BREAKING NEWS--Biden Secret Emails
- Thread starter Prayer Warrior
- Start date
-
- Tags
- biden
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
They want to run ads saying they're protecting the integrity of the Supreme Court from the Democrats.
Of course not. Why ask such a question. But if I were, I still wouldn't be annoyed if a paper or tv station or even Twitter didn't want to cover every thing I said.
I'm thinking that a constitutional amendment is going to be impossible...they can't even pass a budget.
I don't think it would help his campaign, no. In fact, Twitter banning it has helped the Trump campaign more. The controversy over Twitter and Facebook gave more ammo to the Trump campaign. First Trump says the news media are the enemy of the people; now it's Twitter and Facebook. Every little thing that doesn't go Trump's way is painted as creating danger for the American people.
If the Russians are involved, it may not affect the election, but some people might wind up in jail.
I don't think most people care about that story. It's "Ho, hum, another sordid accusation right before an election."
Trump's foes have published books that are meant to harm him right before the election. He sues to silence them. I honestly don't think most people take such books too seriously.
They can't walk and chew gum at the same time to use Lyndon Johnson's metaphor. Do Republicans really think that the American people care more about the Supreme Court than they do about getting a halfway sensible spending bill passed? The economy will take another hard hit if they don't get things done soon; but they can't think beyond election day. They are more concerned about getting re-elected than they are about handling coronavirus and the economy.
Congress has been going downhill for some time -- and I include the years when Democrats were running things. Presidents have assumed more and more control while Congress neglects its responsibilities. Look at the disaster under Obama when he begged Congress to fix the immigration problems. They didn't, and then Obama issued his DACA edict. Then along comes Trump who tries to undo it. Court cases all over the place, often with courts making decisions they shouldn't have been asked to make -- but they did because Congress never got around to writing legislation.
That's why we aren't supposed to elect Senators. It wasn't the intention of of the framers of having "Mob Rule"...
People just don't have great memories or understanding... especially since we let everyone vote instead of property/business owners.
Joe Biden’s Boosters Financed His Prodigal Son’s Entire Career
While most of the attention on Hunter Biden has focused on his dealings in Ukraine and China when his father was in the White House, he also cashed in on cushy jobs and sweetheart deals throughout his dad’s long Senate career.
By Paul Sperry
OCTOBER 20, 2020
Hunter Biden profited from his father’s political connections long before he struck questionable deals in countries where Joe Biden was undertaking diplomatic missions as vice president. In fact, virtually all the jobs listed on his resume going back to his first position out of college, which paid a six-figure salary, came courtesy of the former six-term senator’s donors, lobbyists, and allies, a RealClearInvestigations examination has found.
One document reviewed by RCI reveals that a Biden associate admitted “finding employment” for Hunter Biden specifically as a special favor to his father, then a Senate leader running for president. He secured a $1.2 million gig on Wall Street for his young son, even though it was understood he had no experience in high finance. Many of his generous patrons, in turn, ended up with legislation and policies favorable to their businesses or investments, an RCI review of lobbying records and legislative actions taken by the elder Biden confirms.
That the 50-year-old Hunter has been trading on his Democratic father’s political influence his entire adult life raises legal questions about possible influence-peddling, government watchdogs and former federal investigators say. In addition, the more than two-decades-long pattern of nepotism casts fresh doubt on Joe Biden’s recent statements that he “never discussed” business with his son, and that his activities posed “no conflicts of interest.”
No fewer than three committees in the Republican-controlled Senate have opened probes into potential Biden family conflicts. Investigators are also poring over Treasury Department records that have flagged suspicious activities involving Hunter’s banking transactions and business deals that may be connected to his father’s political influence.
U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in taking official actions. The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing.
Read the rest of this article here: Joe Biden's Boosters Financed His Prodigal Son's Entire Career
While most of the attention on Hunter Biden has focused on his dealings in Ukraine and China when his father was in the White House, he also cashed in on cushy jobs and sweetheart deals throughout his dad’s long Senate career.
