If you are a regular reader of RedState then the nature of the allegations of corruption involving Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and other members of the Biden family are not a mystery to you. Just from today you have the following stories that add detail and context to what we are learning.
I wrote previously on this same subject several times:
Many of these issues have been around for years, and even press outlets like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal looked skeptically at Hunter Biden’s position on the Board of Burisma back in 2014 when it became public.
But since Joe Biden became the nominee of the Democrat Party to run against Pres. Trump in 2020, all these matters have been sent down the “memory hole”.
But the issue of Burisma never quite died because so much of what happened in Ukraine during the Obama Administration is public record and the sequence of events can’t be denied. Nonsensical explanations have been parroted in the media, and through repetition have turned daytime into night in many respects.
But most importantly it is not an accident or lack of interest on the part of the media that leaves these half-truths and complete lies in place — there is no longer any doubt that the media is willingly complicit in the effort to keep the facts from becoming part of the mainstream dialogue of the campaign.
The question is simple, and it is independent of any similar claims that might be made about Pres. Trump:
Is Joe Biden a low-level and unsophisticated grifter who took advantage of the fortuitous decision by Barack Obama to select him to be his Vice President to forge “business” relationships through his family with foreign actors and hostile governments to create a stream of revenue to the family by willingly moderating his positions and comments about his “business” partners in a way that pleased them and worked to their advantage in international affairs?
This question breaks down into two parts:
First — Are their business enterprises that exist which involve Biden family members and foreign actors, which generate a stream revenue to the Biden family members?
Second — Do the foreign actors receive anything of value by virtue of the participation of the Biden family members in the deals that balances the capital contributions of the foreign actors?
If there are such business entities in existence, and there is no discernible benefit to the foreign actor by having a Biden family member as a partner in the enterprise, then any revenue from the enterprise to the Biden family member is for no purpose other than to have them present as part of the operation.
Now add to that situation the likelihood that the enterprise did no meaningful business, yet the capital put into the enterprise was paid out to the Biden family member who was a partner. That seems to have been the case with the Hudson West partnership where $5 million in money received from CEFC went into Hudson West, and then was paid out of Hudson West to Hunter Biden’s law firm for no apparent work.
This is just one example of questions that could be pursued by a neutral media that placed the security of the United States ahead of their desire to see Donald Trump defeated in the election.
Then came the story 10 days ago from the New York Post about Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and the information contained therein. With no legitimate way to “tsk tsk” away the issues raised in the story based on emails and other documents found on the laptop, the media went into complete lockdown on the subject. Twitter and Facebook refused to allow traffic on their platforms that included links to the NY Post story. Both suspended accounts of users who attempted to move screenshots across their platforms. Tweets attaching links to stories that merely referenced the NY Post story were labeled with warnings about the “headlines” or the story being “dangerous.”
And the mainstream media just dropped the blackout curtains on all the issues raised in the NY Post story. Zero coverage — not in print, not online, and not on television. To the extent anything got through the media attacked Rudy Giuliani as being a discredited source, and fell back on a claim by partisans that the laptop and its contents were some form of bizarre Russian intelligence operation meant to hurt the Biden campaign. It was a rerun of the Clinton playbook — blame Russia and then link Trump to Russia, which is an odd thing to do since Robert Mueller spent two years looking and never found any nefarious links between Trump and Russia.
The topics of the debate as announced didn’t give an obvious entry-point for Pres. Trump to raise the issues connected to the New York Post story. But Biden gave Trump the opening when HE mentioned Rudy Giuliani as a discredited source of information. At that point, Trump had the perfect opportunity to raise the foreign corruption issues involving Hunter’s “business” dealings, and the latest reports that connected Joe Biden himself to those dealings.
He did that, but my criticism is his comments weren’t nailed down, tight, and specific. He approached it in the correct fashion — raising the allegations and then telling Biden he owed an explanation to the American voters. But if that statement had been coupled with 3 or 4 very specific claims that could not be factually challenged, that would have put Biden in the position of having to lie or obfuscate.
Biden did both in response to Trump’s bringing up the issue, but Trump’s framing of the issue with his statements and questions was lacking in precision.
But the one unavoidable fact for the Biden campaign and the media last night was that tens of millions of people were watching, and there was no way Twitter or Facebook were going to shut off exposure of these claims to the viewers. The mainstream media might continue to ignore the stories, but Trump got it “injected” into the “bloodstream” of the campaign. Now he needs some solidly crafted campaign lines to use over the next two weeks, and some solid ads raising the subject, Biden’s lies, and the complicit silence of the media to raise the concerns of voters who aren’t locked into one side or the other.
I have written before based on things that I’ve read that most of the “undecided” voters two weeks out from an election are what was described as “low information” voters. What that means is they do not track politics in their daily lives, and they do not have a close association with either party. They are not necessarily “independent” of the parties, they just don’t follow politics enough to care one way or the other on a partisan basis.
These “low information” voters make their decisions late, and they make them based on what they see and hear late in the campaign and close to election day. This is the target audience for these newest Biden corruption issues. “True believers” on both sides already have a view on this topic and new information is not likely to change that view. But it is the voters who haven’t heard about or didn’t understand this subject who need to be the target of the campaign.
Keeping voters in the dark is not nearly as easy when the issue gets some airing — and Pres. Trump accomplished that goal last night.