Category Archives: Media Corruption

Libs of TikTok Doxing Uncovers Secret Hacker-Government Mercenary Alliance Behind Regime’s War on MAGA Americans

American dissidents of all stripes are ablaze with anger after The Washington Post’s most repugnant reporter, Taylor Lorenz, published yet another piece trying to ruin someone more popular than her.

Taylor Lorenz, a Washington Post columnist, wrote a Tuesday article titled, “Meet the woman behind Libs of TikTok, secretly fueling the right’s outrage machine,” revealing the identity of the user who had intended to remain anonymous. The piece linked the user’s real estate page listing her full name and home address, which the outlet later removed.

The account, which nearly has 700,000 followers, posts TikTok videos of liberals in order to spark a reaction among conservative audiences.

Lorenz reportedly contacted Libs of TikTok early Tuesday telling the account they are “being implicated as a hate campaign against LGBTQ people,” the account said. [Daily Caller]

For those not paying attention, the blazing hot Libs of TikTok account simply finds TikTok videos wherein crazed liberals and LGBTQ-ers, many of them teachers of innocent children, unabashedly reveal their deviant grooming agenda for public consumption.

For instance:

Few people are more repugnant than Taylor Lorenz, who once falsely accused billionaire Marc Andreeson of using the “r-slur” in a Clubhouse room, and whose age is humorously difficult to pin down. Mere weeks ago, Lorenz had a meltdown over “online harassment” in an interview with MSNBC, then pressured the channel into deleting the interview.

Lorenz may be repulsive, to say the least. She certainly courted, assiduously, all the hatred coming her way. But there is a bigger story here. This incident is a case study in how the ruling regime uses cutout “NGOs” and “hackers” to target dissidents for annihilation. It wasn’t Taylor Lorenz who doxed Libs of TikTok. Lorenz is a used-up cocktail waitress for the regime. She’s far too talentless to achieve such a feat. Instead, it was a motley crew of regime actors.

The original doxer of the woman behind Libs of TikTok was an Antifa Twitter user named @karmaonesixone who gloated last weekend about using sleuth work to uncover the account’s original tweets and name.

Another Twitter user, Travis Brown, promoted and confirmed @karmaonesixone’s work, then went on to unearth and reveal even more information about the woman behind LibsofTikTok.

In the Washington Post, Taylor Lorenz herself credits Brown for confirming Libs Of TikTok’s identity.

On Saturday, software developer Travis Brown (who is working on a project with support from Prototype Fund, an organization that backs open-source projects) unearthed the account’s Twitter history and posted a thread detailing information about its profile changes.

Who is Travis Brown? In essence, a man paid by the German government to target, dox, and harass the international left’s ideological enemies.

Brown is the creator of the so-called “Hate Speech Tracker,” a program whose explicit purpose is to aid Antifa extremists in tracking and archiving statements by its enemies, and find “connections” between them to aid in doxxing.

From the horse’s mouth:

WHAT SOCIETAL CHALLENGE DOES YOUR PROTOTYPE ADDRESS?

Many right-wing extremist movements are currently developing on social media, e.g. B. GamerGate, conspiracy theory movements like QAnon and militant movements like the Proud Boys in the USA. Members of these movements often delete their content, change their username, and get banned (often temporarily) from social media platforms. This makes it harder to resist their actions. For example, prominent far-right accounts on Twitter and Facebook have developed a well-documented pattern of distributing controversial and extremist content to their followers and then deleting it before moderators have a chance to respond. This is how they radicalize their audience while minimizing the risk of their platforms losing funding or moderate supporters. Archiving is an important element in counteracting this behavior and in many cases has led to prominent victories against the extreme right.

The Hate Speech Tracker is a set of composable software tools that enable people affected by harassment and hate speech on social media to record and share information about their experiences. Blacklists for Twitter and other social media platforms can be commented on and shared privately, connections between extremist-run accounts can be identified and cases of hate speech can be archived.

WHO IS YOUR TOOL AIMED AT?

The early versions of this project were mainly used by anti-fascist researchers and organizations. Although these specialists represent the primary user group of the project, the tools should also be available to a broader, less specialized user base.

For those wondering, Brown’s work egregiously violates the terms of use of the sites that he tracks “hate” on. As Brown himself noted on his website, Twitter’s own privacy policy states:

“As such, we prohibit the use of Twitter data in any way that would be inconsistent with people’s reasonable expectations of privacy. By building on the Twitter API or accessing Twitter Content, you have a special role to play in safeguarding this commitment, most importantly by respecting people’s privacy and providing them with transparency and control over how their data is used.”

