“Denial is not just a river in Africa.” Those sage words from SNL character Stuart Smalley seemed prophetic this week as ex-MSNBC boss Phil Griffin and ex-CNN boss Jeff Zucker were confronted about their burying of the Hunter Biden story. Their tortured and transparent rationalizations caused an immediate response from some of us who have written about the scandal since its inception. That included Griffin’s almost laughable claim that their approach before the election was justified because “he was never arrested.”
Zucker and Griffin were in full spin mode in explaining why they did not believe that it was simply not worthy pursuing an alleged multimillion dollar influence peddling scheme with foreign interests by the Biden family.
Zucker insisted:
Okay. No, I mean but I mean, that’s the problem…
We did. We did look into it. But first of all, you know, with regard to the son of the candidate, you know, he was the son of the candidate. He wasn’t the candidate. The question that you’ll come back with is, well, but what role did the candidate play in his business dealings? You know, frankly, with ten days or two weeks to go, it was looked at by very credible organizations, including The Wall Street Journal —Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal — and they found nothing at that time.
The problem is that the laptop makes repeated references to access to “the candidate” and millions in obvious influence peddling with Russian, Chinese, and other foreign sources. It is laughable to suggest that CNN would not have pursued such a story involving Trump children.
Joe Biden was not the vehicle of the influence peddling proceeds. He was the object of the influence peddling.
Nevertheless, CNN continued to report President Biden’s repeated and unchallenged claim that “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” Those denials continued even after an audiotape surfaced showing President Biden leaving a message for Hunter specifically discussing coverage of those dealings.
Some of us have written for two years that Biden’s denial of knowledge is patently false. It was equally evident that the Biden family was selling influence and access.
There are emails of Ukrainian and other foreign clients thanking Hunter Biden for arranging meetings with his father. There are photos from dinners and meetings that tie President Biden to these figures, including a 2015 dinner with a group of Hunter Biden’s Russian and Kazakh clients.
People apparently were told to avoid directly referring to President Biden. In one email, Tony Bobulinski, then a business partner of Hunter’s, was instructed by Biden associate James Gilliar not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.”
Instead, the emails apparently refer to President Biden with code names such as “Celtic” or “the big guy.” In one, “the big guy” is discussed as possibly receiving a 10 percent cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm; other emails reportedly refer to Hunter Biden paying portions of his father’s expenses and taxes.
Yet, Zucker maintained:
Okay. So my point is, it’s easy to say we should have spent more time on that. Listen, do I think it’s legitimate to look at. Sure. Do I think that like it’s a legitimate criticism to say that in the ten days, 14 days prior to the election, you didn’t spend enough time on it? Not really.
The problem is that, even after the election, CNN did not even acknowledge the authenticity of the laptop for roughly two years despite key figures confirming the contents.
CNN continued to ignore the story even as more details emerged. The laptop contained details to the extent of his knowledge and involvement. It appears that Biden met with at least 14 of Hunter’s business associates from the U.S., Mexico, Ukraine, China and Kazakhstan over the course of his vice presidency. That includes Hunter’s Mexican business associates, Miguel Aleman Velasco and Miguel Aleman Magnani who visited the West Wing on Feb. 26, 2014. Joe was later photographed with Hunter giving Velasco and Magnani a tour of the White House Brady Press Briefing room.
Even as foreign intelligence involvement and millions in payments were being discussed, CNN engaged in willful blindness under Zucker, who previously admitted that ratings drove the unrelenting anti-Trump focus of his coverage. CNN is currently trying to undo much of Zucker’s work that led to plunging ratings.
Griffin then added his own spin on the refusal of MSNBC to pursue the story:
“He was never arrested. The Justice Department was looking into it, never reported it until he is the son of a candidate. I don’t think it’s a main story until that happens.”
So the millions in influence peddling or criminal acts featured on the laptop was not particularly newsworthy. It was the absence of a perp walk?
That may come as a bit of a surprise to Donald Trump Jr. who was the subject of 24/7 coverage on the Trump Tower meeting, including unsupported claims from CNN and MSNBC legal experts that there was strong evidence of criminal conduct. Some of us pushed back on these claims but CNN and MSNBC did wall-to-wall coverage with the same legal experts for weeks on the criminal enterprise revealed at Trump Tower.
On CNN, viewers were told that this is the long-sought “smoking gun” on collusion. Norm Eisen, a White House ethics czar under former President Obama, invoked the Logan Act — a law from 1799 that makes it a crime for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. (The law is widely viewed as facially unconstitutional).
Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, declared that the meeting “borders on treason.” Others declared it a possible violation of the federal law banning foreign contributions to federal campaigns.
MSNBC justice and security analyst Matthew Miller said Trump Jr. could now go to jail because “it doesn’t have to be money … it can be, potentially, accepting information. So he’s potentially confessing in his statement to committing a crime.”
There was no circumspection or hesitancy at CNN or MSNBC in airing any and all such criminal theories on the meeting. Of course, no such charges were ever brought.
When the transcripts of the meeting came out, the media simply moved on. CNN, which had a bevy of legal analysts who have been flogging the Trump Tower conspiracy for months, ran the headline, “Trump Tower transcripts detail quest for dirt on Hillary Clinton.” Nothing on the great conspiracy or collusion.
