Email Scandal: Media Covering Up For Joe Biden

An explosive expose in the New York Post revealing emails from Joe Biden's son Hunter is gaining traction, despite frenzied efforts by Democrats, social platforms and the mainstream media to bury the article weeks before the presidential election.  It is a hypocritical display of journalistic double standards.

When the rival New York Times used "unidentified" individuals to scorch President Trump over his taxes, Democrats defended the newspaper's right to cloak its sources in anonymity.  Now those same Democrats are branding the Post bombshell "unverified" because the emails have not been authenticated by Hunter.

The Democrats reversal is all the more dubious because they colluded with Facebook and Twitter to censor the Post revelations to protect their candidate.  Yet these social media oligarchs had no problem giving free reign to the Times to post its unauthenticated hatchet job on Mr. Trump.

Twitter claims it censored the article and locked the Post account because of its "hacked materials policy."  This is the same social media platform that allowed hacked materials from Wikileaks to be shared by millions of users.  Twitter's justification is nothing more than a pretext for censorship to shield Joe Biden. 

Mainstream news outlets on television, radio and print ganged up on the Post, branding its reporting a "smear story." But the cabal has refused to investigate the scandal.  They are relying on the Democrat talking point that the Post reporting is "unverifiable to justify their lack of journalistic enterprise.  

The media's obfuscation stinks of the double standard it has employed to mask their naked bias. The New York Times has regularly used anonymous sources to bludgeon Mr. Trump, including on the tax allegations.  By definition, that makes their reporting unverifiable. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.  

To catch up readers, the Post reported Hunter's emails were part of a cache of data recovered from a laptop that was dropped off at a repair shop in Delaware in April 2019.  Hunter Biden's signature appears on the repair order.  The Post published numerous emails and photos from the laptop.

As one example, there is this email from Vadym Pozhardskyi, a top executive at Burisma: "Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent (sic) some time together."  The email was sent a year after Hunter assumed his lucrative position with Burisma.  

Despite all the harrumphing by Democrats and their media allies, neither Hunter nor Joe Biden has denied the fact that the emails are real.  Joe Biden has refused to address the scandal, telling CBS he had "no response." No other reporters dared raise the issue for fear of being ostracized by their colleagues. 

After his CBS dustup, Biden was so infuriated his campaign on October 19 called a "lid for in-person events" while the former vice president prepared for the last presidential debate.  He remained bunkered until the last debate and has failed to publicly address the swirling allegations.        

The emails from Hunter's computer appear to debunk Joe Biden's prior claims that he had "never spoken" with his son about his overseas dealings. Hunter Biden was paid more than $83,000 a month for serving on Burisma's board during the 2014-2015 period, according to published court records.

During that same timeframe, Vice President Biden served as the "point person" on Ukraine at the direction of President Obama.  From 2014-2017, the senior Biden made five trips to the Ukraine on official government business while Hunter was dealing with scandal ridden Burisma Holdings.

Biden was captured on video in March of 2016 bragging how he threatened to pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine if the government did not fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma.  Six hours after his warning, the prosecutor was summarily dismissed.

In a desperate attempt to deflect criticism of Biden,  Democrat Adam Schiff called the Post story part of a Kremlin "disinformation" campaign.  His defense is laughable because Schiff used discredited Russian intel in a Hillary Clinton-sanctioned dossier to rig an impeachment of the president.   

Schiff vowed he had proof the Kremlin is behind the Post story. Since his allegation, Schiff's falsehood has been laid bare by the Director of National Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The Californian has only a passing acquaintance with the truth.   

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee complicated Biden's problems by announcing a probe of the emails obtained by the Post.  Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, says his committee is in the process of vetting the information contained in the emails.

News reports are circulating that the FBI has possession of Hunter's laptop.  The agency would neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.  However, the FBI plans to question Hunter's ex-associate Tony Bobulinski, who accused Joe Biden of lying about his involvement in his son's dealings. 

The Wall Street Journal obtained emails and texts from Bobulinski that implicate Joe Biden in Hunter's schemes, including those with China Energy, a Shanghai-based conglomerate.  The correspondence also corroborates the emails published by the New York Post.  

Perhaps, the media blackout can suppress the damning  emails for the remainder of the election cycle.  But what happens if Joe Biden wins? The Republicans will have a trove of incriminating allegations to justify an impeachment.  Democrats beware.  Political payback can be brutal.