“We want people to feel comfortable to create a separate and, if they choose, pseudonymous identity on Twitter. If you intend to associate any information about a Twitter user with an off-Twitter identifier, we require that you get express, opt-in consent from the user before making the association.

For example, you could get this consent if the user shares their Twitter handle directly with you as part of a signup process for your service. In situations in which you do not have a user’s express, opt-in consent to link their Twitter identity to an off-Twitter identifier, we require that any connection you draw be based only on information that a user would reasonably expect to be used for that purpose. If a user would be surprised to learn that you are using information they provided to link their Twitter account to an identity off of Twitter, don’t do it.”

Brown also openly admits to using certain tactics on Twitter that “probably” violate the ToS.

This isn’t some one-off fluke. Much like Brandy Zadrozny, whom Revolver profiled in 2020, Travis Brown exists as a small part of a much larger ecosystem.

Brown’s doxxing operation isn’t an independent venture. He is backed by the Prototype Fund, a project of the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany, an “independent not-for-profit organization.” The notion that the foundation is “independent” is, of course, a lie. OKFG receives funding directly from the the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

In other words, the German government directly financed the doxing of Libs Of TikTok and Taylor Lorenz’s calculated attempt on behalf of the Washington Post to destroy her life.

Prototype, by the way, doesn’t just fund doxing operations. It funds the mass arrival of “asylum-seekers” into Europe.

It backs the perpetual post-2016 campaign against “fake news.”

Is there something about “trans voices”? You bet there’s something about trans voices!

The same organization that paid to dox Libs Of TikTok is also paying to teach male-to-female transgenders how not to sound like Barry White.

Prototype doesn’t limit itself to online flame wars. It also takes an interest in real wars, funding an archive to gather alleged eyewitness reports of atrocities in the Syrian Civil War.

“Syrian Archive” acts vague about what position it takes on the war, but its website leaves no room for doubt: This is an organization that exists to blame Bashar Assad, and by extension Russia, for chemical attacks (chemical attacks that in at least one case turned out to be a hoax). In fact, its anti-Russia orientation is so obvious that in the last few weeks it has pivoted to warning about imminent chemical attacks in Ukraine:

The same German government-backed organization that is targeting political dissidents in the West is also funding the transgender mania and the foreign policy priorities of the Western elite. In many ways, Prototype resembles Bellingcat—an “NGO” funded by the United Kingdom that played a key role in amplifying the Russia collusion narrative, targets “far-right” domestic dissidents, and promoted the Syria gas attack hoax. In 2021, The Grayzone revealed that Bellingcat took UK intelligence money to run overseas influence operations intended to “weaken Russia.”

America unsurprisingly loves this tactic as well. In February, the hacker collective Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS) leaked hacked materials from GiveSendGo that doxed donors to the Canadian trucker convoy. As we previously observed, DDoS is basically a de facto government operation:

In 2020, the Trump Department of Homeland Security claimed that DDoS is a “criminal hacker group.” Despite that, it enjoys IRS non-profit status. DDoS’s high-profile hacks have, almost without exception, targeted domestic dissidents against the regime, or its international enemies, rather than the regime itself. Besides doxing every GiveSendGo donor, DDoS’s other targets include Gab, Parler, local police departments, Russia, Myanmar, and right-wing chat groups online.

So much for speaking truth to power. By all accounts, DDoS speaks power to truth.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, DDoS’s leader is the “chronically ill” “they/she” transgender freak show Emma Best. DDoS almost certainly works hand in hand with serious criminals, if it is not an outright criminal organization itself. Yet nobody is shutting down financial support for DDoS or seizing its assets. While Julian Assange awaits trial and, in all likelihood, life in prison for embarrassing the security state and the Hillary Clinton campaign, “Emma” Best (they/she) faces no serious efforts to stop his activities whatsoever. And why would he? He is among the most heroic tranissaries rendering an invaluable service to the Globalist American Empire.

READ THE REST

The actual hacker who claims credit for hacking GiveSendGo is Aubrey Cottle, who is the co-founder of the old “Anonymous” hacking collective.

In late February, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Hillary Clinton called for Anonymous and other hacker groups to launch more cyberattacks on Russia. Does anybody think for even a moment that the CIA and other agencies aren’t “encouraging” such behavior behind the scenes?

This isn’t a new idea. Back in 2013, Anonymous carried out operations against the Assad government in Syria.