Notably, it was still news that Trump’s team wanted to hear about possible criminal conduct. Yet, the media pushed false Russian collusion claims from the Steele dossier that the Clinton campaign funded (while denying that it was doing so). That was not worthy of the attention on the “quest for dirt on Donald Trump.”
Likewise, stories rebutting the laptop allegations were considered important news on the networks. Both CNN and MSNBC eagerly spread the false claim of 51 intelligence experts who declared that the laptop was likely “Russian disinformation.”
That is why SNL’s Stuart Smalley might have been more useful than CNN’s Michael Smerconish in working through these “issues” with the former executives. It all had that Daily Affirmation feel as Zucker and Griffin seemed to assure each other “You’re good enough, you’re smart enough and doggone it, people like you.”
This column also appeared on Fox.com
What these two charlatans are telling us is that they take their marching orders from the Democratic Party. Now they continue to have the gaul to make excuses for their propaganda campaign. What we have here is a couple of clown show clowns trying to cover their asses when their clown pants drop to their ankles. Not even an ounce of remorse for what they did to the nation. Now CNN is trying on occasion to present both sides of the story in an attempt to recapture their falling ratings. Vomiting on stage would have been more acceptable and would smell better.
@Thinkitthrough
That’s what galls me the most: there is not the tiniest shred of remorse. Zero. Is it any wonder people, including me, think a lot of these folks (especially Pelosi) are honest to goodness sociopaths? It is interesting to me that people are so fascinated by the current Netflix show about Jeffrey Dahmer but think folks like these idjits or Pelosi et. al. are somehow their guardian angels. You can’t be this nasty and duplicitous in public and then go home and somehow transform into a healthy, loving, and compassionate person. Healthy, loving, people do not have the capacity for this *at any time*. They wouldn’t be able to bear the guilt. We have biiiig problems in this country.
I wasn’t alive in the feudalist age, but I would imagine these were the same types of people that defended and praised the king even after having to give up their wives the night after their weddings.
‘Prima nocta is a shortening of the Latin phrase jus prima nocta or “right of the first night.” This gave the ruler the right to bed any female subject regardless of social rank on her wedding night.’
dgsnowden,
ruler of a small country
Turley claims the information was suppressed. Not so. There’s a difference between suppressing information and ignoring information that has no relevance. Hunter Biden’s actions are NOT illegal. Whether President Joe Biden knew or not is not illegal either. This whole narrative is about smearing the president with allegations and insinuating that his activities and those of his son seem criminal. Turley and the rest of the MAGA nuttier are claiming Joe Biden and Hunter Biden guilty of a crime be mere allegation. This is contrary to Turley’s own claims that such notions are wrong and shouldn’t be alleged until concrete proof of a crime is presented , you know that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing he screamed about when Trump was being impeached. This is why Turley is a massive hypocrite. He’s enabling the narrative that Biden is already guilty of something.
Svelaz, you can cover it with rose petals but there’ no getting away with Joe saying he had no contact with Hunter’s business partners when there is ample evidence that he did. You and Joe try to separate Hunter’s actions from Joe’s but we know that they are both peas in the same pod and they both had the same buddies. Your downplaying of their relationship does not speak well of an intelligent desire to ascertain what is real about millions of dollars being paid to Hunter with Joe’s full knowledge of what was occurring. You told us for years about how Trump was a Russian stooge. Do to your past dramatic exclamations should we now somehow consider anything you have to say to have any value. The scent of your trail proceeds you.
Thinkitthrough,
“ Svelaz, you can cover it with rose petals but there’ no getting away with Joe saying he had no contact with Hunter’s business partners when there is ample evidence that he did.”
What exactly is illegal if Joe Biden had contact with Hunter Biden’s business partners?
What exactly did Joe Biden do that benefitted them? Nobody is able to say it.
The “China business deals” fell thru before any money was involved. So what exactly is the crime here. “Getting 10% for the big guy” does exactly what? Joe Biden was a private individual when that was being discussed. What is the corruption? Influence peddling? It’s not illegal. Selling access? It’s not illegal either thanks to SCOTUS. So what exactly is the illegality here. No one is able do articulate what it is, even Turley.
Svalaz, according to one of Hunter’s business partners there were ample transfers of money to Hunter and friends. We are supposed to believe you but not Hunter’s partner. You denied that the laptop was for real and now you deny that Hunter received any funds from the Chinese. It seems curious that you have denied these things but Hunter has made no such denial. When did you get the job of Hunter’s defense attorney. Please tell us plainly. Do you believe that the CNN and MSNBC have any validity in their presentations of innocence. One sentence condemning their collusion with the Democratic party would go along way toward boosting your claim of being a fair and balanced contributor to this blog. One sentence would be all it would take.
“ Svalaz, according to one of Hunter’s business partners there were ample transfers of money to Hunter and friends.”
Ok, so what is illegal about these transfers?
“ You denied that the laptop was for real and now you deny that Hunter received any funds from the Chinese.”
I originally denied that the laptop was for real because there was no credibility to allegations back then. It was a sketchy claim.
Hunter DIDN’T receive funds from the Chinese. Those deals fell thru before any money was given. If you disagree what is your evidence that money was transferred?
Hunter initially denied the allegations about the laptop. He never said he got for money from the Chinese. Those deals fell thru so how can his critics claim the Chinese paid him when the money was never given to him?
