Leaving all the corruption questions to the side, why was Biden — elected to serve the Americans as Vice President — so active in trying to dictate the internal affairs of Ukraine, to the point of demanding the firing of the chief prosecutor? Why does the US try to rule everyone?
Spare me the bullshit of how Biden (and the EU) wanted the prosecutor fired because he wasn’t vigilant enough about fighting corruption. The US & EU don’t care if their puppet regimes tolerate domestic corruption. Why is the US VP dictating who the Ukrainian prosecutor should be?
For those who believe Biden's motive in demanding the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor -- and withholding $1b in aid to force it to happen -- was Biden was just deeply worried about Good Governance in Kiev, the prosecutor who replaced him was a joke:
Not only was the new prosecutor appointed after Biden coerced the Ukrainian Government someone with no legal experience as a prosecutor, he himself had a history of corruption.
Whatever the motive of Biden/EU was in demanding his change, it wasn't noble anti-corruption fervor.
It is true that getting rid of the old prosecutor was EU policy, not just Biden's. And it's still unclear if that move benefited Burisma. But what is 100% clear is the motive given by Biden - I wanted a Good Government prosecutor in Ukraine to release the aid - is total bullshit.
And finally, for now: anyone who is dumb enough to believe Biden didn't realize the problem with his interfering in Ukrainian affairs while Hunter was with Burisma, NYT chastised Biden about it in 2015 and said it was ruining the credibility of US policy
I'm not saying this is some colossal rather than an ordinary scandal. It would be only if proven Biden did this to benefit Hunter or himself. But the emails, by all appearances, are real, and Dems & journalists have united to create a toxic climate where none of this can be asked
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Is there a single journalist willing to say with a straight face they believe the emails relating to the Bidens are either fabricated or otherwise fraudulently altered, but the Bidens just aren't saying so? There has to be some limits to your willingness to go to bat for them.
When you report a huge archive, there's no way to prove the negative that none of it is altered. You investigate & confirm as much as you can, then use your journalistic judgment. The only way you get confirmation is when the subjects of the reporting don't deny the authenticity.
When we reported the Snowden archive, we knew it was genuine, but breathed a huge sigh of relief when NSA didn't claim the docs were fake.
The same was true with our Brazil reporting over the last year: publishing private messages from corrupt Bolsonaro officials & prosecutors.
The overwhelming victory by Evo Morales’ party in the Bolivia election highlights a key propagandistic scam: when westerners like @SecPompeo & @Yascha_Mounk want to undemocratically change the governments of other nations though coups, they lie & say they’re supporting democracy.
That the US-approved removal of Morales by force could be described with only one word — “coup” — was undebatable because Morales indisputably got more votes, just like his party again did yesterday. If you said this wasn’t a coup, it’s because you don’t believe in democracy.
This is so true about the subtle propagndistic ways US news outlets talk about democracies in the Global South versus western countries:
Not even Hunter or the Biden campaign claims the emails are forgeries - which they’d obviously do if they were. And of course it’s relevant whether Biden’s son tried or in fact succeeded in getting his dad to do his dirty work in Ukraine for cash. Not cataclysmic, but newsworthy.
A journalist’s credibility does not depend on how popular they are among Democratic partisans. Craving that popularity is almost certain to lead journalism into corrupted realms. Enduring and dismissing partisan Twitter attacks is a necessary part of being a good journalist.
Look carefully at what Twitter is saying to justify censoring the Biden story. If applied consistently, it’d mean that some of history’s most consequential journalism — the Pentagon Papers, WikiLeaks’ war logs, Snowden docs, Panama Papers, our Brazil Archive — would be banned.
So much of the important journalism you read is based on a source providing to journalists “content obtained without authorization.”
Beyond the above examples, why doesn’t Twitter ban links to the NYT’s stories based on Trump’s tax returns, “obtained without authorization?”
Please don’t be deceived. The authoritarian mindset expressed below — celebrating mass censorship of journalism they dislike — is absolutely a significant strain in current US liberalism, which is why so many of them cheered the stunning censorship yesterday:
The NY Post story was a minor, largely redundant report even if the docs are real.
The extreme act of censorship by tech giants to suppress it, cheered on by journalists, is a major story of historic proportions.
They always had this undemocratic power; today they used it.
Releasing the private pictures of Hunter Biden is disgusting. That serves no legitimate purpose. But the Burisma emails are of obvious public interest. Has anyone even alleged that those emails are anything other than authentic?
If foreign hackers working for, say, Iran or Venezuela or China hacked into the Trump Organization and obtained authentic & incriminating docs and gave them to media outlets with the explicit goal of defeating Trump, does anyone think media outlets would hesitate to report them?
Journalists have one core function: to provide the public with true information about powerful people and entities that pertains to the public interest.
The minute they start promulgating guidelines to allow them to abstain or refrain from doing that, journalism is corrupted.
It’s appropriate for partisan bloggers or operatives to use Twitter to try to bully, coerce, shame journalists out of reporting negative information on their candidate. That’s their role.
Just like it’s the role of journalists not to let Twitter popularity shape their reporting.