So, what’s the takeaway from all this? When you see such “hacker groups” operate, they are not operating independently. They exist within an ecosystem where regime stakeholders can use cut-outs to do their dirty work. During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the merc–, ahem, private military contractor Blackwater served a similar function for combat zones: Flexibility and plausible deniability. Now, the same goes for civil society. Nominally, the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of its allies protect freedom of speech, and the government explicitly doxing its own citizens for dissent is unlikely to be popular. Rather than have government employees directly target dissidents (which does happen on occasion), it is much easier to quietly enable cutout “civil society organizations,” NGOs, and more — all funded by government yet insulated from any kind of accountability — to do the dirty work.

The Lorenz dox job exposes how this ecology operates. This is not simply the story of a deranged attention whore who went too far. This is a story of how the new Stasi operates: Energy flows from governments, to non-profits, to hackers, and finally to aged out journalists publishing hit pieces on dissidents in Jeff Bezos’s paper of record.

By understanding this system, it becomes possible to stop it. The most obvious fix is the most blunt: Break off the billions in government funding that enable these shadow operations of left-wing radicalism. But that isn’t the only fix. Revolver will further explore this NGO ecosystem in the weeks and months to come. Stay tuned.

NPR Reporter Calls Out Leftist Media Outlet for Ignoring Hunter Biden’s Laptop Scandal: ‘Always Been … a Story’

PENNY STARR
April 9th, 2022

National Public Radio (NPR), which infamously tweeted in October 2020 that they didn’t want to waste listeners’ time on a non-story, has not apologized, but one of its reporters is calling the company out for ignoring the discovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop at a repair shop and its hard drive that linked Joe Biden to his son’s influence peddling.

“Why haven’t you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story?” Terence Samuel, acting vice president and executive editor at NPR, tweeted. “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

Laura Sullivan, a reporter with NPR, responded to an April 6 tweet from journalist Glenn Greenwald that said, ”Twitter founder Jack Dorsey apologized and admitted it was wrong for Twitter to have censored any mention of the story. The [Washington Post] this week called for a media ‘reckoning’ over what they did. Beyond those 2, they all let their lie stand to this day.”

“Add @NPR to the list,” Sullivan tweeted on Thursday. Newsroom editors called it ‘not a real story.’ The ‘Hunter Biden laptop’ investigation may end up being a tax case, a hill of beans, or something else. But what it’s always been is a story.”

Fox News reported it’s not the first time Sullivan has called out her employer of 18 years:

Back in October 2020, when the New York Post originally reported on Hunter’s laptop, NPR was part of the cadre of social media and news organizations that ignored the story.

In response to the public editor posting the message on Twitter, Sullivan tweeted on October 23, 2020, “Really love it when managers make our jobs harder. I don’t know if that’s #HunterBiden’s laptop or what’s on it, but it’s certainly not a ‘waste of time’ to find out. @NPR managers better hope that laptop was built out of an old Russian blender in Ukraine.”

Fox said, “Along with calling the story a waste of time and distraction in fall 2020, NPR also came under fire for falsely claiming in March 2021 it had been ‘discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations.’”

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

NY Times Latest to Mislead Public on New Ivermectin Study

The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email to subscribers titled: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment . . .” The Times was referring to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, covered March 18 by The Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the newspapers failed to provide an accurate critical analysis of the study.

The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email blast to subscribers with the subject line: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment, a large clinical trial found.”

The Times was referring to a study I wrote about, that same day, for The Defender.

My article called out the Wall Street Journal for its March 18 reporting on the same study — before the study was even published — for its failure to provide an accurate, critical assessment of the study.

The study in question — “Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19” — was officially published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In it the authors concluded:

“Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19”

The Times did not critique the study itself, but quoted the opinion of Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota:

“There’s really no sign of any benefit. Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin towards other therapies.”

Yes. Let us dive into the details and the data and see where it “steers” us, shall we?

A closer look at the details

The NEJM study took place in Brazil between March 23 and Aug. 6, 2021.

The study examined 1,358 people who expressed symptoms of COVID-19 at an outpatient care facility (within seven days of symptom onset), had a positive rapid test for the disease and had at least one of these risk factors for severe disease:

  • Age over 50
  • Hypertension requiring medical therapy
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Lung disease
  • Smoking
  • Obesity
  • Organ transplantation
  • Chronic kidney disease (stage IV) or receipt of dialysis
  •  Immunosuppressive therapy (receipt of ≥10 mg of prednisone or equivalent daily)
  • Diagnosis of cancer within the previous 6 months
  • Receipt of chemotherapy for cancer.

Young and healthy individuals were not part of this study.

Both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were included in the study. The percentage of vaccinated participants in each group was not specified. Note that by choosing not to identify vaccination status as a confounding variable the authors are implying that vaccines are playing no role in preventing hospitalization.