“Hunter DIDN’T receive funds from the Chinese. “
DEAL #1: BOHAI HARVEST RST
Payout: estimated $20 million
CEFC $5 Million
https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/chinese-elite-have-paid-some-31m-to-hunter-and-the-bidens/
Tell us where the Post is wrong.
You have a problem. You are dumb and a liar. That is a bad combination.
S. Meyer, the New York Post? Really? They are worse than the national enquirer. After reading thru their articles and the accompanying links to the rest of their “evidence” they didn’t show what I pointed out.
The money that Biden allegedly got was not given to him, but to his business partners. Joe Biden didn’t get any money from the Chinese either. The sad part of your attempt at a rebuttal is still that nothing they did was illegal or criminal.
Despite your poor and incompetent attempts at rebuttal the question of evidence is still not being answered.
The Post is wrong in the fact that all they are doing is insinuating that something criminal or illegal occurred without showing what exactly was the crime or law being broken. They are in the same position as you are. Unable to provide exactly what was they claim is the crime.
The NYPost was right most of the time while the NYTimes was wrong as was the Washington Post. The Post is a good newspaper and provides real reporting. They give companies, names, dates, amounts and other information. Check on it elsewhere.
. He
You said Hunter Biden didn’t receive money from the Chinese. You lied.
Now you want a link to that money and Joe Biden. Ask Bobulinski who was the CEO and will testify. Joe Biden in an attempt to distance himself from the money denied being at certain meetings and denied knowledge. Yet Bobulinski has pictures proving Joe Biden was at these places and the are audio’s proving that Joe Biden like about knowing anything. That by itself is indirect proof because he hid information by lying.
We now have two elements of many that constitute a crime. You denied Chinese money and it is proven. Joe Biden denied any knowledge and he has been proven a liar.
Now, it is up to you to produce what is wrong on the laptop that involves Joe Biden, and what is wrong with Bobulinki’s testimony that involves Joe Biden. There is far more evidence available since there are many third parties that have been involved.
You add nothing but keep asking for more. You are seasoning. That is why almost no one on the blog comes to your rescue providing specific data.
“ The NYPost was right most of the time”
Most of the time? That is not a good reputation to have as a news organization.
“ You said Hunter Biden didn’t receive money from the Chinese. You lied.”
He didn’t, according to the NYP his business partners did. He didn’t get funds from the Chinese. That is according to YOUR source. Bet you didn’t read through the whole thing including their linked stories to the source of the allegations.
Bobulinsky having pictures don’t prove illegality. What do they prove S. Meyer? What crime is being alleged here?
“ We now have two elements of many that constitute a crime.”
What is the crime then? You keep saying “a crime”. What crime is it that this evidence proves S. Meyer?
It’s hilarious that you STILL can’t articulate exactly what the crime is.
Bobulinky’s testimony doesn’’t show anything that is a crime. All it does is say Joe met with him. is that a crime? Come on S. Meyer you should be able to tell us what this crime is since you know a crime has been committed. You keep saying it has.
“ The NYPost was right most of the time”
Most of the time? That is not a good reputation to have as a news organization.”
Most of the time is the best one can get out of any news organization.
Next time you quote from the left wing media remember your comment. They were wrong most of the time when they dealt with Trump and his administration. You make yourself look like a fool using media that is mostly wrong.
““ You said Hunter Biden didn’t receive money from the Chinese. You lied.”
He didn’t, according to the NYP his business partners did.”
Stupidity has no limits. When one discusses RICO, one recognizes that frequently there are many intermediaries.
However, in the past proof was shown that the cash flow went through many banks ending up in Hunter’s account. Your memory is terrible.
“What is the crime then?”
As a starting point, influence peddling for personal financial benefit in the employ of the government.
S. Meyer,
“ “What is the crime then?”
As a starting point, influence peddling for personal financial benefit in the employ of the government.”
Influence peddling Is not illegal. It’s not a crime either. He was not employed by the government. Try again.
You left out the part about deriving personal benefits while employed by the government.
You can’t seem to deal with more than one thought at a time.
“ ““ You said Hunter Biden didn’t receive money from the Chinese. You lied.”
He didn’t, according to the NYP his business partners did.”
Stupidity has no limits. When one discusses RICO, one recognizes that frequently there are many intermediaries.”
You can’t cite what crime under RICO S. Meyer, discussing RICO says nothing about what in the law was violated.
“Many intermediaries” is not a crime. What are you babbling about? You’re looking pretty stupid trying to justify your word salad.
Is Professor Turley questioning whether Hunter or Joe Biden are guilty of a crime or that news organizations have an obligation to investigate and report news?
Turley has been flogging this dead horse for nearly two years. He’s claiming corruption and influence peddling schemes that even Trump’s own kids have engaged in influence peddling just the same. He’s been strangely silent about it. Likely due to the fact that it’s legal and nobody cares. It’s not a scandal.
Turley also flogged Hillary’s e-mails, Benghazi and told everyone Trey Gowdy had her before her 11 hours testimony. Of course after her testimony and not claiming the 5th after 11 hours Turley said nothing. He moved on to something else. Turley will do anything to deflect the almost daily evidence that Trump will face.
