3 ms·

No, it's not weird at all that the mainstream media wouldn't publish such a story without multiple sources right before an election https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

No, it's not weird at all that the mainstream media wouldn't publish such a story without multiple sources right before an election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira...

roenxi 5y ago
Seems a bit weird, there is quite a story there [0]. In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal. Vigorously suppressing the story was a pretty suspect move. The complaint seems to be that the corruption he was probably involved in is slightly different than the corruption Trump was talking about. Which again, standard political fare but the crackdown on the story seems suspicious. If it had been Trump there is no way such a story would have been quietened down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobbyist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobb...
- magicalist 5y ago
  Making up a story about someone doesn't make it a story worth reporting until they disprove it, there should actually be some substance as table stakes. > In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal If you're making the claim that simply being on a board of directors or part of a venture firm because of who you know or are related to is ipso facto corruption, unfortunately we're unlikely to ever rid ourselves of that short of random work assignments in some kind of scifi YA novel.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. The world is currently teetering on the edge of a Russia-Ukraine * war spiralling in to a US-Russia war. It is materially interesting what business connections the US president has with (famous for being corrupt I might add) Ukraine. Especially if they involve cash for influence. These things matter. And, frankly, the reason these left-leaning outlets were suppressing the story was because to a lot of people the situation does meet the standard of ipso facto corruption. It seems clear that the people who were interacting with Hunter thought they were buying influence in the US political apparatus, probably the executive given his father's position; otherwise the decisions don't make a lot of sense. To a lot of people that basically is corruption. Although I doubt it is unusual in the US Congress if we poked around a little. EDIT, was Russia-US war. My bad.
    - magicalist 5y ago
      > He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. It came out in December that his taxes were being investigated and it was widely reported. Easy to see from the wikipedia article where there are multiple citations from major news outlets. > It is materially interesting what business connections the US president has with (famous for being corrupt I might add) Ukraine. What is interesting? You're playing connect the dots and taking possible tax issues from business in China and connecting it to made up stories about Burisma and saying "now prove me wrong". Again, the impetus is on the person making the argument to make an actual concrete claim. The Senate republicans already have you covered on the Ukraine part, of course (nothing). > otherwise the decisions don't make a lot of sense Henry Kissinger got a bunch of people to heavily invest in Theranos. You're going to need more substance than "why do rich white people keep failing upwards?" for a story here.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        > It came out in December... Which lends some rather solid credence to all the people back around the election who were saying this looks like fairly obvious corruption. I mean, the facts haven't really changed much, the only change is that the political establishment is OK with it being reported on in December. Anyone reading the initial story could have told you there was going to be an investigation. Whether they'll find anything is an open question since the person who controls the executive is currently president - but it looks as shady as anything in US politics. There is little question that the big tech giants were making a political move when they took the story down on its first arrival, it would have swung votes and they didn't want that. Not finding overwhelming evidence of money laundering can't be the story unless the original - silenced - accusations of corruption were also a story.
        magicalist 5y ago
        This is a whole lot of words to refer to nothing specific. > Not finding overwhelming evidence of money laundering can't be the story unless the original - silenced - accusations of corruption were also a story. Not finding evidence can't be the story because the original story (which is what had no evidence), er, was a story? Again, an accusation can't pull itself up by its bootstraps. There has to be a there, there.

roenxi 5y ago

Seems a bit weird, there is quite a story there [0]. In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal. Vigorously suppressing the story was a pretty suspect move. The complaint seems to be that the corruption he was probably involved in is slightly different than the corruption Trump was talking about. Which again, standard political fare but the crackdown on the story seems suspicious. If it had been Trump there is no way such a story would have been quietened down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobbyist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobb...

magicalist 5y ago
Making up a story about someone doesn't make it a story worth reporting until they disprove it, there should actually be some substance as table stakes. > In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal If you're making the claim that simply being on a board of directors or part of a venture firm because of who you know or are related to is ipso facto corruption, unfortunately we're unlikely to ever rid ourselves of that short of random work assignments in some kind of scifi YA novel.
- roenxi 5y ago
  He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. The world is currently teetering on the edge of a Russia-Ukraine * war spiralling in to a US-Russia war. It is materially interesting what business connections the US president has with (famous for being corrupt I might add) Ukraine. Especially if they involve cash for influence. These things matter. And, frankly, the reason these left-leaning outlets were suppressing the story was because to a lot of people the situation does meet the standard of ipso facto corruption. It seems clear that the people who were interacting with Hunter thought they were buying influence in the US political apparatus, probably the executive given his father's position; otherwise the decisions don't make a lot of sense. To a lot of people that basically is corruption. Although I doubt it is unusual in the US Congress if we poked around a little. EDIT, was Russia-US war. My bad.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. It came out in December that his taxes were being investigated and it was widely reported. Easy to see from the wikipedia article where there are multiple citations from major news outlets. > It is materially interesting what business connections the US president has with (famous for being corrupt I might add) Ukraine. What is interesting? You're playing connect the dots and taking possible tax issues from business in China and connecting it to made up stories about Burisma and saying "now prove me wrong". Again, the impetus is on the person making the argument to make an actual concrete claim. The Senate republicans already have you covered on the Ukraine part, of course (nothing). > otherwise the decisions don't make a lot of sense Henry Kissinger got a bunch of people to heavily invest in Theranos. You're going to need more substance than "why do rich white people keep failing upwards?" for a story here.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      > It came out in December... Which lends some rather solid credence to all the people back around the election who were saying this looks like fairly obvious corruption. I mean, the facts haven't really changed much, the only change is that the political establishment is OK with it being reported on in December. Anyone reading the initial story could have told you there was going to be an investigation. Whether they'll find anything is an open question since the person who controls the executive is currently president - but it looks as shady as anything in US politics. There is little question that the big tech giants were making a political move when they took the story down on its first arrival, it would have swung votes and they didn't want that. Not finding overwhelming evidence of money laundering can't be the story unless the original - silenced - accusations of corruption were also a story.
      - magicalist 5y ago
        This is a whole lot of words to refer to nothing specific. > Not finding overwhelming evidence of money laundering can't be the story unless the original - silenced - accusations of corruption were also a story. Not finding evidence can't be the story because the original story (which is what had no evidence), er, was a story? Again, an accusation can't pull itself up by its bootstraps. There has to be a there, there.