By Paul Sperry
OCTOBER 20, 2020
Hunter Biden profited from his father’s political connections long before he struck questionable deals in countries where Joe Biden was undertaking diplomatic missions as vice president. In fact, virtually all the jobs listed on his resume going back to his first position out of college, which paid a six-figure salary, came courtesy of the former six-term senator’s donors, lobbyists, and allies, a RealClearInvestigations examination has found.
One document reviewed by RCI reveals that a Biden associate admitted “finding employment” for Hunter Biden specifically as a special favor to his father, then a Senate leader running for president. He secured a $1.2 million gig on Wall Street for his young son, even though it was understood he had no experience in high finance. Many of his generous patrons, in turn, ended up with legislation and policies favorable to their businesses or investments, an RCI review of lobbying records and legislative actions taken by the elder Biden confirms.
That the 50-year-old Hunter has been trading on his Democratic father’s political influence his entire adult life raises legal questions about possible influence-peddling, government watchdogs and former federal investigators say. In addition, the more than two-decades-long pattern of nepotism casts fresh doubt on Joe Biden’s recent statements that he “never discussed” business with his son, and that his activities posed “no conflicts of interest.”
No fewer than three committees in the Republican-controlled Senate have opened probes into potential Biden family conflicts. Investigators are also poring over Treasury Department records that have flagged suspicious activities involving Hunter’s banking transactions and business deals that may be connected to his father’s political influence.
U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in taking official actions. The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing.
Read the rest of this article here: Joe Biden's Boosters Financed His Prodigal Son's Entire Career
Last edited:
Why Big Media Will Never Report On Hunter Biden’s Emails
But they will gladly report on the reporting of the emails.
By John Daniel Davidson
OCTOBER 20, 2020
The corporate media has refused to cover the substance of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden’s recovered laptop and emails, not because there’s nothing to the story or because the emails are fake, but because the story itself is, on its face, harmful to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
That’s not to say news outlets haven’t been writing about the Post’s reporting. They’ve simply decided to cover the meta-narrative—the story about the story—while studiously ignoring what Hunter Biden’s emails reveal about his family’s overseas business dealings and influence-peddling.
Here’s how it works. Instead of aggressive follow-up reporting on the content of Hunter Biden’s emails, which is what you’d expect from news organizations, we’ve gotten a wave of process stories about the “anatomy” of the Post’s “dubious” reporting, censorship stories about Twitter and Facebook, and wild conspiracy theory stories about a rumored Russian disinformation plot.
Last week when all this broke, the focus quickly shifted from Hunter Biden’s emails to a decision by Facebook and Twitter to censor the Post’s reporting, and, in Twitter’s case, lock the Post’s official account for posting “hacked” materials (there’s no evidence the emails were hacked). When Twitter tried to walk back but also justify its draconian policies, the media reported on that, and when a handful of Republican senators announced they’d be subpoenaing Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over the imbroglio, the media reported on that, too.
What they didn’t report on is the obvious thing the emails reveal: Hunter Biden was trading on his family name overseas, and Joe Biden, despite his many denials, seems to have been aware of this and might have even been a part of it.
Understand what’s going on here: The media will report on almost any aspect of this story, no matter how tangential or relatively insignificant, rather than grapple with the story itself.
Read the rest of the article here: Why Big Media Will Never Report On Hunter Biden’s Emails
But they will gladly report on the reporting of the emails.
By John Daniel Davidson
OCTOBER 20, 2020
The corporate media has refused to cover the substance of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden’s recovered laptop and emails, not because there’s nothing to the story or because the emails are fake, but because the story itself is, on its face, harmful to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
That’s not to say news outlets haven’t been writing about the Post’s reporting. They’ve simply decided to cover the meta-narrative—the story about the story—while studiously ignoring what Hunter Biden’s emails reveal about his family’s overseas business dealings and influence-peddling.