Fishwings,
It’s more likely Turley pushed yet another Hunter Biden piece because of Trump ranting incriminating letter to the j6 committee still falsely claiming the election was rigged and stolen. It has already been shown it has not.
Turley still hasn’t been able to articulate exactly what this corruption is, what is the crime? Lying about knowing of Hunter Biden’s deals? How is that illegal. Trump lies all the time yet Turley is dead quiet on his many false claims.
Svelaz & Fishwings; Turley’s paid obsession over the “Hunter Biden Scandal” has become pathetic. He virtually ignores the BIG political stores like Trump getting subpoenaed to testify, Durham making an ass of himself in court on Friday, and Trump’s endless promotion of the Big Lie. He uses the “Hunter Biden Scandal” to attack everyone on Fox’s hit list, especially non-Trump media. It’s become sad, really, because, as you both point out, Turley can’t even articulate what crimes have been proven, much less any way to tie them to Joe Biden. Does that stop Fox? No.They must do something, anythng, to divert attention away from Trump and his proven crimes.
Gigi, if you read properly you would know that Professor Turley on many occasions has questioned the wisdom of Trumps actions. Anyone who frequents this blog would know that he pulls no punches when it comes to Trump. What you can’t stand is someone who also doesn’t pull his punches on your friends at CNN and MSNBC. You should wring that wash rag out before it smears another clean plate.
There is little relationship between what Gigi writes and what has happened or been said on the blog. Her rants remain unchanged no matter what is said at time.
“questioned the wisdom of Trumps [sic] actions”? NO, he hasn’t. He threw in few milquetoast-esq comments (like “I disagree” to some outrageous statement, instead of screaming about its outrageousness and explaining why it is outrageous) for use in his defense once Trump finally gets convicted and his Fox gig dries up. He ignores the big political stories to try to create things like the “Hunter Biden Scandal”, a favorite Fox diversion. Once Trump is gone, Turley will try to either keep the Fox gig going or score another gig with a less biased media using his limp “criticisms” to try to claim that he wasn’t a Trump flunkie. Turley has NEVER really criticized Trump for his pathological lying, for fundraising over his misconduct, for organizing the conspiracy to overturn the election or for his utter failure as a leader and the damage he did to America. This is why he has lost all credibility. Turley is in the game to benefit Turley because Turley gets well-paid for using his credentials to try to carry out the Fox mission of defending Trump, attacking Democrats and attacking mainstream media. People like you, TIT are the ones who are blind.
FishWings, Hillary Clinton said she did not recall 39 times when questioned about her server. https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/09/02/fbi-hillary-clinton-report-email-investigation-classified-perez-lead.cnn. So here is a person who has been presented as having the intelligence to be president but she can’t recall facts about her own illegal server that contained classified information. She is a pretty crafty gal. Instead of claiming the 5th she just said “I do not recall.” This arouses no curiosity by our FishWings friend. Curious indeed.
The dead horse is you Svelaz. The only question is who is smarter the dead horse or you. I think the former.
I smell the bathroom of WeHo in the above post.
It is laughable to suggest that CNN would not have pursued such a story involving Trump children. That just about covers the situation. Apparently the DOJ and FBI viewed it same as CNN et als. With this deep state in office there is no true applicable rules of laws that will be applied evenly.
These executives, so representative of mainstream left-wing media, exemplify all that is wrong about these times: they threaten our humanity by elevating the perception of virtue over our interest in knowing the truth.
The concept of “Occam’s Razor” basically says when attempting to determine the reason for an event, pick the simplest, most logical possibly.
And It is quite obvious why this story was buried and veracity was not one of those reasons. The truth is the left, particularly the deep state despised Trump and anything that stood in the way of getting rid of him was to be suppressed. And that makes it all ok, even commendable.
Did the Hunter story help or hurt in that regard? No one can say with a straight face that a similar story about any public figure to the right of Lenin would have been suppressed.
And you wonder why people are skeptical of the media?
S@@tlibs, please stop all of the backwards looking moral justification. Just admit your biases and I would respect you more.
Of course that won’t happen, you’ll just call me the latest leftist slur.
I do not want to understand, dialogue and or reconcile with these people, I want a divorce.
antonio
Gee, I wonder why CNN is going down the drain and MSNBC is left just being a racist home to delusional maniacs that get by hating on whites, males, straights and any other person that is to the right of Stalin.
The inanity that exists on MSNBC is such a joke as to be unworthy of discussion by any sentient being. The level of discourse is at such a level that even Rachel Maddow has had to absent herself from it due to embarrassment. When you have Nicole Wallace, Al Sharpton, Joy Reid, Mehdi Hassan, Yamiche Alcindor, Chris Haye and legal fave Elie Mystal you can no longer claim to be a serious platform. Can anyone imagine Elie Mystal being on Laura Ingrham’s show? How about this fool trying to debate Tucker Carlson?
Compare Victor Davis Hanson with Elie Mystal and you will see the difference between real and fake.
Dear Prof Turley,
The headwaters of the river denile begins between a rock and hard place.
President Biden has 3 words for you; ‘don’t f**K with Bidens’. Jack. I know you’re way too nice for this dirty business .. . but I applaud your efforts.
Do you know where the Laptop is, or not?
