come to mind.

      1. There has been no evidence of threats to national security because of what Hunter Biden did. He did nothing different than what the Trump children have done. Making money from foreign companies and peddling influence is not a crime.

        President Biden is accused of being a crook without a scintilla of evidence or any specific articulated crime. Mere allegations and innuendo are not evidence.

        Turley is peddling insinuations and rumor on a “scandal” that does not exist. Nobody cares and Turley is beating his drum as loud as he can to get attention to a non-issue because in reality nobody gives a crap.

        1. RE:”There has been no evidence of threats to national security because of what Hunter Biden’ Now that you’ve editorialized, to support your agenda, we shall patiently wait to see what evolves. Curfew has yet to ring.

        2. “President Biden is accused of being a crook without a scintilla of evidence “

          When are your bosses going to change your theme? It’s a bit old and out of date. Do you ever open your window blinds?

          1. When someone provides an articulable crime that president Biden is accused of. When evidence, besides allegations are presented.

            According to a lot of posters here President Biden is a crook. So what crimes has he committed?

            1. Corruption.

              When the FBI has the hard disk and does nothing, one knows that politics and corruption has invaded law enforcement.

              We see the same things in countries where the rule of law is not upheld.

              1. “ When the FBI has the hard disk and does nothing, one knows that politics and corruption has invaded law enforcement.”

                Just having the disk is not proof of corruption. It did nothing because there’s nothing illegal or criminal or they are still investigating. Just because they are not moving as fast as you want them to doesn’t mean they are corrupt.

                1. What is on the disk demonstrates corruption and lawlessness.

                  That you can’t see past your nose doesn’t mean everyone else is as stupid.

                  1. “ What is on the disk demonstrates corruption and lawlessness.”

                    Not according to the law. It may seem corrupt and lawless. But these accusations have to show they actually violate a specific law. Nobody has shown that.

                    1. There will be no special council or trial for Hunter. The story will be killed because leftists do not believe in the rule of law.

            2. RE:”According to a lot of posters here President Biden is a crook. So what crimes has he committed?” One can kick this can all over the street if you care to. Time and tide will determine that, if at all.

            3. When someone provides an articulable crime that president Biden is accused of. When evidence, besides allegations are presented.

              According to a lot of posters here President Biden is a crook. So what crimes has he committed?

              Let’s cut to the chase. Are you opposed to as thorough investigation into Biden and his family as there was with Trump and his family?

              1. “ Let’s cut to the chase. Are you opposed to as thorough investigation into Biden and his family as there was with Trump and his family?”

                No, but in order for an investigation to be conducted an articulable specific crime must be demonstrated to have occurred.

                So far the accusations involve broad allegations of fraud influence peddling (which is legal), corruption ( which has yet to be specified), and evidence besides vague allegations.

                If valid probable cause is found to be worthy of an investigation I will certainly support it.

                1. No, but in order for an investigation to be conducted an articulable specific crime must be demonstrated to have occurred.

                  So far the accusations involve broad allegations of fraud influence peddling (which is legal), corruption ( which has yet to be specified), and evidence besides vague allegations.

                  Broad? The FARA allegations are specific. Lying on a gun purchase application is specific. We already know criminal investigations have been opened by the FBI on “unverified” allegations of collusion with foreign governments. Among the unverified allegations was the pee pee tape. Hunter’s laptop has been a treasure trove of video/audio recordings, emails and texts, all doing for the FBI what they couldn’t do in 4 years.

                  If valid probable cause is found to be worthy of an investigation I will certainly support it. Probable cause leads to an investigation and the investigation leads to the validity of the allegation(s).

                  In the car business, the Hunter Biden scandal would be considered a lay down. Customer walks onto the lot, points to a car and say I want to buy this car with cash. And you would have us believe we should ignore him.

    2. “Influence peddling is completely legal. “

      You assume so, which is an ongoing problem for those who do not think.

      1. “ Influence peddling is completely legal. “

        You assume so, which is an ongoing problem for those who do not think.”

        I don’t assume so. I know so, because the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled influence peddling is protected 1st amendment activity.

        This was supported by a second ruling in favor of Ted Cruz who essentially made bribery legal.

        1. You are demonstrating your lack of smarts. Influence peddling is legal (its part of how government’s work) but when it extends into personal gain the charge is corruption.

          Biden appears to have gained personally from his influence peddling. Therefore, if the nation followed the rule of law, Biden would be charged and likely convicted of corruption.

          1. “ You are demonstrating your lack of smarts. Influence peddling is legal (its part of how government’s work) but when it extends into personal gain the charge is corruption.”

            No, you’re poorly informed. The Supreme Court ruled this is NOT illegal. Trump has been accused of violating the emoluments clause of the constitution by using his hotels which people with political interests frequented and Trump profited from it.

            The Supreme Court ruled that didn’t violate the clause. This Supreme Court has been very lenient when it comes to corruption in government.

            Nothing Biden has done regarding influencing peddling is illegal or criminal. Turley agrees with that assertion. He just doesn’t mention it often when he’s accusing by insinuating that what he is doing “might” be illegal or criminal.

            If the nation followed the rule of law they wouldn’t be able do charge him with a crime because what he did is not illegal or criminal. Trump proved that multiple times.