The 1,358 subjects were divided into two equally sized groups that were relatively well-matched and randomized to receive either a three-day dose of placebo or a three-day course of ivermectin at 400 mcg/kg.

The primary outcome was hospitalization due to COVID-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of COVID-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

How researchers were able to conclude ‘no benefit’ despite signs to the contrary

The study’s authors wrote:

“100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event (composite of hospitalization due to the progression of COVID-19 or an emergency department visit of >6 hours that was due to clinical worsening of COVID-19), as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16).”

In other words, a greater percentage of placebo recipients required hospitalization or observation in an emergency department than those who received Ivermectin.

The authors of the study broke it down by subgroups here:

As is demonstrated in nearly every subgroup, the Ivermectin recipients fared better than those who received the placebo.

However, these data were not statistically significant given the size of the study.

This is how the authors were able to conclude there was no benefit to ivermectin use in preventing hospitalization in high-risk patients in their study.

Patients were under-dosed, some didn’t follow instructions

As it stands, the study The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal declared as proof of the uselessness of ivermectin in treating COVID-19 is actually quite promising —  contrary to what their headlines told readers.

The dosing protocol advised by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) includes a five-day course of ivermectin at 600 micrograms per kilogram of body weight for people with risk factors such as those possessed by participants in the study.

Instead, the investigators behind the NEJM study chose a much lower dose, 400mcg per day for only three days. This represents less than half of the total dose that has been shown to be effective in practice.

Furthermore, despite acknowledging that studies have shown some indication that the bioavailability of ivermectin increases when taken with food, especially a fatty meal, participants in the trial were instructed to take the medicine on an empty stomach.

In other words, the patients were significantly under-dosed — and yet a positive effect of the drug was emerging, though not statistically significant given the size of the study.

Also of note, the investigators chose to include emergency room visits with hospitalizations for COVID. Clearly, six hours of observation in an ER is a significantly different outcome than a hospitalization that may last a night or much longer.

When excluding the ER visits from the primary outcome and examining only hospitalizations, the ivermectin cohort had even less risk of an outcome, i.e. the relative risk was 0.84 vs 0.9 when ER visits and hospitalization were grouped together.

Perhaps the most glaring deficiency of the study is the low number of placebo recipients who actually followed the study’s protocol:

Only 288 of 679 participants randomized to receiving the placebo reported 100% adherence to the study protocol. Nearly 400 didn’t.

Why not? We asked Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee.

Nass told The Defender:

“Presumably they knew the difference between ivermectin and placebo, and the placebo subjects went out and bought ivermectin or something else … but whatever they did, they didn’t bother with the pills they were given.

“So, it was not actually a double-blinded trial. Yet the 391 people who didn’t take the placebo but did something else were included in two of the three calculations of ivermectin efficacy anyway.”

So, was this the definitive answer proclaimed by mainstream sources? Nass thinks otherwise:

“I would say that instead, it was a failed trial due to the 391 placebo recipients who admitted they did not follow protocol versus the 55 in the ivermectin arm.”

More questions than answers

Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions.

  • What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered?
  • What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors?
  • How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled?
  • Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events?
  • Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)?
  • With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis?
  • What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder?
  • Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

Given these obvious issues with the study, it is becoming even more clear where the real story is: Neither The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times are willing to pursue startling details around how corporate interests are corrupting scientific opinion as reported here.

Instead, these iconic journals chose to report on a scientific study on or prior to the day of publication using misleading headlines backed up by flimsy investigations conducted by journalists with no capacity to dissect the analysis or data.

Here’s a bigger question: Are they just incompetent, or complicit, too?

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

HUGE! Washington Post Editorial Board Admits Its Complicity In Covering Up Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Adam Wilson 
April 3rd, 2022

Last month, the mainstream media finally admitted that the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptops were accurate after sitting on the story for nearly a year and a half and discrediting it as ‘Russian disinformation.’  The Washington Post is allegedly one of the outlets that was given a copy of Hunter Biden’s hard drive roughly a year ago and just chose to ‘verify’ its contents less than a week ago.

This morning, the Washington Post released an article saying that the mainstream media’s admission that Hunter Biden’s laptop was real is an opportunity for a ‘reckoning.’

“For now, what’s more compelling than the assorted accusations about the Bidens’ behavior is this question: Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now? When the New York Post published its blockbuster exclusive on the contents of a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop by Hunter Biden, mainstream media organizations balked at running with the same narrative. Social media sites displayed even greater caution. Twitter blocked the story altogether, pointing to a policy against hacked materials, and suspended the New York Post’s account for sharing it; Facebook downranked the story in the algorithms that govern users’ news feeds for fear that it was based on misinformation. Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications.” Said the Editorial Board of the Washington Post.