“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.” *Thomas Jefferson
One would expect a direct and concise response from two communication leaders. Instead, they sound like five year old children who were caught stealing cookies but unwilling to confess.
Oddly JT did not post about Republicans being hypocrites and engaging in blatantly voter fraud.
“DeSantis changes voting rules for some counties hit by Ian, sparking criticism”
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=132436
Sammy, when you can only do “what about” garbage you should be smart enough to know you have no argument and you should keep quiet…but you can’t.
The “mainstream” media has destroyed any trust in their objectivity and professionalism. Unfortunately, there are the true believers who only watch/read/listen to them to the exclusion of rational media. It will take a dedicated effort for the likes of CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NPR, and NY Times to reestablish trust among people who are truly open-minded and rational. Until then, keep reading Prof. Turley, Bari Weiss, Matt Tiaibi, and others who, may be liberal, but are seeking varied voices, facts, and objectivity.
Honestly, at this point I don’t think they can, and any affair involving the same players/connections will be greeted with the same. They change no one’s minds, neither due the trolls here, and their small numbers of faithful are already convinced. This is about money, and it’s the only reason they even utter Trump’s name anymore (our dems essentially do a version of the same desperately trying to hold onto power).
The masks came off. There is no walking back anything from the past 7 years, from Hillary, to defund the police, to CRT, to BLM, to trans-insanity, to lighting the constitution on fire, judges, the border, the ‘transition’ no one asked for or was even aware of (because globalists pulled it out of their behinds), J6, summer riots, and yes, Hunter. I’m sure there’s more, and one would have to be either very wealthy or delusionally in denial to not feel any of it.
The MSM are absolutely complicit in ALL of it, much of it is indeed their fault. We need honest media. We don’t need any of them. It is beginning to hit their bottom line enough for a response, and that that is the motivation is sickening in and of itself.
Oops. Left out the economy and covid. This is a laundry list unlike anything I have ever seen short of countries like Venezuela collapsing.
I will apologize in advance for stating the obvious, but these two gentlemen are lying. The actions of Hunter and the involvement of Joe are undeniable at this point, and were damning two years ago. Still, we have the big cheeses looking the public in the eye and lying through their teeth. Their total control of communication is almost complete and It is pointless to try to change academia. The only hope is to continue the development and propagation of non conformist media and excellent strides have been made. The non-woke position is common sense and therefore attractive. Moral- support non-woke media in every way possible.
Was Trump ever arrested? This is political theatre at its worst. The desperation of the prog/left is palpable.
They can deny it all they want, but eventually the truth will come out. Meanwhile, purely for distraction, they keep piling false accusations on Trump, DeSantis, and any other conservative they can stick in the meat grinder. I don’t know who is more criminal, the corrupt Democratic politicians who commit these crimes, or the idiots who vote for them.
They should all be asked what they would have done if that laptop belonged to Donald Trump Jr.
“He was never arrested. [. . .] I don’t think it’s a main story until that happens.”
And then if he is arrested: “It’s not a story until he’s convicted.”
And if convicted: “Well, we don’t kick a man when he’s down.”
That’s not journalism. That’s rationalization.
Ok, just a preemptive strike here THIS IS TURLEY’S BLOG. He and he alone gets to choose the subject matter. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else .I am sure there are many blogs that reflect your preferred topics. No , it is NOT your job to ” hold Turley accountable”.
To my new Italian friend, thanks for the great comment.
Emotional Italian,
Turley is still subject to criticism and mockery of his views. His claims are quite weak given the fact that influence peddling is legal. Earning millions because you’re a member of the board in a foreign company is not illegal either.
Turley or anyone else has not been able to articulate exactly what is the crime or illegality. Nobody has been able to cite the specific statute or federal laws that allude Joe Biden being “corrupt” or part of a “crime family”. Simply saying he is corrupt is not evidence of criminal conduct. This was never a scandal. Turley wants it to be one so he can push this narrative as a means to distract from the real corruption criminal investigations of Trump.
Lying Troll
When you can’t respond with facts or cogent arguments, you Trumpsters all fall back on the name calling, just like your hero does.
Svelaz,
Unless I am misreading the post, Turley is addressing the blatant hypocrisy and/ or willful blindness of the interviewees. He is not questioning any illegality.
Do you really believe that Joe NEVER discussed any business dealings with his son? Forget any ” evidence”. That defies basic logic.
I am not a Trump guy. If he and any member of his family did anything illegal, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I just wish the ” whatabout Trump” narrative would cease to be viewed as a counterargument to almost everything.
Italian, the problem Turley has with this argument is that he is using Hunter Biden’s deals to insinuate corruption and illegality by talking influence peddling schemes. Influence peddling is NOT illegal. Turley has admitted this in past columns. The Supreme Court has ruled influence peddling is protected speech making it legal provided very specific actions are not done. They narrowed the law so much that Hunter Biden and Trump’s children’s business deals and profiting from their fathers name are NOT a crime.
Here he os insinuating that it is just by complaining that Joe Biden lied about knowing his son’s deals. He’s sowing doubt by accusation on what he “allegedly” did.
The “what about Trump” narrative is relevant because his children and his own dealings are no different than what Turley accuses Joe Biden of. It’s hypocrisy.
