Det har længe været kendt, at Joe Biden har solgt ud af amerikanske interesser for egen økonomiske vinding skyld. Joe Bidens familiemedlemmer har altid høstet frugt af Joe Bidens politiske indflydelse – notorisk er hans søn Hunters bestyrelsespost i det ukrainske energiselskab Burisma. Nu har en Republikansk ledet komite – ja, de er alle Republikanere – i Repræsentanternes Hus afdækket et konglomerat af skuffeselskaber, hvori der fra udenlandske interesser indgår penge, som flyttes rundt for til sidst at ende i familien Bidens lommer. Gregg Jarrett skriver for Fox
Documents show that over $10 million in foreign money flowed like a river into more than 20 shell companies and LLCs created for the Bidens’ financial benefit, said Comer. Much of it was then surreptitiously shuffled around various accounts before it landed in the hands of nine members of the president’s family. Those companies have no apparent business purpose other than to serve as a receptacle for hiding cash derived from suspected influence peddling schemes overseas.
The incriminating evidence comes from thousands of subpoenaed banking records, wire transfers, and electronic transactions contained in more than 170 suspicious activity reports (SARs) that were flagged by banks and sent to the criminal division at the Treasury Department. The Biden administration refused to cough up those records until the Committee recently forced its hand. There are still more documents to be examined, suggesting that the Biden profiteering could far exceed the millions of dollars already tracked.
In Washington, where corruption and graft are endemic, the Bidens appear to have taken it to dizzying heights. While greed was the likely motive, concealment was the key to success. In just one deal alone more than a million dollars involved 16 different wire transfers ran through five different bank accounts before the funds eventually landed in Biden family hands. This and other transactions were well hidden “in a web of deception and corruption,” noted committee member Rep. Byron Donalds. Cycling through this many companies serves no other purpose but to disguise illicit, if not illegal, payments, he concluded.
Medierne dækker over Biden, som de har gjort det i årevis. Da 50 pinger, aktive som forhenværende, fra efterretningsvæsenet skrev et åbent brev, at historien om Hunter Bidens computer med det stærkt kompromitterende materiale lignede russisk desinformation, skrev medierne at det derfor var russisk desinformation, hvilket de sociale medier brugte som undskyldning for at kvæle historien og således holde amerikanerne i uvidenhed, som de kastede deres stemme i det amerikanske præsidentvalg i 2020.
Jonathan Turley gav et par eksempler på deres logik i en artikel (der vil blive citeret fra igen længere nede) da Republikanerne præsenterede deres foreløbige afsløringer af Biden familiens økonomiske dynamik
Despite showing nine Biden family members allegedly receiving funds from corrupt figures in Romania, China and other countries, The New Republic quickly ran a story headlined “Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden.”
The New York Times ran a piece headlined, “House Republican Report Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President Biden.” That is putting aside evidence against all the family members around Joe Biden. It also ignored that other evidence clearly shows Biden lied about his family not receiving Chinese funds or that he never had any knowledge of his son’s business dealings.
Indtil det er bevist, er der ingen historie. Journalistik består åbenbart kun af at referere kendelser fra landsretten. Graver-grupperne kan godt gå hjem. Forestil Dem at Woodward & Bernstein skulle arbejde ud fra samme logik. Man behøver nu ikke gå så langt tilbage, da medierne bragte en masse historier om Trump, der ikke blot ikke var bevist, men direkte løgne. Dette hykleri skammer de sig ikke over at præsentere for deres læsere.
Jesse Watters giver her nogle eksempler på, de amerikanske mediers spørgsmål til præsident Joe Biden
Og den artikel af Jonathan Turley Watters refererer til er praktisk nok, den samme, som jeg henviste til i det ovenstående, og der hedder det bla
The fact is that the Times may indeed be trying for another Pulitzer Prize. The newspaper previously won a Pulitzer for the now debunked Russian collusion story. It was later revealed that this story was based on a dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and placed in the media by Clinton officials. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward warned the co-winner The Washington Post that the story was unreliable but was ignored. The Pulitzer Committee refused to withdraw the award.
What Donalds fails to appreciate is that this is sometimes how Pulitzers are made. Roughly 100 years ago, New York Times reporter Walter Duranty won the Pulitzer for his coverage of the Soviet Union despite serving as an apologist for Joe Stalin. Duranty refused to report on actual conditions from mass killing to starvation in the “worker’s paradise.”
Thus, when the Soviets were starving to death as many as 10 million Ukrainians, the Times ran a Duranty story with the headline “Russians Hungry but Not Starving.” He not only spinned Stalin labor camps that killed millions but also attacked reporters who sought to uncover the truth.
Years later, Ukraine and various groups demanded that Duranty’s prize be rescinded, but the Committee insisted that there was no “clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception.”
What is most impressive about this week is that all but a few outlets seem to be angling for the next Duranty Pulitzer.
In discussing modern Russian propaganda, researchers at the Rand Corporation described it as having “two distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions.”
Ja, det lyder bekendt Jonathan.
Skriv et svar