The op-ed goes on to say that there may be a ‘danger’ to suppressing ‘accurate and relevant stories.

It further says that it is ‘hard’ to know what to do with stories that are true but released to further an agenda and that it makes ‘obvious sense’ for newspapers to verify the information before they release it.  It is certainly interesting that the Washington Post didn’t apply the same standard to Trump during his presidency.

House Republicans Open New Probe into Twitter, Facebook Suppressing Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Sophie Mann
March 31, 2022

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday announced a new investigation into Facebook and Twitter trying to suppress initial reporting in October 2020 about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

In recent days, mainstream media outlets including the New York Times and Washington Post have confirmed the legitimacy of the laptop and its contents, which were initially reported on by the New York Post in the days leading up to the 2020 presidential election. 

At the time, Facebook and Twitter suppressed the Post’s article detailing of how Hunter Biden appeared to use his father’s position and influence for his and his family’s financial gain. 

The committee said they will conduct a thorough investigation into social media giants Facebook and Twitter actions to “interfere in free and fair election-related public discourse” on their platforms that worked “to the benefit of President Biden and the detriment of former President Trump,” according to letters sent to both companies. 

8 Joe Biden Scandals Inside Hunter Biden’s MacBook That Corporate Media Just Admitted Is Legit

MARGOT CLEVELAND
MARCH 22, 2022

Last week, The New York Times quietly acknowledged that the emails recovered from the MacBook Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer store were authentic. The admission came nearly a year-and-a-half late, after the corrupt media — legacy and social — buried the scandal the New York Post broke just weeks before the November election.

Merely admitting the laptop is legitimate is not enough. Rather, by concurring in the authenticity of the laptop and the emails, the supposed standard-bearers of journalism have also implicitly acknowledged the validity of the scandals spawn by the porn-filled MacBook. And notwithstanding the salacious source of the documentary evidence of the scandals, the scandals are not about Hunter Biden: They are about now-President Biden.

Here are the eight Joe Biden scandals deserving further coverage.

1. Pay-to-Play in Ukraine

The most obvious scandal bared by the emails and text messages contained on Hunter’s laptop concerns the influence profiteering Joe Biden apparently participated in during his eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president, with Ukraine featuring heavily in the pay-to-play scheme.

The New York Times, in its likely “get ahead of the story,” coverage from last week, touched on the Ukrainian angle by noting Hunter’s connection to Burisma and then quoting emails recovered from the laptop indicating the younger Biden leveraged his dad’s position — then as vice president. But the Times’ surface coverage of the Burisma scandal doesn’t nearly suffice.

Surface it was: The Times made no mention of Hunter’s appointment to Burisma Holdings Board of Directors at a reported salary of $50,000 per month during his dad’s time as vice president. Hunter Biden had no experience in energy. So, a deep-dive on the entire Biden-Burisma connection is a first step.

2. China Gets in the Game

Ukraine is but a patch on the influence-peddling undertaken by Hunter on behalf of “the big guy,” as the younger Biden referred to his dad. China also played a large role in the family enterprise, as demonstrated by, again, passing coverage in November 2021. Then, the Times reported, in brief, that Hunter Biden’s joint global equity firm, the Bohai Harvest Equity Investment Fund, had helped coordinate the purchase by a Chinese mining company of the world’s largest cobalt source in the Congo.

That deal gave China control over a huge chunk of the world’s known cobalt supplies — an ingredient necessary to make electric car batteries. And the role of Hunter Biden’s company, Bohai, in the transaction again connects directly to Joe Biden, as Hunter reportedly launched that new joint enterprise with Chinese business partners less than two weeks after he traveled to China on Air Force Two with his then-vice president father.

In exploring this scandal, the press needs to push beyond the emails recovered from Hunter’s abandoned laptop, and do what Tucker Carlson did when the pay-to-play scandal first surfaced: talk to Hunter’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski. Bobulinski provides further proof that this scandal reaches the top of the Biden family.

3. Moscow, Kazakhstan, and More

While Ukraine and China likely hold the most significant revelations, once those threads are pulled, investigators should move on to Moscow, which according to a Senate report, holds another possible scandal. That report documents that Hunter also received a combined $3.5 million from the wife of the former Moscow mayor, a Kazakhstan investor, and several other individuals. After all, there is no reason to think that a person willing to let his son sell access to the vice president of the United States would close the money train to just a few countries.

4. Ukraine’s Firing of the Prosecutor Investigating Burisma

With the elite media now deigning coverage of Hunter’s laptop appropriate, the public knows the Burisma scandal was real and threatened to be spectacularly devastating to the elder Biden. That makes questions concerning then-Vice President Joe Biden’s demands that Ukraine fire the state prosecutor who was reportedly investigating Burisma ripe to revisit.

That prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was fired, according to statements Joe Biden made during a 2018 event, after Biden threatened to withhold a billion-dollar loan guarantee if the Ukrainian government refused to ax Shokin. A video of the event captured Biden recounting the event:

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours.’ If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

While the Obama administration attempted to spin Biden’s push for the firing of Shokin, by claiming the international community had demanded Ukraine terminate the state prosecutor, a State Department official contradicted that claim during congressional testimony. George Kent, who worked on issues related to Ukraine at the State Department, reportedly told lawmakers it was the Obama administration that “spearheaded the efforts to have Shokin removed from his position as the top federal prosecutor in Ukraine.”

Biden needs to answer questions anew over his threats to withhold money from Ukraine unless the country removed the state prosecutor responsible for investigating Burisma. Democrats have impeached a president for less.

5. Obama-Biden Administration Ignoring Conflicts of Interest

Biden also needs to answer questions about his decision to ignore the clear conflicts of interest involved with him negotiating with the same countries Hunter was shaking down. Of course, since “the big guy” was in on the scam, bowing out over conflicts of interest is the lesser of the evils, but it is still worth investigating to assess how Biden handled the concerns raised by the Obama administration’s State Department.

Here, the testimony of the State Department official charged with issues related to Ukraine again proves significant. Kent told lawmakers that after learning Hunter sat on the board of Burisma, he raised concerns with the vice president’s office about the relationship.

“I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent testified before House members in October of 2019. “The message that I recall hearing back was that the vice president’s son Beau was dying of cancer and that there was no further bandwidth to deal with family-related issues at that time … That was the end of that conversation.”

The question for now-President Biden, then, is whether anyone in his office raised concerns about the clear conflicts-of-interest with him personally, and if so, why did Biden ignore the problem?  

6. The Intelligence Community’s Briefing of Biden

Another scandal reaching President Biden concerns his interactions with the intelligence community after the FBI, and presumably the CIA and other such agencies, learned in December of 2019, that Hunter Biden believed Russians had stolen Hunter’s laptop, rendering the Bidens susceptible to blackmail.

Here, it is important to understand that there are two separate Hunter Biden laptops at issue. The most-discussed laptop was actually the second laptop. That laptop was the one Hunter had abandoned at the Delaware repair shop. Then, after the repair shop owner discovered concerning material on the MacBook, the store owner handed it to the FBI in December of 2019. The owner of the repair shop, however, had first made a copy of the hard drive, which resulted in The New York Post’s coverage in October 2020.

But there was another laptop — one Hunter believed Russians had stolen from him when he was binging on drugs with prostitutes in the summer of 2018 in Las Vegas. While the public did not learn about the existence of this earlier laptop until August of 2021, the FBI knew about it as early as December 2019, when they took possession of the second laptop Hunter had left at the repair store.

Among other material contained on the second laptop was a video of Biden recounting the circumstances of his first laptop disappearing with some Russians. Significantly, on that video Hunter Biden said his first laptop contained a ton of material leaving him susceptible to blackmail, since his father was “running for president” and Hunter talked “about it all the time.”

It is inconceivable that the FBI and the intelligence communities did not brief Biden on this discovery and the risk of blackmail, given that former FBI Director James Comey briefed Trump on the fake Steele dossier. On second thought, that is the initial question reporters should ask the president: “Did the FBI brief you, Mr. President, on the fact that Hunter believed Russians had stolen a laptop containing compromising information?”

From there, an inquiring press should investigate to ensure that Joe Biden did not direct the intelligence community to bury this national security risk to protect himself or his son.

7. Possible Collusion to Interfere in the 2020 Election

An honest press should also investigate whether now-President Biden or anyone connected to his then-presidential campaign pressured reporters, media outlets, or companies such as Twitter and Facebook to censor the Hunter Biden story. And what about the “fifty former intelligence officials” who publicly declared the laptop resembled a Russian disinformation campaign—something clearly untrue? Did Biden or his campaign coordinate with those individuals, several of whom had endorsed the Democratic candidate, in the release of the letter?

Given that polls show that 17 percent of Joe Biden voters would not have voted for him in 2020, if they had known about the Biden family scandals, the collective burying of the laptop scandal represents the most significant interference in elections ever seen in our country. So, “Did Biden or his campaign have anything to do with the decision to kill the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter’s MacBook?” And “What about the ‘fifty former intelligence officials?’”

