The following story is brought to you courtesy of American Thinker. Click the link to visit their page and see more stories.
Before Twitter decided that removing “harmful” content need only apply to articles that expose the corruption of Joe Biden or anyone affiliated with the Democratic Party, the mainstream media was already doing the bidding for Big Tech.
Last year after President Donald Trump accused former Vice President Joe Biden of having direct knowledge of his son Hunter Biden’s affairs with a Ukrainian Natural Gas company called Burisma, the mainstream media dismissed the allegations as a mere conspiracy talk. For a media that is intent on digging into, dissecting, extrapolating, and distorting every single utterance from Trump, this matter did not require any serious investigative journalism.
Incredibly, Biden was already on record bragging about threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine, unless the prosecutor who was investigating the board of the company that Hunter served on was fired. At a Council on Foreign Relations event in 2018, Biden recalled to the audience his role in having the Prosecutor General Victor Shokin fired, “I said: ‘We’re leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.”
The lack of journalistic curiosity surrounding why it was in our national interest, or under what grounds a sitting United States vice-president had the authority to withhold aid from one of our allies unless the prosecutor from a foreign country was fired, was not something that the mainstream media was willing to explore.
The only plausible explanation for the media’s malpractice is that Joe Biden was likely to be the Democratic nominee for president, and any news that Hunter Biden used his father’s office in a corrupt pay-for-play scheme would be disqualifying. Given that Hillary Clinton’s dishonesty surrounding her email scandal damaged her credibility in 2016, the media was not interested in lending credence to the idea that Biden improperly used his office while he was vice-president.
At a Democratic primary debate last year, Biden emphatically denied any wrongdoing. “My son did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong,” Biden said. Following the debate, CNN wrote this headline, “Joe Biden offers forceful defense of his son’s Ukraine work at Democratic debate.” Evidently Biden’s “forceful” defense was sincere enough for CNN to absolve him of any wrongdoing. Of course, when Trump accurately denied that he colluded with the Russian government to interfere in our election, CNN decided not to believe his “forceful” defense and instead chose to mislead the American people for three years.
The New York Times, apparently satisfied that there was nothing to see, wrote, “…no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor’s dismissal.”
Around the same time as the Times article came out, Buzzfeed published an article titled, “Trump’s Attacks On Hunter Biden Have Gone Nowhere, But He Can’t Let Them Go.”
After a U.S. Senate Committee released a damning report that revealed that Joe Biden had met with with Hunter’s business partner, Devon Archer, at the White House, a mere five days before the vice-president visited Ukraine, Buzzfeed published another article discrediting the report, titled, “Republicans’ Hunter Biden Report Is Filled With Old, Unsubstantiated Allegations And Debunked Theories.”
These so called “old unsubstantiated allegations” from the Senate report also revealed that, less than one month after Joe Biden met with Archer at the White House, both he and Hunter joined the board of Burisma, and over the next several years, both were “paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.”
At the same time that he was described in the press as the “public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine” Joe Biden was never asked what the purpose of his White House meeting with Archer was, or why his son received $50,000 per month to serve on the board of a Ukrainian company despite having no knowledge, experience, or background related to energy policy.
The Washington Post tried their best to discredit Trump, writing at the time, “After the reports on Hunter Biden’s business deals emerged, Joe Biden told reporters: ‘I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.’ Trump claimed that this was a lie because “he’s already said he spoke to his son.” But Biden had not.”
The Post article went on to say, “Biden never said he spoke to his son, as Trump claimed he did.”
If that sounded confusing that’s because the Post meant it to be. Was the Post claiming as a matter of fact that Biden had never spoken to his son about his dealings with Burisma, or merely saying that Biden himself was claiming that he had never spoken to his son about Burisma? It’s not entirely clear, but regardless, both of those claims by the Post turned out to be false.
Joe Biden did in fact discuss Burisma with his son, and we know this to be true because he told us. During a radio interview in New Hampshire last year. Biden said, “At one point that it came out that [Hunter] was on the board [of Ukrainian gas company Burisma]. I said, ‘I sure hope to hell you know what you’re doing.’ Period. I said that.” Hunter Biden corroborated his father’s claims when he told The New Yorker something similar to that effect last summer, “As Hunter recalled, his father discussed Burisma with him just once: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’ ”
Evidently, Hunter also hoped his father knew what he was doing.
On Wednesday the New York Post revealed that Joe Biden was not only aware of his son’s involvement with Burisma but was an active participant in Hunter’s business dealings.
The Post reported that Hunter Biden received an email from a top executive from Burisma, thanking him for setting up a previously undisclosed meeting with his father at the White House on April 17th, 2015.
This not only reveals that Joe Biden misled the public about his knowledge of his son’s businesses dealings with Ukraine, but that he may have conducted U.S. foreign policy in a manner that put his son’s businesses interests ahead of the country that he was sworn to serve.
One would think the mainstream media would consider that a hot story.