But what should worry all Americans even more is that censorship has become the norm in this country.  Twitter, Facebook, Google use their muscle to ban any news or information that don't like.  That is an ominous development in a country that has enshrined free speech in the Constitution.  

The mainstream media long ago lost its title to unbiased reporting. News conspirators regularly censor legitimate stories that do not fit their expressed political agenda.  Most Americans accept their behavior as just the way things are.  But censorship endangers freedom of the press when the truth is dispensable.    

Free speech and a transparent and fair press are what every democracy requires to survive.  The United States is losing both, a disheartening development with the most defining election in a lifetime barely a week away.

Supreme Court Packing: Threat To Judicial Fairness

Even before President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, Democrats openly championed the idea of expanding the number of justices to 15.  With the Senate confirmation hearings underway, court packing is now an emotionally charged issue on the campaign trail.

As the issue has elbowed its way into the headlines, the media and some politicians on both sides of the aisle have made misleading statements about what the Constitution has to say about the Supreme Court.  In fact, the Constitution is silent regarding the size of the court in Article III:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall at stated times, receive for their services, compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

In Section Two of Article III, the Constitution enumerates the cases to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  There is no mention of how many justices will serve on the high court. The size of the court, now with nine justices,  has evolved over many decades in America.

Congress tinkered with the number of justices seven times in the first 80 years to achieve partisan political goals.  As a result, as few as five justices served under President John Adams and as many as ten under President Abraham Lincoln.  Congress set the original Supreme Court at six justices in 1789.

A decade had barely elapsed before President Adams, a month before the presidential election, nominated and Congress confirmed a successor to Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth in 1801.  Then Adams and his allies passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 lowering the number of court justices from six to five.

However, no justices died before President Thomas Jefferson assumed office with six sitting justices. He added a seventh justice in 1807. Then President Andrew Jackson tacked on two members raising the number to nine justices in 1837, but twenty years later a court decision infuriated a sitting president.   

President Lincoln, upset over the Supreme Court's 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case, added a tenth justice in 1863 in an effort to serve his political goals.  Congress sliced the number to nine in 1869 under President Ulysses Grant in an act of political partisanship. For 127 years the court has stood at nine.

With that history as background, it can be unequivocally stated that Congress has the authority to change the size of the court with approval of the president.  The Constitution does not prohibit it and the history of the U.S. is replete with examples of legislative action designed to alter the make-up of the court.

The last time court packing burst into public discourse was 1936, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt floated a plan to hike the size of the judicial branch to 15 justices after the court struck down New Deal laws.  Opposition to Roosevelt's scheme was universal, including from many in his own party. 

Roosevelt wisely pulled the plug on the idea.  Today's efforts to resurrect court packing reeks of partisanship, just as past efforts been solely for political motives.  As the nation's early history shows, once a single Congress monkeys with the court's size it emboldens future legislatures to do the same.  

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose death created the current court vacancy, opposed proposals to grow the number of jurists on the court.  She said such a plan would make the court appear to be a partisan vehicle for politicians.  In her words:

"It would be that--one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to," Ginsburg told National Public Radio (NPR) on July 24. 

Even Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden make it clear in 1983 that he had a dim view of court packing.  He called fellow Democrat President Roosevelt's invention to pack the court "a bonehead idea." He added: "It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make." Those comments came on the Senate floor.

Again in 2005, Biden branded the idea a "power grab," dismissing it as an underhanded plot of someone "corrupted by power."  But the "new" Biden has equivocated for months, before caving to media pressure and struggling to walk a political tightrope with his position. 

"I am not a fan of court packing, but I don't want to get off on that whole issue," Biden pleaded on October 11.  He has since flip-flopped to appease Democrats by adding, "Let's see what happens," a reference to the Barrett nomination. Certainly, there is support from many Democrats to enlarge the court.   

Biden's running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, along with fellow Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg, all acknowledged they are "researching" the idea.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren has also signaled she is open to adding justices as is Rep. Alexanderia Ocasio-Cortez. 

Their positions reflect the opinions of Democrat voters.  The movement assuredly will gain momentum if Judge Barrett is confirmed by the Senate. A Democratic Congress will react swiftly to reshape the court to their liking, especially if their presidential candidate wins in November.   

But an ABC News/Washington Post poll in late September found that a majority of Americans (54%) oppose inflating the court. A minority of 32% support broadening the number of justices.  The remainder had no opinion.  A plurality of Democrats (45%) favor the concept, while 39% are opposed.