From there the follow-ups flow quickly: “Who was involved in the push to silence the story and who were the executives or ‘journalists’ who bowed to the demands?” “Who coordinated with the intelligence officials?” “Were any threats or promises made?” “What were they?” “What did Joe Biden know?” “What about other Democrats and the Democratic National Committee?”

8. Joe Biden Is a ‘Lying Dog-Faced Pony Soldier’

The final Joe Biden scandal the press should push President Biden to answer concerns his lies to the American public. While there are too many to count, two merit further questioning.

First, the media should demand Biden answer for lying to the country when he seethed, “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period.” The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Biden not only knew of the family business deals but was part of them.

The second bold-faced fabrication from Biden came during his pre-election debate with Trump, when Trump raised “the laptop from hell.” When Trump asked Biden if he was saying the “laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax?” the then-Democratic candidate replied, “That’s exactly what [I] was told.”

Unlikely. Biden also countered with this doozy, which again raises the question of whether Biden had a role in the intelligence officials’ statement:

There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. They have said that this has all the … five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend, Rudy Giuliani.

We can now add The New York Times to Giuliani. It remains to be seen, though, whether the Old Grey Lady and the other legacy outlets will report on the further scandals the laptop revealed—the ones that reach the president of the United States.

Watch: Joe Rogan Slams Media Coverup of Hunter Biden Laptop Story

James Anthony
March 20, 2022

Podcasting icon Joe Rogan slammed the corporate media’s coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop saga on Saturday’s episode of his popular show featuring former CIA covert operations officer Mike Baker, the current CEO of a global intelligence firm.

In the program’s segment, Baker noted the legacy media “love a good story.”

“They don’t just love a good story. They love a narrative, and they’re willing to ignore facts to push that narrative. That’s what scares me,” Rogan said.

Rogan noted he believes there are objective journalists who work for The Washington Post and The New York Times. “There’s real solid journalists out there,” Rogan acknowledged, “but I don’t necessarily know if you’re getting all the information,” he continued, causing Baker to break out in laughter.

“You’re not sure?” Baker asked Rogan sarcastically.

“I think it’s safe to say that some f*ckery is afoot,” replied Rogan.

The New York Timesjust now, is admitting that the Hunter Biden laptop is real. And, we remember from the debates, with Trump bringing it up to Biden, and Biden saying, ‘It’s bullshit.’ And it’s a lie, a flat-out lie. Everybody knew it was a lie,” Rogan went on, then referring to when The New York Post‘s bombshell report on the infamous “laptop from hell” was suppressed on Twitter in October 2020.

Rogan said the censorship “was just outright crazy,” mentioning that the conservative news outlet is “one of the oldest newspapers in the country.”

He stressed how “nobody is apologizing.” CNN anchor Brian Stelter has refused to apologize for amplifying the “Russian disinformation” claim as well as the dozens of former intelligence officials who either doubled down or declined to comment.

“There’s a dynamic here,” Baker jumped in. “I love this topic, in a sense, not so much because of whatever the f*ck Hunter was up to, but in part, because now when you look at the liberal Dems and the progressives, it doesn’t matter to them.”

Baker elaborated further on the topic of left-wing apathy to the Hunter Biden laptop story, saying, “If you read some of the narrative that’s out there now, the social media in the past day or so, ever since The New York Times came out with this, they’re just dismissive of it. They don’t care, or they’re willing to overlook it.”

“Which is the same thing they accuse the right of doing. Both sides—we’ve talked about this before—both sides are just so f*ked up,” Baker added.

FLASHBACK: Prominent MSNBC Producer Spread Misinformation to Cover for Hunter Biden

Hannah Nightingale
Mar 20, 2022 

As the Hunter Biden laptop story comes back into the national spotlight after The New York Times finally acknowledged the laptop’s legitimacy, a prominent MSNBC producer has been revealed to have previously stood by Facebook’s censoring of the story, saying it’s “a disputed report” containing “disinformation.”

In the lead-up to the election, on Oct. 14, 2020, shortly after the New York Post published their initial reporting on the laptop, Kyle Griffin, an executive producer at MSNBC, tweeted in support of Facebook’s censorship of the bombshell story.

“The Trump campaign claims Facebook is ‘censoring journalism’ because Facebook plans to limit the spread of the NY Post report. That is not censorship. Facebook is under no obligation to allow a disputed report that appears to contain disinformation to spread on their platform,” Griffin wrote in October 2020.

The New York Post‘s story resurfaced because of a recent New York Times article, in which the corporate media outlet wrote that they have now authenticated the contents of the laptop, which talk about Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ukrainian energy company Burisma and world leaders.

