Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (4 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their report on the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine.

Baturina is referenced in the 87-page report, which was released Wednesday, addressing her payment to Biden’s investment firm in early 2014.

“Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor,” it said in providing background on the businesswoman.

The report described her involvement with Biden as “a financial relationship,” but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made.

The probe also found that Baturina sent 11 wires transfers between May and December 2015 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA, a tech startup that filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.

Nine of those 11 wire transfers were first sent to Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment firm founded by Biden and Chris Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, before being transferred to BAK USA.

Hunter Biden received $3.5M wire transfer from Russian billionaire: Senate report

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their r…

nypost.com

We all know their is massive corruption on both sides of the aisle. Here is an alleged allegation against Hunter Biden who was allegedly enriching himself because his Dad was Vice President.

 

[Saintman2884]

These people who style themselves as 'outside the mainstream media' are just as big of grifters as those inside. They are merely panhandling to a different audience.

I suppose VICE News falls into that category, on more then an occasional status, no or any other far-left/far-right fringe online news sites like Code Pink, Daily Kos, Storm Front?

And you're first paragraph in your-above reply post doesn't exactly paint or describe the MSM outlets in nice, uncompromising, lets say more then respectable depictions from a larger, expansive societal perspective. Their hustlers just like those promoting, out-of-the-mainstream "hard-hitting" extremely partisan political viewpoints.

Overall, what does that tell you about the state, credibility, reliability, and trust fullness of our MSM news outlets, whether its cable, digital, online blog sites where a majority of those involved are ethically/morally compromised, are more concerned about how sensationalist stories will get them ratings then the truth? Or emphasizing a specific political viewpoint or idealogy and defend it by saying, "We're still not as bad as Fox News?"

That line of reasoning is pathetic, self-righteous, self-serving and disgustingly elitist, in its intentions. Its morality is glaringly weak too.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I suppose VICE News falls into that category, on more then an occasional status, no or any other far-left/far-right fringe online news sites like Code Pink, Daily Kos, Storm Front?

And you're first paragraph in your-above reply post doesn't exactly paint or describe the MSM outlets in nice, uncompromising, lets say more then respectable depictions from a larger, expansive societal perspective. Their hustlers just like those promoting, out-of-the-mainstream "hard-hitting" extremely partisan political viewpoints.

Overall, what does that tell you about the state, credibility, reliability, and trust fullness of our MSM news outlets, whether its cable, digital, online blog sites where a majority of those involved are ethically/morally compromised, are more concerned about how sensationalist stories will get them ratings then the truth? Or emphasizing a specific political viewpoint or idealogy and defend it by saying, "We're still not as bad as Fox News?"

That line of reasoning is pathetic, self-righteous, self-serving and disgustingly elitist, in its intentions. Its morality is glaringly weak too.

I'm not quite sure I follow. Anyway, I get most of my news from the BBC. Basically all media in the U.S. -- even the Glenn Greenwalds and Jimmy Dores -- are just selling what their viewers are willing to buy (like/subscribe/comment).

Yes, the state of all media in the U.S. is a disaster. It's more entertainment based and has been for a very long time. It also doesn't help that...

 

[Saintman2884]

I'm not quite sure I follow. Anyway, I get most of my news from the BBC. Basically all media in the U.S. -- even the Glenn Greenwalds and Jimmy Dores -- are just selling what their viewers are willing to buy (like/subscribe/comment).

Yes, the state of all media in the U.S. is a disaster. It's more entertainment based and has been for a very long time. It also doesn't help that...

I was referring to the perceived claim that Vice News or Vice land TV network, which sort of.prides itself for its wannabe, Hunter S. Thompson, "gonzo journalism" which tends to feature or discusses themes more "mainstream" MSM networks tend to ignore, overlook, or regard as fringe, partisan issues. I was saying VICE were just of being grifters, or must be just as sensationalist-based, then trying to discover actual facts surrounding sensitive, complex socio-political issues.

They just pander to different audiences then NYT, Washington Post, CNN, or MSNBC try to attract.

 

[SaintForLife]

Man, I knew Greenwald had been losing the plot for a while, but I hadn't quite appreciated he'd become that much of a bitter hack.

As he quotes above, the media did report that 'dozens of former intelligence officials' had signed a letter 'warning Hunter Biden story could be Russian disinformation' - because that's what happened. But the letter explicitly said they didn't know it was Russian disinformation or whether the emails were genuine or not, noting also that releasing accurate information is a possibility, which was also reported. So even on the face of it, he's misrepresenting what was actually said by deliberately conflating, "Caution, this could be Russian disinformation and may or may not be genuine" with "This is Russian disinformation and is entirely false", which are absolutely not the same thing.