The court has already become politicized by the ordinary process of nominating candidates for judicial vacancies.  If both parties engage in political gamesmanship by modifying the make-up of the court for their own gain, it will splinter the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.  

When that happens, the Supreme Court will become a fiefdom packed with justices appointed to do the political bidding of the parties instead of rendering impartial decisions.  For more than a century the Supreme Court has been comprised of nine justices.  There is no reason now to discard that tradition.

Media's Misleading COVID Data To Indict Trump

Democrats and their candidate Joe Biden have pounced on the opportunity to turn the presidential election into a referendum on Mr. Trump's 'bungling' of the pandemic.  The theme taps into a rich vein of public anger over the never ending outbreaks, lockdowns, job losses and work-from-home issues. 

Understandably,  the patience of Americans is all but exhausted.  The nation's citizens feel imprisoned by a virus they initially thought would be no worse than garden-variety flu. Tragically, some Americans have lost loved ones to the virus.  A return to normalcy appears to fade with each passing day.

Americans can at least agree that doctors, nurses and staff on the front lines at hospitals are the genuine heroes in the fight to provide urgent healing in the midst of chaos, along with the scientists who have waged their own battle in labs to unravel the mysteries of the virus.

However, public angst has been heightened by sometimes conflicting scientific theories and hypothesizes.  For example, on February 28, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Robert Redfield and a colleague published an analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine

In an analysis of widely reported global death rates for COVID-19, they wrote the disease's fatality rate was "more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza." Their report influenced Mr. Trump's perspective.   Hindsight has proven their assessment was flawed, but scientists were grappling with a novel virus.   

Scientists' work was complicated by the lack of cooperation from China, where the Coronavirus originated.  No one blames scientists who worked feverishly in labs to solve the secrets of COVID-19. But when scientists are confounded, it opens the door for the media to create its own narrative. 

The media klieg lights shine on infections (cases) and deaths.  The numbers make scary headlines: Death toll surpasses 210,000! Coronavirus cases soar past 7 million! Instead of putting the figures into perspective through meaningful comparisons, the media flaunts the numbers to fuel public outrage. 

News outlets make no secret their mission to pin the blame on the president for the pandemic. Pundits regularly cite as 'evidence' of the administration's epic failure the following statistic: the United States has only five percent (4.29%) of the population but more than 20% of global COVID-19 deaths.

Your fact-checker can confirm these statistics are true as verified by the Centers for Disease Control and Johns Hopkins Research. However, it is not a useful measurement of success or failure of the administration.  The data point is skewed by the size of the U.S. population, the world's third largest.

Using the same metric (global population percentage and COVID deaths), Belgium's death count is seven-times greater than its population percentage.  Chile, Spain and Britain are five times greater.  Italy and Sweden have recorded fatalities that are a smidgen under five-times their population percentage.

It is a meaningless statistic if you a serious journalist determined to make apples-to-apples comparisons.  But let's acknowledge critics' argument there are countries, such as Germany, who have done a better job in terms of managing the worse effects of the pandemic. Let's test that premise with data.

The statistics listed are from the following sources: World Health Organization, Johns Hopkins Research, Centers for Disease Control, Statista, a global provider of data.   All numbers and percentages are as of October 2 reports.  

• The United States has conducted 111 million Coronavirus tests. That is second only to China's 160 million, a country three times the size of America. The U.S. has conducted 336,250 tests per one million population.  Israel (402,619) and the U.K. (368,471) are the only countries that rank higher than the U.S. on that metric, which is the fairest comparison. Germany ranks below the U.S. in tests per million (202,724).
• The U.S. ranks 48th in the world in fatality rates for the virus. The U.S. death rate as a percentage of confirmed cases is 2.87%.  Italy, for example, is 11.2%. The United Kingdom is 9.2%,  Germany (3.14%) and France (5.2%) are among the 47 countries with worst fatalities as a percent of confirmed cases.
• To adjust for population differences, it is fair to compare the data on deaths per 100,000 population.  The U.S. ranks eleventh in the world on this metric (64.11 per million) with the United Kingdom only slightly behind.  Belgium, Brazil and Mexico all rank higher. Germany has reported 15.21 deaths per million population, a lower rate than the U.S. 
• The U.S. ranks seventh in the world in the number of confirmed cases per one-million population: 25,554.  That means about 2.5% of America's population has been infected with the virus.  Germany's rate is 3,703 confirmed cases per one-million with an infection rate of less than 1%.  The U.S. has four times the population of Germany and America is more than 20 times larger than the European country in terms of land mass.  