The devil is in the details and once they are brought up the whole “corruption” and “criminal conduct” allegations collapse. Turley keeps the narrative vague enough and devoid of important details that allow for the impression that Joe or Hunter Biden are doing something illegal or criminal. That’s what a sophisticated smear looks like.
No evidence has been presented that can survive court scrutiny. This is why the DOJ is struggling to come up with charges on Hunter Biden that will stick. They know the evidence they have is weak at best. That’s not a good sign after four years of investigations.
The hubris of this ignorant person who almost always wrong dissing Professor Turley’s intellectual abilities. He is too ignorant to stop.
S. Meyer, you haven’t offered anything more than nonsensical word salads and ad hominem attacks as arguments. Maybe you should provide actual coherent arguments before complaining.
I’ll let members of the blog determine that for themselves.
“you are constantly engaging in ad hominem.
You never engage in honest discussion.
In the rare instances your posts are not endless insults and actually make assertions of fact
those alleged facts are nearly always demoonstrably false.
You make egregious errors all the time.
You defame and malign people all the time.
You are wrong nearly all the time.
You never apologize for errors.
You never correct errors.
You are the epitome of dishonest discussion.” _JS
Anonymous,
That’s an apt description of S. Meyer. Not me.
““you are constantly engaging in ad hominem.
You never engage in honest discussion.
In the rare instances your posts are not endless insults and actually make assertions of fact”
That is a quote from another that was directed at you and many people agree with that characterization. You can try and turn the tables, but it won’t happen. You have no credibility.
S. Meyer, that other anonymous was describing you to a “t”. he wasn’t wrong.
This is what another person said about you.
“Svelaz – you are constantly engaging in ad hominem.
You never engage in honest discussion.
In the rare instances your posts are not endless insults and actually make assertions of fact
those alleged facts are nearly always demoonstrably false.
You make egregious errors all the time.
You defame and malign people all the time.
You are wrong nearly all the time.
You never apologize for errors.
You never correct errors.
You are the epitome of dishonest discussion.
You are useful to me and other sane posters here – because you state such foolish and obviously incorrect remarks,
that provides an opportunity to debunk them.
But frankly – you are not even particularly good at “disinformation”.”
Many others have made a lot of the same comments about you and they used your name. You can hide, but you can’t change your stripes.
Svelez,
My reference to ” whatabout Trump” was an observation not specifically about this post but, the go to rebuttal from many whenever a Biden Administration member is accused of ANYTHING.
And again, you don’t address the crux of this post. The heads of cnn and msnbc defending burying a very relevant journalistic story. Not necessarily whether it had criminal implications.
You also didn’t answer my question. Do you believe the Joe NEVER discussed Hunter’s business dealings?
Italian,
Turley’s arguments are no different when Trump is accused of anything. Those on the right engage in their own “what about Biden” rebuttals.
So what of the didn’t choose to address the story? What exactly is it that says they were required to cover it? Fox News isn’t required to cover Trump’s problems either. Turley Demetrius think they were supposed to and they are “hiding” the story because they are biased towards Biden. Fox News does this too. I don’t see Turley griping about Fox News “burying” Trump stories that embarrassing or paint him in a negative light.
It’s not illegal or criminal so what’s the problem?
I didn’t know if Joe Biden discussed Hunter Biden’s business deals. When he seemed to it was when he was not in office. That’s not illegal or criminal. So what if he did? Do you think Trump never discussed his own children’s business deals while he was president? They were running his business for him. Was that illegal?, corrupt?
Svelez,
No entity is “required” to cover any story. But if you are a ” journalist” you have an implied duty to cover stories that are of interest to the public.
Again, this is post was NOT ABOUT CRIMINALITY.
I know you don’t have first -hand knowledge as to Joe’s conversations with his son. And to answer your question, it makes a difference because if Joe did, HE LIED. What does your intuition tell you as to whether Joe and Hunter ever had a conversation regarding his business dealings?
I am sure that Trump had similar conversations with his offspring. To deny it, as Biden did, defies common sense. ( sorry to invoke that).
So instead of invoking ” whatabout Trump”, you invoke ” whatabout Fox?”
How about , just for fun, we judge each case on it’s own merits?
“ No entity is “required” to cover any story. But if you are a ” journalist” you have an implied duty to cover stories that are of interest to the public.”
It’s an implied duty. That is still not a requirement that they do. There is no legal obligation if they choose not to. There are other news organizations that can and did cover the story. Turley is griping about their choice. So what?
“ Again, this is post was NOT ABOUT CRIMINALITY.
No it’s not. HOWEVER, Turley is insinuating that it somehow it is.
“ I know you don’t have first -hand knowledge as to Joe’s conversations with his son. And to answer your question, it makes a difference because if Joe did, HE LIED.”
Nobody does. That’s the problem, but that is not stopping Biden’s critics from insinuating a crime was committed or a law was broken because the suspicion is enough proof to allege criminality or illegal activity. So what of he lied? Was he under oath? Is it illegal to lie? Trump does it on a daily basis. Was it illegal, a crime? No. So why would it be any different for Biden?
Sure, we can judge their cases on their own merits. Under what law would that be and what evidence?
“Turley is still subject to criticism and mockery of his views. His claims are quite weak given the fact that influence peddling is legal. “
That is because your ability to understand is lacking.