He's falsely asserting they lied: they did not. You could argue they deliberately tried to frame the story as dubious, but considering the source of it was a laptop abandoned and then reaching the NYPost via Rudy Giuliani, there's no framing involved there, it looked incredibly dodgy right off the bat.

And that said, the implication is also that they did nothing but report that. And that is false. First, Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence at the time, also stated that there was no intelligence to support that Russian disinformation efforts were connected to the emails. The media reported that too. Secondly, Greenwald cites multiple outlets, for example, he cites NBC News. OK, well, this is from NBC News in October 2020:

Here's why the media isn't reporting on the Hunter Biden emails

Analysis: Trump complains the media isn't reporting on Hunter Biden's emails. But NBC News met obstacles, including Rudy Giuliani, when it tried.

www.nbcnews.com

It pretty comprehensively covers the story, notes that NBC News themselves were refused copies of the laptop hard drive or the full set of emails, so were unable to confirm the authenticity themselves limiting their reporting but also covers what the WSJ and Fox News who did have access reported, which, well, wasn't much (e.g. from Fox at the time). Because even taking the emails as genuine, they weren't particularly interesting. That is, the reality was the media covering what was being said, and reporting what they were able to confirm and what was newsworthy. It was not the media stating it was definitively Russian disinformation, which, no, not so much, and nothing else.

So he's demonstrably misrepresenting what happened at the time.

And how about not covering this book out now?

And from what he's shared, he's really overselling it. Because the excerpts he has there are two anonymous people confirming the authenticity of some of the emails, a FOI request with the National Property Board of Sweden confirming emails involving them are real, and that a 'third person who had independent access' confirming that that the emails published by the NYPost related to Burisma matched the substance of emails, but even then it has to note that "this person was not in a position to compare the published emails word-for-word to the originals".

So he's just wildly setting up a false premise - that the emails were ignored entirely by the media at the time, which they were not, on the grounds that they were definitively Russian disinformation, which was never a position the media took - and then trying to argue that a book which shows that some of the emails were genuine, and that the reported ones are broadly accurate in substance according to a 'third person', is somehow a game changer... which it isn't, because his premise is false from the start.

I can't belive you are using an article from Ken CIA Dilanian in response to my post. Even still thats some weak parsing.

Ken Dilanian sent CIA drafts of stories

<p>Ken Dilanian routinely sent drafts of his stories to and closely worked with members of the CIA press office on direction of his stories prior to publication while he was a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, <a...

www.politico.com

The CIA's Mop-Up Man: L.A. Times Reporter Cleared Stories With Agency Before Publication

A Los Angeles Times intelligence reporter routinely submitted story drafts to the CIA for review.

theintercept.com

Ex-Tribune reporter said to have 'collaborative' relationship with CIA

A website cofounded by journalist Glenn Greenwald has published emails suggesting that a former Tribune Washington bureau national security reporter submitted some of his work to CIA officials prior to publication, a practice banned by many media outlets, including Tribune.

www.latimes.com

 

[SaintForLife]

This board is nuts. Have you scholars of the internet stopped for one second to think Glenn Greenwald may have a unique perspective, and qualifications to discuss the smearing of leaks(leakers), and their distribution.

All those outlets did run with it being a Russian disinformation campaign, and tried hand wave the entire issue away. You can try to parse the letter now, but the headlines are there for everyone to see.

I can completely understand Glenn feeling some kind of twisted at Jim Clapper(who very obviously lied to Congress) once again making stuff up.

I mean lets try to have a deeper discussion into this instead of just trying to attack to the source.

Why do you think Jim Clapper, and those others released a letter trying to float the leak as Russian disinformation? The source was a laptop that to anyone's knowledge never left America, nor was in possession of a foreign government.

I feel like I must be taking crazy pills. I have a memory of twitter censoring this story when it broke. The argument that this was reportedly on fairly and accurately in mainstream media is laughable. There was a concerted effort to squash this story from the very beginning.

You are correct, but plenty of people here get their news from the very same people that were pushing the Hunter Biden story is Russian disinformation. So it's not surprising they are in denial or just have no idea what the truth is. We have never had that many members of the media, big tech, and former intelligence officials work together to try to censor or discredit a story to help a presidential candidate win the election.

They don't want to get into a deeper discussion because that would require discussing specific details which they know are not on their side. Their favorite thing to do is attack the messenger and never specifically refute any details.

 

[SaintForLife]

There's no question that there was an orchestrated effort to summarily dismiss the story in left leaning/mainstream media and social media as Russian disinformation that shouldn't be paid any attention. What they were doing was pretty transparent and the reasoning behind why it was done is obvious and yeah, it's all bad.