Here’s how it works. Instead of aggressive follow-up reporting on the content of Hunter Biden’s emails, which is what you’d expect from news organizations, we’ve gotten a wave of process stories about the “anatomy” of the Post’s “dubious” reporting, censorship stories about Twitter and Facebook, and wild conspiracy theory stories about a rumored Russian disinformation plot.
Last week when all this broke, the focus quickly shifted from Hunter Biden’s emails to a decision by Facebook and Twitter to censor the Post’s reporting, and, in Twitter’s case, lock the Post’s official account for posting “hacked” materials (there’s no evidence the emails were hacked). When Twitter tried to walk back but also justify its draconian policies, the media reported on that, and when a handful of Republican senators announced they’d be subpoenaing Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over the imbroglio, the media reported on that, too.
What they didn’t report on is the obvious thing the emails reveal: Hunter Biden was trading on his family name overseas, and Joe Biden, despite his many denials, seems to have been aware of this and might have even been a part of it.
Understand what’s going on here: The media will report on almost any aspect of this story, no matter how tangential or relatively insignificant, rather than grapple with the story itself.
Read the rest of the article here: Why Big Media Will Never Report On Hunter Biden’s Emails
FBI in possession of Hunter Biden's purported laptop, sources say
The FBI and Justice Department concur with DNI Ratcliffe that the laptop is not part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
By Jake Gibson, Brooke Singman | Fox News
The FBI is in possession of the laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden which contained emails revealing his foreign business dealings, including contacts in Ukraine and China, two senior administration officials told Fox News Tuesday.
The FBI declined to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation into the laptop or the emails, as is standard practice.
Further, Fox News has learned that the FBI and Justice Department officials concur with an assessment from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe that the laptop is not part of a Russian disinformation campaign targeting Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Ratcliffe, on Monday, said that Hunter Biden’s laptop and the emails on it “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign," despite claims from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
“Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that," Ratcliffe said. "And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.”
Ratcliffe went on to say that it is “simply not true.”
“If you thought it wasn’t possible for Schiff to have any less credibility, DOJ just proved you wrong,” a senior intelligence official told Fox News.
Meanwhile, another senior federal law enforcement official told Fox News that the emails are "authentic."
Read the rest of this article here: FBI in possession of Hunter Biden's purported laptop, sources say
The FBI and Justice Department concur with DNI Ratcliffe that the laptop is not part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
By Jake Gibson, Brooke Singman | Fox News
The FBI is in possession of the laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden which contained emails revealing his foreign business dealings, including contacts in Ukraine and China, two senior administration officials told Fox News Tuesday.
The FBI declined to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation into the laptop or the emails, as is standard practice.
Further, Fox News has learned that the FBI and Justice Department officials concur with an assessment from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe that the laptop is not part of a Russian disinformation campaign targeting Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Ratcliffe, on Monday, said that Hunter Biden’s laptop and the emails on it “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign," despite claims from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
“Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that," Ratcliffe said. "And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.”
Ratcliffe went on to say that it is “simply not true.”
“If you thought it wasn’t possible for Schiff to have any less credibility, DOJ just proved you wrong,” a senior intelligence official told Fox News.
Meanwhile, another senior federal law enforcement official told Fox News that the emails are "authentic."
Read the rest of this article here: FBI in possession of Hunter Biden's purported laptop, sources say
What we find once again that the Democrats are actually involved in things they accuse others of doing.
You personally may have not complained or fussed, but many on the left do. Ever heard of the cancel culture? And I don't mean just in you tube or twitter.
The cancel culture wants to get rid of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and any conservative radio. They want them silenced.
I do agree with you though. I do believe these places have a right being a private company to have whatever content or rules they want. Government should stay out of it. UNLESS they are receiving any government funds or breaks. If so, then the government should force them to give equal weight to all sides. Because all of us are supporting them.
It's not that simple.