            1. Learn what you are talking about. Influence peddling carries with it other things like money. The criminal charge is corruption. The simple use of influence is not corrupt, but it might be immoral. In Biden’s case it is likely corruption of the worst degree. He sold the nation down the drain. That he had intermediaries doing the dirty work doesn’t change what he did.

              1. “ Learn what you are talking about. Influence peddling carries with it other things like money.”

                You obviously don’t learn about what you’re talking about. Using money IS considered free speech by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. This was affirmed by the citizens United ruling. You didn’t know that did you? I wouldn’t be surprised.

                “ The criminal charge is corruption.”

                Corruption requires a very specific charges mere corruption is not enough to levy a charge.

                “ In Biden’s case it is likely corruption of the worst degree. He sold the nation down the drain.”

                “Likely” meaning you don’t know jack squat. You say “likely corruption of the worst degree” but you can’t articulate exactly what that is and what statute. Which means you are just making it up because there is no evidence of your claim.

                “ That he had intermediaries doing the dirty work doesn’t change what he did.”

                You can’t bring yourself to say what he did because your just making stuff up.

                What exactly did he do that warrants this corruption of the “worst degree” that is in law?

                Obviously you’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about. That’s why you’re known as anonymous the stupid.

                1. Learn the difference.

                  Biden personally benefitting financially from influence peddling: Criminal

                  The country benefitting from influence peddling by a politician: Permitted.

                  You have heard it enough that if you were honest you want an investigation because the big guy gets 10%.

                  Unfortunately, you either don’t have the brain power to make the connections or you are dishonest.

    3. “Influence peddling is completely legal.”

      Blagojevich, sentenced to 14 years in federal prison, begs to differ. So too do the pages and pages of lobbyists and politicians convicted of influence peddling.

      1. Blagojevich, was caught selling a senate seat in exchange for something of value. Which is not influencing peddling. That’s direct bribery, not influence peddling.

          1. “ He was peddling influence. The criminal charge was corruption. Do you know anything?”

            No, he was selling a vacant senate seat.

            “ On April 2, 2009, a federal grand jury issued a 19 count indictment; 16 of which named Rod Blagojevich, including racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion, conspiracy, attempted extortion, and making false statements to federal agents.”

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges

            Influence peddling was not part of the charges against him.

            “ At retrial, found guilty of 11 charges of corruption related to Obama seat and 6 charges related to pay-to-play dealings for a hospital. Found not guilty of one count and jury deadlocked on one count of pay-to-play related to road construction. Jury deadlocked on one charge of fraud related to Rahm Emanuel.”

            1. From the left’s trusted source, Wikipedia

              “As of December 2008, the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich was accused of influence peddling in attempting to sell the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.[4]”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_peddling

              What people did and the actual charges placed against them don’t necessarily use the same words

              1. He was ACCUSED of influence peddling, but not charged. He was charged with bribery, fraud, and extortion. Learn the difference between an accusation and a charge.

                1. He was ACCUSED of influence peddling, but not charged. He was charged with bribery, fraud, and extortion.

                  According to the FBI, they received a tip that Blagojevich was soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for state official actions. It doesn’t matter whether you call it influence peddling or something else. What matters is if the information and potential evidence they received is probable cause to open an investigation. In the Blagojevich case, it did. Interestingly, they were able to gather a ton of evidence after opening an investigation. In the alleged Biden scandal, it is Hunter (and by extension, Joe) that have provided a ton of evidence, potentially saving the FBI and prosecutors time and money.

                  Coming up, the chain of events that led the FBI to investigate Blagojevich, how the FBI collected the evidence used to convict the former governor, and excerpts from a court-authorized tape recording of Blagojevich.

                  But first, let’s go back to October 2008, when the FBI received information that indicated Blagojevich was soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for state official actions. That information came from John Wyma—a close friend and associate of Blagojevich—who was participating in fundraising meetings for the politician’s campaign committee.

                  Armed with the information Wyma had come forward with, along with other information investigators had obtained, the FBI received authorization from the U.S. District Court in Chicago to install microphones in Blagojevich’s campaign office. Case agent Daniel Cain says wiretaps were also installed on telephones used by Blagojevich and his associates.

                  Cain: It was critical that we were able to file the affidavit with information that convinced a judge that there was sufficient probable cause in order to install the microphones and have the wiretaps. This allowed agents to surreptitiously listen and record conversations that could serve as evidence of fraud and extortion.
                  https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-inside-rod-blagojevich-public-corruption-case.mp3/view

                  Learn the difference between an accusation and a charge.

                  Yeah, one typically leads to an investigation and the other is typically a result of an investigation.

                2. As I said before but you didn’t get it then but get it now, influence peddling is not the charge. It is permitted until some type of corruption is involved and then it becomes criminal.

                  You are very slow. You started off with the Supreme Court found influence peddling legal. Of course it is until the benefit goes into the politician’s pocket.

  18. RE: “What about the son?” A combination of incontrovertible facts, signficant loss of market share, viewership and ratings, a launch into oblivion, and being cast in an unfavorable light by one’s own employer.

Leave a Reply to Kristin Cancel reply