I don't follow Greenwald closely and I don't just dismiss what he says because it's him or anything.. but I wish he wouldn't cite people like Tucker Carlson who I know also just makes shirt up sometimes.

Who else covered this story besides Tucker? Do you think Glenn has the same kind of views as Tucker or does he go on his show because other shows won't allow those subjects to be discussed?

Have you seen any discussions on any other networks about how the key witness against Assage admitted that he lied?

 

[SaintForLife]

I don’t care enough about this to have a deeper discussion, sorry. Glenn has sacrificed his integrity to carry the banner of his new found conservative audience. He won’t mention anything that would displease them. So no, I don’t care about him or what he has to say.

Yeah okay. It's very transparent when you use this deflection technique or the silly axe to grind when you can't specifically refute something. You do it so often you probably don't realize how obvious it is.

 

[SaintForLife]

All I'm sure of is that I'm still as uninterested in this story as I was during the election. Still don't know why this matters, what exactly it has to do with President Biden (not Hunter) or why this would have changed anybodies votes.

Sorry, but after 2016, nobody was going to be interested in a hyped up email "scandal" from a dubious source or let that effect their vote. One published book and Greenwald having a melt down on twitter isn't going to change that.

Yeah why would anyone care about people buying influence with Joe through Hunter.

 

[SaintForLife]

These people who style themselves as 'outside the mainstream media' are just as big of grifters as those inside. They are merely panhandling to a different audience.

And we are supposed to trust the people inside the mainstream media? The same media that ignored/lied to the American public for 20 years about Afghanistan being a disaster?

 

[SaintForLife]

No, Greenwald is among the worst, Brandon. He’s way off the charts as a political hack. He should be roundly ignored, and he generally is by most folks. He’s not a journalist by trade, he has zero journalism ethics.

Greenwald is an award winning journalist who was liked by the left until Trump came along. Greenwald has always reported on first amendment issues, national security issues and civil liberties.

What changed was the right and the left when Trump came along. It used to be the left that supported exposing national security, civil liberties & first amendment violations and the right supported the national security state, the FBI, & the CIA. Once Trump came along and the left saw they could harm Trump through those agencies then they switched places with the right.

Now it's the left wingers that believe anything that comes from the FBI, CIA, Senate Intelligence Committee even with zero evidence. Look at how many former CIA/FBI, law enforcement types that work for CNN, MSNBC, etc. They used operation mockingbird in the past, but there no need for it now when those networks can parrot the FBI or CiA talking points.

Operation Mockingbird - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

And we are supposed to trust the people inside the mainstream media? The same media that ignored/lied to the American public for 20 years about Afghanistan being a disaster?

I literally said no in the same sentence you quoted. Anyway, why are you still fixated with these tabloid topics... I'd hope for something more relevant like how its a bad idea for the Democrats to keep raising the debt ceiling (and it is!).

What changed with Greenwald was where he could score the most clicks.

 

[RobF]

I can't belive you are using an article from Ken CIA Dilanian in response to my post. Even still thats some weak parsing.

The article shows Greenwald was misrepresenting what the media actually said in covering the story, as can easily be seen by reading it, and as I already laid out.

It's literally irrelevant whose name is on the byline in that context, because it's the content that shows Greenwald's assertions to be false. It could have 'From the CIA' on the byline, and it'd still show that Greenwald is being dishonest about what was reported. Because the name on the byline doesn't change the content of the article, which is an example of what was actually being reported at the time, and which was clearly misrepresented by Greenwald.

 

[Saintman2884]

I literally said no in the same sentence you quoted. Anyway, why are you still fixated with these tabloid topics... I'd hope for something more relevant like how its a bad idea for the Democrats to keep raising the debt ceiling (and it is!).

What changed with Greenwald was where he could score the most clicks.

If thats one thing you can say he's guilty of, then I suppose Greenwald is among pretty good company because he's hardly the first mainstream writer, MSM commentator(CNN, MSNBC, and FOX) or comedian, satirist to turn up the self-righteous, angry one-sided partisan echo chamber even more over the past 10-15 years. I mean, if you were to watch Stephen Colbert's show, you'd think Joe Biden, Harris, and _______ liberal Democrat can do no wrong and are incapable of making bad policy decisions. Colbert has become so predictable, frankly, its kind of sad but amusing at the same time.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If thats one thing you can say he's guilty of, then I suppose Greenwald is among pretty good company because he's hardly the first mainstream writer, MSM commentator(CNN, MSNBC, and FOX) or comedian, satirist to turn up the self-righteous, angry one-sided partisan echo chamber even more over the past 10-15 years. I mean, if you were to watch Stephen Colbert's show, you'd think Joe Biden, Harris, and _______ liberal Democrat can do no wrong and are incapable of making bad policy decisions. Colbert has become so predictable, frankly, its kind of sad but amusing at the same time.