“Turley is still subject to criticism and mockery of his views. His claims are quite weak given the fact that influence peddling is legal. “
The evidence exists. That doesn’t mean conviction. It means an investigation needs to take place. There are videos, taped phone conversations, pictures, documents, e-mails, and witness statements that Joe Biden is Chairman of a criminal enterprise. All we have to do is investigate like is regularly done with all other suspected criminals.
“ The evidence exists. That doesn’t mean conviction. It means an investigation needs to take place.”
What evidence? Allegations and insinuations are not evidence. Evidence of what?
Making money as a board member of a foreign company ks not a crime. You cite videos, phone conversations, emails etc. none are evidence of a crime or illegal activity. They are not criminals until they are convicted. So you can’t investigate them for being “suspected criminals”. That’s not how the law works. You have to have evidence of a crime and influence peddling od not a crime, neither is making money. So what’s the crime?
“What evidence? Allegations and insinuations are not evidence.”
The evidence suggests Joe Biden received and orchestrated payments for deals with foreign countries that enriched his family crime syndicate and himself. It is the same type of evidence used when almost everyone is investigated for a crime, except in this case, there is direct evidence of a crime where testimony exists along with emails, phone discussions, videos, etc. all leading to a RICO crime, though various other crimes should be considered.
“ The evidence suggests Joe Biden received and orchestrated payments for deals with foreign countries that enriched his family crime syndicate and himself.”
So what’s the evidence? You still have not provided evidence. Suggestions are not evidence.
What is the direct evidence of a crime? What crime and what law was broken? What part of RICO did he violate?
You can’t add 1+ and get 2. That is your problem. The laptop and Bobulinski are two things you should look into. Have you done that?
Anonymous, you’re avoiding the question. You claimed direct evidence of a crime. You are still not able to provide it and instead are trying to deflect from your claim.
What part of RICO did he break? Be specific. You are the one claiming about evidence without being able to cite any. Allegations, suggestions, and hearsay are not evidence.
What is the evidence? What you have “proved” as evidence is nothing more than allegations and innuendo.
You do not know how to use the English language. I am not proving a crime. I am providing evidence so a crime can be investigated. Bobulinski’s statements that tie Joe Biden into Hunter Biden deals is evidence.
Now you can continue being or acting stupid. It’s one or the other.
S. Meyer, you claimed a crime.
“ there is direct evidence of a crime where testimony exists along with emails, phone discussions, videos, etc. all leading to a RICO crime, though various other crimes should be considered.”
What is the crime? You still can’t articulate what exactly is the crime you are claiming needs to be investigated. Bobulinsky’s statements are hearsay. That cannot be admitted in court as evidence. That still doesn’t answer the question of what crime. You CAN’T say what the citrine is while claiming a crime or various crimes were committed. You can call me names all night, but you still can’t say the most basic element of what exactly is the crime that Biden committed. You’re proving you are full of $hit and it shows.
What is the crime S. Meyer? Tell me what it is surely you know since you keep saying a crime was committed.
Anonymous, see how fast your argument collapsed? When you can’t articulate what crime, statute or law Joe Biden violated the evidence everyone claims exists becomes worthless.
Claims of “direct evidence” vaporize the moment you are forced to articulate exactly what that is. This is why Turley’s arguments in this subject are just more useless beating of a dead horse.
The direct evidence is in all the emails, videos, transcripts, testimony, etc. It is now up to investigators to determine if a crime was committed.
When the CEO of the company Bidens were apart of says that Joe Biden was involved, that is evidence. Are you daft or just stupid?
“ When the CEO of the company Bidens were apart of says that Joe Biden was involved, that is evidence. Are you daft or just stupid?”
That’s hearsay dumba$$.
The “direct” evidence you cite doesn’t specifically say what exactly is the crime. What law or statute has been violated? You say RICO but can’t say what part.
None of the videos, emails, or phone calls prove that anything was criminal or illegal. That is the whole problem. You STILL can’t articulate exactly what is the crime.
Again, you have no command of the English language. You don’t know what hearsay is. Bobulinski provided a statement to authorities. That is not hearsay. He will do it in court. That is not hearsay.
You need to learn what hearsay is. There are all sorts of data linking Joe to Hunter and others including some that are now in Jail. Those links are the basis of a RICO case.
First an investigation must take place and then if it gets to trial the prosecutor provides all the evidence that you do not understand and prosecutes. The exact crimes are defined before trial. The prosecutor then tries to prove his case.
What have I said that is wrong?
S. Meyer,
“ You need to learn what hearsay is. There are all sorts of data linking Joe to Hunter and others including some that are now in Jail. Those links are the basis of a RICO case.”.
Bobulinsky claiming Biden said something is hearsay.
Data linking Joe to Hunter doing what? What is the crime under RICO S. Meyer, See, you can’t articulate exactly what the crime is when you are claiming a crime was committed. In order to investigate you first have to provide what they are investigating. Under RICO that would be a crime, WHAT IS THE CRIME?
You cannot provide exactly what the crime is. An investigation must have evidence of a possible crime. Nothing they have done is illegal or criminal. If you disagree then tell is exactly what this crime is or what law did he break citing evidence.
“Bobulinsky claiming Biden said something is hearsay.”
Sworn testimony is not hearsay especially if the person is willing to testify to law officials and the courts.
