It seemed perhaps a bit excessive when President Donald Trump referred to Democratic candidate Joe Biden as a “grifter.” But after reviewing the incriminating emails found on son Hunter Biden’s laptop, if anything Trump’s remark might be an understatement.
We’re writing this knowing full well that the progressive apologists for Democratic Party crimes at social media giants Facebook and Twitter probably won’t let this be shared. They’ve basically dammed up the truth so no one can share it, hoping it will all go away.
It won’t. The news is getting out. And it isn’t good for either Joe Biden or his freeloading son. The evidence clearly suggests that both Bidens profited from the vice president’s office during the Obama administration, in essence selling access for cash.
What’s galling is that Biden had heretofore denied any contact at all with Hunter’s many global partners, saying he had “never spoken” to his son “about his overseas business dealings.”
But the newly discovered trove of emails from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop says otherwise.
According to two blockbuster reports from the New York Post, Joe Biden gave preferential access to his own vice presidential office to foreign business partners of his son, contrary to his past statements.
The emails are damning, the Post report shows:
Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.
The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.
‘Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent (sic) some time together. It’s realty (sic) an honor and pleasure,’ the email reads.
An email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
That shows Biden’s denial was an out-and-out lie.
But that’s not the worst of it.
During a December 2013 official trip to China to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Joe Biden met with Chinese venture capitalist Jonathan Li in a hotel lobby. Nothing wrong with that, except Li was one of Hunter Biden’s partners in an investment firm called BHR Partners, formed just six months earlier.
Still later, he would make room in the White House for another family member,
But the most alarming revelation of all is an email, released by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, that suggests Joe Biden took a half-cut of everything his son earned from his shady foreign deals.
In a text allegedly to his estranged daughter Naomi, Hunter Biden writes:
“I love you all but I don’t receive any respect and that’s fine I guess. Works for you apparently. I hope you all can do what I did, and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It’s really hard but don’t worry, unlike Pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.”
Let that sink in for a moment.
These are major revelations, suggesting possible criminal violations by a former American vice president and current presidential candidate. At the very minimum, they deserve a full, serious and impartial airing, and the kind of intense scrutiny that even minor acts of malfeasance by Republicans get.
That’s especially true of Trump, whose own past has been investigated, raked over, over-analyzed, spied upon and intentionally misinterpreted now for more than four years.
But no such luck. Major media have downplayed the shocking revelations. And both Facebook and Twitter have basically shut down anyone who tries to share the Pulitzer-worthy stories on the Biden crime family by the New York Post.
They also shut down the president’s own account with just a little more than two weeks to go in an election campaign. That’s a gross abuse of their market power, a possible First Amendment violation and a politicization of their own businesses.
Their excuse for this is disingenuous, at best. They claim the material was “hacked” or “leaked,” and therefore they had to protect Biden as a potential victim of such misbehavior. But, as the Federalist website notes, there have been at least 11 times that “hacked” or “leaked” information about President Trump moved on Twitter or Facebook, but didn’t get shut down.
Did Facebook and Twitter impose the same censorship on the New York Times story on President Trump’s leaked — or ‘hacked — tax returns two weeks ago?
Did they ever fact-check the Times’ and the Washington Post’s debunked ‘Russia collusion‘ tall tales?
Did they interfere with BuzzFeed spreading the Steele Dossier tissue of lies?
Asked and answered.
Social media, in all their arrogance and leftist bias, have done the public an enormous disservice, but may soon face their own reckoning. It’s about time. They’ve been “in the tank” for the Democrats all along. Their actions are little more than in-kind contributions to Democratic campaigns.
“Let me be very clear, Twitter is interfering in this election. They are censoring the press,” Sen. Cruz said, adding, “silencing the media is a direct violation of the principles of the First Amendment.”
There’s already plans afoot for Senate hearings where social media executives, including Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey, will be subpoenaed to explain their behavior and their bias.
On another front, the Supreme Court might soon review Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That law has been interpreted to give online social media networks such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Yelp extraordinary leeway in banning things on their sites without fearing lawsuits.
Given their recent irresponsible behavior, they should be held to the same standards as other media. Let them be sued.
Trump this year already issued an executive order banning online censorship. Social media outlets have been irresponsible and politically biased. Time to make them live up to the law.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board