Stephen Colbert is a talk show host. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

"Journalist."

 

[Saintman2884]

Stephen Colbert is a talk show host. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist.

Stephen Colbert is a talk show host. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist.

Oh, I think more then a few people, even some Americans who watch his show regularly and concur with his political views, might agree that Colbert stopped being just a talk show host a long time ago when he made his political views laced with commentary, hand-picked like-minded celebrities or even politicians who come on his show and agree with his views, almost like a echo chamber. John Stewart has a new talk show right now on Apple and he's not even trying to mix his political views in with humor, he's all too serious with his guests, discussing socio-political issues in a manner not unlike Anderson Cooper, or any other _____ CNN, FOX, or MSNBC commentators or "journalists".

Once Colbert got his foot through the door, started hosting his own TV show and began giving the appearance, aura, and pretense of presenting his views on politics almost akin to Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN, he became just as much a potential target for criticism in as much as Greenwald, Tucker Carlson, or Sean Hannity. Saying he's just a " talk show host" is perhaps a not completely honest take on what function or content he uses it for.

Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and Ellen Degeneres are also "talk show hosts", but their all nowhere near as serious, or as overtly critical plus their all infinitely more annoying, pretensious or come across as credible-sounding.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Oh, I think more then a few people, even some Americans who watch his show regularly and concur with his political views, might agree that Colbert stopped being just a talk show host a long time ago when he made his political views laced with commentary, hand-picked like-minded celebrities or even politicians who come on his show and agree with his views, almost like a echo chamber. John Stewart has a new talk show right now on Apple and he's not even trying to mix his political views in with humor, he's all too serious with his guests, discussing socio-political issues in a manner not unlike Anderson Cooper, or any other _____ CNN, FOX, or MSNBC commentators or "journalists".

Once Colbert got his foot through the door, started hosting his own TV show and began giving the appearance, aura, and pretense of presenting his views on politics almost akin to Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN, he became just as much a potential target for criticism in as much as Greenwald, Tucker Carlson, or Sean Hannity. Saying he's just a " talk show host" is perhaps a not completely honest take on what function or content he uses it for.

Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and Ellen Degeneres are also "talk show hosts", but their all nowhere near as serious, or as overtly critical plus their all infinitely more annoying, pretensious or come across as credible-sounding. Colbert also used to work as a news reporter in South Carolina, he just later found out that slick, biting political satire mixed with comedy aimed for mostly liberal audiences first on The Daily Show, then his own late-night " talk show", presenting himself as being more-serious then he lets on most of the time was a better way of airing his grievances then continue being some boring, unknown, local TV network reporter in South Carolina.

If he'd stayed on that route, its very likely this country would've never have heard of him.

You do understand that late-night talk show hosts and journalists have vastly different responsibilities, right?

 

[Saintman2884]

You do understand that late-night talk show hosts and journalists have vastly different responsibilities, right?

Yes, I do. That still doesn't mean Colbert shouldn't necessarily be excluded as a potential target for criticism or some people having the audacity to point out that his show is really just a one-sided partisan vehicle for airing his views or commentary on socio-political issues and thats its a constant echo chamber for celebrities, or like-minded politicians who mostly concur with his views. If a comedian/satirist decides or makes a conscious choice to make his talk-show a forum for discussing or debating social and political issues, or constantly engaging in politicians or political groups and make those views a conduit for how viewers will perceive their show, then they deserve to be included or fall under most of the same criteria for how we judge, debate or criticize the opinions or ideas expressed by journalists. Some of you here may not like it or disagree with it, but that's kind of the price you potentially might have to pay if your show goes into a more politicized direction. Thats why there's a different standard for determining how we view overall content Colbert puts out vs. The View.

Of those two talk shows, who's perspective is likely to be taken far more seriously and credibly?


As much as Ive criticized Bill Maher over the years, at least he has the stones to invite, or allow other guests with opinions, beliefs that are very different from his own to his show to get involved in debates or round table discussions, and their more then willing to strive to get their point across verbally or hold their own. Maher has invited people Colbert wouldn't touch, much less even acknowledge in the street if he walked past them, in Steve Bannion, Ben Sasse, Ann Coulter (she's a personal friend of his, BTW). Ricky Gervais, is the only real celebrity, IIRC, that actually was a guest on Colbert's show where their debate got a bit testy and highly verbal, and that was discussing the existence of God(Gervais is a vocal atheist, and Colbert a staunch Catholic). Honestly, Colbert's old boss, Jon Stewart, did a better job inviting on celebrities like Bill O'Reilly with opposing viewpoints even approaching GOP politicians to discuss current events then what Colbert's done.