They have become PUBLISHERS of the news. Some are saying the they should be forced to operate under journalistic rules and laws.
Social Media Platforms Or Publishers? Rethinking Section 230
JUNE 21, 2019
ADAM CANDEUB
Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook, recently wrote a widely discussed critique of the company in The New York Times. He observes that Mark Zuckerberg once claimed that “Facebook was just a ‘social utility,’ a neutral platform for people to communicate what they wished.”
Hughes laments that Zuckerberg now considers Facebook to be both a platform and a publisher—claiming in court that it is “entitled to First Amendment protection” and that it is “inevitably making decisions about values.” Hughes sees this transformation from neutral platform to self-appointed arbiter of acceptable public discourse as a threat to free expression and political debate. He argues that Facebook should be broken up, or at the very least that “the government must hold Mark accountable.”
Hughes is right to point out that we underestimate social media’s power to dominate communications and control political speech. According to the Pew Research Center, 7 percent of American adults in 2005 used social networking sites. Today, more than two thirds receive news from social media, with almost half, according to Pew, getting news from social media “often” or “sometimes.”
What Hughes does not discuss, and what too often goes unremarked on in discussions of Big Tech’s power, is how a special government privilege, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, allowed for this growth. This provision protects internet platforms like Facebook and Google from liability for statements and content its users generate.
This legal protection—not accorded to newspapers or other fora—created the internet as we know it. Protection from liability for any false or injurious content their users post has permitted the social media giants to allow the incredibly freewheeling discussions and commentary that we have come to expect from the internet. Exemplary is Facebook’s response to the recently circulated doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a statement to The Washington Post, Facebook said:“We don’t have a policy that stipulates that the information you post on Facebook must be true.” In addition, this legal protection has also helped create the lucrative tech behemoths and further their dominance in attracting advertisers. This dominance has gutted the advertising revenue streams of local, regional, and even national media outlets—outlets that do not enjoy the privileges of Section 230.
But what is particularly bizarre, ironic, and deeply destructive to public discourse is that, though Congress passed Section 230 to promote a free and open internet, Facebook, Twitter, and Google now use it to advocate for an open internet while at the same time justifying their censorship regimes.
Read the rest of this article here: Social Media Platforms or Publishers? Rethinking Section 230 | The American Conservative
Last edited:
The SC can NEVER be balanced. You have an odd number of justices. You will either have a majority of predominantly liberal justices who don't really give a hoot about the Constitution or justices that are Constitutionally minded.
We are better off with Constitutionally minded judges and not those who are liberal ideologues.
I agree! I would think this would be obvious with an UNEVEN number of justices.
I'm afraid this story has about played itself out. We have another distraction before the election to amuse the American people; and this one comes with video of a drunken Rudy with his hands down his pants. It doesn't interest me that much; but it might interest the American people to learn what kind of man he is. I won't bother posting links to the story; but I assure you more than one newspaper is covering it. And it's part of a new movie too.
I guess you're trying to get me to put you on ignore. I would like nothing better, but it's not going to work. I need to be able to refute your nonsense.
As far as the "story" playing out, we'll just see about that, honey!
I can't argue about this. I think you are spot on. It seems like Congress these days is more interested in political fights rather than getting things done. So presidents have started using executive orders, which I think are a crock. Congress is abdicating their power to the presidency. And it shouldn't be that way. It seems these days they are more involved in trying to take down a president than in passing legislation to help create a vital thriving free America.
Somehow we Americans have slowly bought into the idea that the president should have more and more power. Unless it's not our guy of course.
The Dems wanted Trump to act like an emperor on COVID but blasted him and said he was not an emperor on immigration.
How about we stop all this and tell Congress to do their job.
You have a good point and if they are publishers of news then they should fall under whatever regulations other news sources fall under.
But I don't think that really matters, do to the fact news today is so skewed anyway. CNN is so far left and won't publish certain stories while pushing others. I'm not sure how that differs all that much from these social media tech giants.