Even those comparisons do not take into consideration differences in culture, democracies, healthcare systems  and domestic freedoms. However, it is fair to point out that some countries have done better than the United States on a few metrics.  That begs the question: What did those nations do differently?

Since Germany is often singled out as a model, it is interesting to learn their protocols were not significantly different from the United States.  Here is what Germany's Federal Minister of Health wrote on the World Economic Forum website about how his country contained the Coronavirus:

"First the German healthcare system was in good shape going into the crisis; everyone has had full access to medical care.  With an excellent network of general practitioners available to deal with milder COVID-19 cases, hospitals have been able to focus on the more severely ill.

"Secondly, Germany was not the first country to be hit by the virus, and thus had time to prepare.  Accordingly, the country's ICU capacity was increased by 12,000 to 40,000 (beds) very quickly."

"Third, Germany is home to many laboratories that can test for the virus and to many distinguished researchers in the field, which helps to explain why the first COVID-19 test was developed here."

To summarize, Germany used its hospitals for the worst cases; with more advance warning than the U.S., it increased its ICU capacity rapidly; and the country was blessed with more private labs than the U.S. to do testing needed to staunch the virus.  Germany's advantages had little to do with its political leadership.

Germany managed its health crisis much the same way as the U.S., allowing its 16 federal regions the latitude to make local decisions based on the seriousness of the outbreak in each territory.  Even these measures have not spared Germany from a second wave of infections now hitting Europe.

With an uptick in new cases, German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently vowed to avoid another national lockdown.  In addition, she announced the country plans to improve its testing and contact tracing system, including levying fines of 60 euros ($58 US) for individuals providing false information.

Ms. Merkel made a political calculation that most world leaders are embracing.  Opening the economy, even a crack, likely will spur more social contact and infections.  However, countries can no longer remain locked down without risking the collapse of their economy, hindering a recovery for many years.

Like Mr. Trump, the German chancellor also has critics who accused her of not doing enough to halt the virus and reopen the economy. Virtually every nation's leader has faced harsh criticism.  It is an outgrowth of the natural despair, anxiety and frustration people are experiencing in every country.

Indulging in political gamesmanship during a pandemic solves no issues and serves to polarize the population.  President Trump can certainly be faulted for his optics (not wearing a mask) and his narcissist bravado.  Many object to the president's preening and exuberant optimism during crisis briefings.

These optics have shaped perceptions instead of data.  Information about the virus is constantly evolving as the world's scientific community increases its knowledge of the virus. Throughout the pandemic, there has been an evolution of treatments, protection protocols, data reporting and testing regimes.   

Perhaps another American president would have made faster decisions that could have mitigated the virus. Realistically, hindsight is a luxury leaders cannot afford during the midst of a mushrooming health crisis. The history of the COVID-19 pandemic is too recent to be fairly and definitively assessed. 

Presumptions about the virus based on politics are unreliable. But regardless, numbers of  Americans will be motivated to cast their ballots for a change in direction in the handling of the Coronavirus. Today perceptions matter more than factual data on most issues. That's just the world we live in.

NY Times: Trump Tax Story Raises Thorny Issues

No journalist has bothered to question how The New York Times obtained copies of President Trump's tax returns.  In a pre-October election surprise, the Times claimed in a page-one story that Mr. Trump paid $750 in federal taxes.  The revelation raises serious legal and ethical issues for the publisher.   

For the record, the Times report said Mr. Trump paid only $750 in taxes in 2016 and that the president paid no taxes in 10 of the past 15 years.  The Times did not disclose the source of its information.  This has become standard procedure at the Times, smearing the president based on unnamed informants.

There was a time when journalistic ethics required at least one person to go on the record to collaborate information obtained from anonymous sources.  That principle has been shredded by the Times and its editors. The newspaper prefers to hide behind a iron curtain of secrecy for its most salacious reporting. 

Here are just a few recent headlines: Trump will dump Mike Pence from the ticket; The Mueller Report will tie Trump to Russian collusion; President Trump will not walk away from a nuclear deal with North Korea; Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatens to resign.

