Have you wondered what Elon Musk might have to say about social media’s censorship of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story just ahead of the 2020 election? You know, the story that polls show might have swung the election to Donald Trump if voters had known about it?
Wonder no more.
On Tuesday, Musk tweeted what I’d still call a bit of an understatement, but on target: “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate.”
Twitter’s excuse to the FEC had been that U.S. intel officials had shared “rumors” that this story came from hacked material. I think we all should know by now that it’s a bad idea to automatically believe U.S. intel officials about anything. And there was never any evidence that information in the NY Post’s reporting came from a hack. That apparently didn’t matter at the time to the twits at Twitter.
Last year, though, then-CEO Jack Dorsey –- who has just come out in favor of Musk’s anti-censorship strategy –- told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that censoring the story through their “quick interpretation” had been a “mistake.” And maybe he does regret this, now that the damage has been done. Still, it’s inexcusable that social media prevented people from sharing that story, even privately. How dare they do that.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland was questioned before the Senate Committee on Appropriations about the federal investigation into Hunter’s finances. He said “there will not be interference” but declined to say whether or not he had been briefed on the investigation. He gave the standard answer that he wouldn’t be commenting on an ongoing investigation. Here’s the link to The Epoch Times’ “premium” story, but I’ll comment below.
Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagarty asked Garland how the public could be confident that there would be no interference “of any political or improper kind” in the investigation. The attorney general answered, “Because we put a Trump appointee in charge of the investigation. And because you have me as attorney general, who’s committed to the independence of the DOJ from any influence from the White House.”
I suppose time will tell on that last part. (However, we know this wasn't the case concerning parents who were targeted by the DOJ as "domestic terrorists.") It’s true that U.S. Attorney David Weiss was appointed by Trump -- even if he's still there only because he was already in charge of the investigation when Biden took office and Biden couldn't ask for his resignation, as is customary for U.S. attorneys when a new President comes in. If the U.S. attorney tasked with examining the younger Biden’s financial wrongdoings had been appointed by the elder Biden, one hopes THAT, at least, would be an unassailable reason for appointing a special counsel.
But that's not the case, and when Sen. Hagarty asked Garland about whether or not he might appoint a special counsel, Garland was noncommittal, saying, “It depends on the circumstances.” At another point in the questioning, in an answer to Indiana Senator Mike Braun, Garland said, “The question is an internal DOJ matter. I don’t want to make judgments, but I’m comfortable with the Attorney from Delaware continuing.”
“I think our internal deliberations have to stay within the Department,” he said. And that’s really all the information the committee got out of Garland.
Meanwhile, the U.K. Daily Mail has done some blockbuster reporting on Hunter Biden’s finances. Their analysis of the President’s financial records show that he has $5.2 million in income that is “unexplained.” According to their report, the missing millions, combined with messages on Hunter’s laptop, suggest that Joe Biden would indeed have had a 10 percent share in Hunter’s deal with a Chinese energy company.
In fact, emails reveal that Joe –- who was then between gigs as Vice President and President –- agreed to pay Hunter’s hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills “in the short term.” This was to be “as Hunter transitions in his career.” The list of items to be covered included $28,382 in legal fees for the “restructuring” of Hunter’s joint venture with the CCP-controlled Bank of China. The total amount spent on “restructuring” this deal was apparently $68,933.41, beginning in September 2016.
Would Joe Biden have agreed to pay these legal bills for Hunter without even knowing what they were for? How does that square with his repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s foreign business dealings?
As the Daily Mail points out, no conclusive evidence has yet emerged that Joe Biden profited from any of Hunter’s business deals. The federal investigation in Delaware is sorting all that out. But what they’ve seen raises “troubling questions” about where an “unexplained” $5,180,071 came from. The rest of "dad's" income appears to have some from speaking fees and a book deal for his memoir, PROMISE ME, DAD.
A report by Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson shows that $5 million in wire transfers from Hunter’s Chinese partners was sent to a company controlled by Hunter. An additional $1 million was sent by Patrick Ho, an executive with Chinese energy company CEFC, as a retainer for Hunter to represent him in a DOJ bribery case. As The Epoch Times reports, there’s an audio recording in which Hunter refers to Ho as “the f***ing spy chief of China.”
Here’s what The Right Scoop had to say…
Tying all of this together is a great opinion piece from Jordan Boyd at The Federalist, condemning the media for helping Joe Biden maintain his now-obvious lie about not knowing anything about Hunter’s overseas business deals.
Finally, the propagandist “encyclopedia” Wikipedia has deleted the entire entry for Rosemont Seneca Partners, Hunter Biden’s investment firm. As George Orwell would say, it was dropped right down the memory hole. Fortunately, some people who care about the truth still have long memories. (It’s hard to forget that Hunter’s business partner Eric Schwerin visited the White House 19 times, and later, as we’ve just learned, at least 8 additional times.) In the words of NY Post reporter Miranda Devine, the author of LAPTOP FROM HELL who broke the story right before the 2020 election but was shut down by the leftwing media, “This is unsustainable for the White House.”