Your mind is warped.
How do the Biden crimes differ from any other RICO type crime that is investigated?
What crimes? You’re still not saying exactly what the crime is. What part of RICO applies?
What is this direct evidence? Give us this precisely what this evidence is.
President Biden has made his tax returns public. They haven’t shown any money from the alleged deals. So what evidence are you talking about?
What part of RICO doesn’t apply? Joe can deny knowledge and talking about what Hunter did, but that is RICO. Joe is on tape.
LOL!! You don’t have an answer after claiming he committed crimes under RICO. You’re so full of $hit.
You have been given the elements of a RICO case. What is it you do not understand? There is a lot of evidence. The exact crimes will be stated after investigation and before trial. What is it you do not understand?
You laugh out of ignorance.
S. Meyer,
“ You have been given the elements of a RICO case.” You haven’t given any elements of a RICO case at all. What crime under RICO did Biden commit?
You keep saying there is a lot of evidence but provide none other than insinuations, allegations, and hearsay. None of that is evidence.
“ The exact crimes will be stated after investigation and before trial.”
WHAT ARE THE CRIMES S. MEYER? You keep saying there is evidence of crimes and under RICO but you can’t articulate exactly what crimes.
LOL!!!
It’s you who doesn’t understands that you are claiming crimes have been committed, but you can’t say exactly what they are which means you are full of $hit. What are the crimes S. Meyer? You know what they are so it shouldn’t be hard for you to say what they are.
“WHAT ARE THE CRIMES S. MEYER?”
You have to be an idiot not to know what people are looking at. But you are an idiot because this has been told to you many times.
Influence peddling for personal financial benefit while employed by the federal government.
“You can’t cite what crime under RICO S. Meyer, discussing RICO says nothing about what in the law was violated.”
Influence peddling for personal financial benefit while employed by the federal government is a crime.
I love when couples walk hand in hand but not when one walks hand in hand with stupidity. You have a problem, Svellaz.
At this point, Svelaz, all we are wondering is: How much are your Media Matters or DNC handlers paying you to defend the indefensible?
Allen Stewart, It’s quite defensible. The problem is those claiming Biden is corrupt and is part of his criminal family syndicate or whatever cannot articulate exactly what crimes he has committed. It’s very simple. He’s accused of corruption and illegal gains, but nobody can articulate exactly what they are or provide evidence other than allegations and insinuations or hearsay.
S. Meyer keeps claiming there is direct evidence of a crime but can’t say what crime it is. Anyone who can’t say what crimes they are talking about don’t really have an argument other than just make allegations and insinuations of a crime without evidence.
“S. Meyer keeps claiming there is direct evidence of a crime “
Get it straight, the direct evidence is that Joe Biden lied when he said he knew nothing despite the fact that there are pictures and videos showing he did. What Bobulinski has said is direct evidence especially the evidence that is in pictures and words.
One can’t deal with an idiot who cannot get things straight.
influence peddling is legal. Earning millions because you’re a member of the board in a foreign company is not illegal either.
…for a private citizen. For a senator or the Vice President of the United States to be bought, though?
Make no mistake: though you’re trying to make this story about people on the Right wanting Hunter Biden to be dragged into the spotlight because it might (have) embarrass(ed) his father, the story is about what Joe has done.
Oh. And about what the media, Big Tech, and social media did to prevent even the possibility that Hunter’s certainly Joe-embarrassing behavior might come to light during the 2020 election season, when it might have affected people’s voting behavior.
It’s not about whether Hunter is a troubled and morally degraded man (which seems obvious), nor yet whether Hunter broke the law (though, since the DOJ has been steadfast in not investigating despite the evidence of – at minimum – Hunter’s illegal drug use and use of women as paid sexual toys, who can say?). It’s about whether common carriers and journalistic organizations purporting to deliver objective news were contravening their legally and customarily defined roles by creating “scandals” with “evidence” paid for by one candidate against her (in 2016, and then his in 2020) opponent and hiding scandals for which actual evidence existed for another candidate (also in both 2016 and 2020).
And whether a long-serving senator and Vice President, now President, benefited electorally from their action and inaction.
And whether that senator-turned-VP-turned President allowed his influence to be bought by foreign actors.
Jamie,
“ for a private citizen. For a senator or the Vice President of the United States to be bought, though?”
Even if a Senator influence peddling is not illegal according to the Supreme Court. Joe Biden was not a member of the board of a foreign company. Avoiding embarrassment is not a crime.
So what exactly is the corruption, crime that Joe Biden is being accused of? What law did he break?
In order for a criminal investigation to take place evidence of something illegal has to be presented. All that has been presented as evidence are allegations. That’s not enough according to the law.
Take your own advice: This is Turley’s blog, and if you don’t like the comments that he chooses to allow here, including those that criticize his selection of topics, then go somewhere else.
“Whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks!”
Some people simply thrive on being abused and fed crap.
Thank you!
If similar information on a candidate had been delibereately suppressed prior to an election in any other country, the election would have been considered something less than “free and fair,” and if the media and government bureaucrats had misrepresented the revelations in an effort to discredit them, they would have been condemned as both partisan and corrupt.
But not in my country.
CNN was lying for an audience that wanted to be lied to.
Lefties are (for the most part) ugly people with passion but no integrity.