All these stories were based on anonymous sources.  The reporting had one other thing in common.  Not a single article turned out to be true.  These stories cited are just the tip of the iceberg.  There are literally scores of examples involving Mr. Trump.  Fairness and impartiality are quaint canons at the Times.

Trump organization lawyer Alan Garten, who spoke on the record, ripped the Times reporting.  "The New York Times story is riddled with gross inaccuracies.  Over the decades, the President has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government. " Garten actually has seen the tax filings.

The attorney went on the complain that he reached out to the Times to explain the tax situation but his "repeated requests" to the newspaper for proof of its claims were rejected. Why is the Times unwilling to share its source material if indeed the story is true? Whom are they protecting?  

Based on its past reporting and ethical lapses, there should be an ocean of skepticism until there is collaboration from an independent source.   Of course,  the unsubstantiated charge hasn't prevented Democrats from flogging the tax contrivance to damage the Trump campaign.

It might be just a coincidence that the Times detonated the bombshell the Sunday before the first presidential debate.  But that would strain the bounds of credulity.  Using the Times reporting, Democrat candidate Joe Biden had air cover to torpedo Mr. Trump during the debates about the tax returns.

Expect the editorial fusillade to continue.  The Times promised their "massive investigation" is just a preview of coming attractions.  The newspaper revealed "additional articles will be published in the coming weeks." This smacks of collusion between the Biden campaign and the Times.  

The Times radioactive projectile failed  to mention a pertinent fact. The Washington Post on October 3, 2016, ran an article about Mr. Trump's 1995 tax return.  In its reporting, the Post noted Mr. Trump declared a net operating loss of $916 million that tax year because of losses at his Atlantic City casinos.

Under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, Mr. Trump is allowed to carry forward that loss, offsetting it against future taxable income. The Post reported the $916 million loss will "allow him (Trump) to avoid taxes for up to 18 years."  The newspaper did not accuse Mr. Trump of shady accounting.  

Mr. Trump simply took advantage of the tax code.  The same way one of the world richest men Warren Buffet does.  In 2011, Mr. Buffet publicly disclosed his taxable income was $39.8 million.  He paid a 17% tax rate, far below his secretary whose income was taxed at 36%.  Buffet used tax laws to his benefit.

This is not the first time Mr. Trump's tax returns have been leaked to the media. In 2017, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow obtained a portion of the president's 2005 tax return.  According to the report, Mr. Trump paid $38 million in taxes, an effective rate of about 24.5%.  Maddow mentioned no tax shenanigans.  

While the Times manufactured outrage over Mr. Trump's tax filings, no legal scholar stepped forward to challenge the unauthorized disclosure of an individual's federal tax data.  The IRS code, Section 7213, makes it unlawful for any government officer or employee to disclose personal return data.

The code specifically mentions federal as well as state employees. IRS rules make it unlawful to "willfully print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information." A violation is punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

If employees at the IRS or New York state revenue agency leaked the data to The New York Times those individuals broke the law. Partisans will claim it is the president's fault for not opening his tax records to the public.  But Mr. Trump is not required by the Constitution or federal law to comply.

Is Mr. Trump hiding something?  The same question should be directed at The New York Times.  Where did the journalists who wrote the story get the tax return information? What is the Times hiding by not publishing the actual tax returns upon which the inflammatory article was based?

Since the Times is so offended by individuals who pay no federal taxes, it is worth noting that a certain New York City newspaper paid ZERO to the federal government in 2017, according to a published accusation.  Can you guess the the name of the publishing company? That's right, The New York Times.

The Times reported $111 million in income that year.  The Times has never disputed that allegation, instead defending itself by claiming the request is "an attempt to distract from our newsroom's ongoing investigation into President Trump's taxes..." The evasion clumsily dodges a public acknowledgement.

The question of how much federal tax the Times pays has never been disclosed.  Public firms are required to file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including tax estimates. But the numbers recorded on their financial statements are often different than the amount these firms pay the IRS.

The only way to know for certain is for the august New York Times to divulge its federal tax returns for the last 10 years.  Of course, the publishing firm is not required to report that data to the public.  Nor is President Trump obligated under any law to publicly expose his federal or state tax return amounts.

If you think President Trump deserves this kind of treatment, ask yourself if you would be willing to unseal your tax returns for publication in The New York Times? If this can happen to the president of the United States, what protects ordinary Americans from this kind of unauthorized invasion of privacy?

The answer is nothing.  That should be troubling to even the most partisan Democrat.