The acknowledgment of the laptop by the major paper appeared to fall on deaf ears though with a number of former intelligence officials and media personalities, who still refuse to accept the recent revelation and decline to apologize over previous claims suggesting the story was “Russian disinformation.”

In a White House press conference last week, Biden press secretary Jen Psaki, who had dismissed the story as “Russian disinfo,” was grilled over her assessment.

In response to numerous questions, Psaki pointed reporters towards the Department of Justice and representatives of Biden’s son, saying “I’m a spokesperson for the United States; he doesn’t work for the United States.”

Lawmaker Calls for Full Investigation Into Collusion Between Big Tech, Mainstream Media and Democrats

Elizabeth Stauffer, The Western Journal
March 19th, 2022

“So, let’s get back to the name-calling,” said “journalist” Leslie Stahl in an interview with then-President Donald Trump after dismissing what should have been one of the most consequential October surprises in presidential election history, the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The New York Post’s October 2020 bombshell story, which exposed a presidential candidate’s planned business deal with a CCP-affiliated company established precisely to enrich his family, set up so that the candidate himself, referred to as “The Big Guy,” would receive a 10 percent share of future profits, should have derailed Joe Biden’s campaign. The emails revealed in this game-changing report provided a road-map of the Biden family’s long history of influence peddling.

But we quickly learned that a scandal is only a scandal if Big Tech, the legacy media and a group of former intelligence community leaders say it is.

The New York Post reported that, far from denying the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, or that it had been hacked, the Biden campaign said there was nothing on his “official schedules” about a 2015 meeting with a Ukrainian energy executive.

The collaboration which ensued between Big Tech, the legacy media and establishment veterans of the intelligence community who were deeply invested in a Biden victory, to discredit and/or to suppress the story can only be described as collusion.

Twitter and Facebook took the lead in the campaign to label the report as Russian disinformation. Big Tech openly censored the article on their platforms “to limit the spread of potentially false information” even as Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted to lawmakers he had no evidence to prove the story was disinformation.

Facebook was all in as well.

Providing further “proof” that the article was nothing but a “smear” from a media outlet that openly endorsed Trump’s re-election, over 50 intelligence community officials signed a letter which called into question the authenticity of the report. The first four signers included former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Directors Mike Hayden, Leon Panetta and John Brennan, all of whom deeply despised Trump.

Essentially, the letter said that the Russians were trying to influence a U.S. presidential election, just like they had in 2016. They wrote that the “emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, … [had] all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

The letter said they, of course, did not know if the emails were genuine or not, but that “our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

In the video below, Biden tells Trump in a final debate that the story was a “Russian plant” and points to the letter from “50 former national security folks” as validation.

On Thursday, seventeen months after the news broke, The New York Times quietly admitted that the laptop and the emails it contains are real. The admission came in the 24th paragraph of an article whose title, “Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues,” provides no clue of the Grand Canyon-sized truth they are finally acknowledging.

The paragraph reads:

People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

Moreover, the highlighted text (theirs) links to an October 2020 article, updated in September 2021, in which the Times discredits the laptop story as “a bid to damage Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign.”

The New York Times, whose content informs the opinions of a large swath of Americans, covered up the truth about a corrupt presidential candidate to ensure his victory. And now, 17 months later, after the leader they helped elect has inflicted untold damage upon the country and on the world, they offer a subdued admission and no apology.

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California sees the collusion between Big Tech, the legacy media and the Democrat industrial complex to cast suspicion and even hide this story as the real election interference, as many of us do. And he’s called for Congress to initiate an investigation.

Obviously, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would rather stick needles in her eyes than open an investigation, but chances that Republicans will take control of Congress in January are excellent and this may well be their first order of business.

Below, conservatives react to this news:

The New York Times tried to nonchalantly sneak a colossal, consequential admission into the 24th paragraph of a semi-related article for a reason. This was a deliberate editorial decision.

It will obviously enable them to cite this article to say ‘See, we reported that the emails were real.’

But there may be a greater purpose. I question the timing. Why now? Although this is pure speculation on my part, I have to wonder if they’re trying to get ahead of new developments in the DOJ’s case against Hunter Biden.

Is the other shoe about to drop?

Possibly.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

NY Post Calls Out the 51 Former Senior Intelligence Officials including Former CIA Chiefs Who Openly Lied About Hunter Biden’s Laptop Being ‘Russian Disinformation’

Jim Hoft
March 19th, 2022

Spies who lie: The New York Post cover today says it all.
We can no longer trust the intelligence community in this country. They are liars and political operatives for the Democrat Party. Our intel communities are lost. It’s over.

Truth and integrity mean NOTHING to these people.

The New York Post reported:

They are the supposed nonpartisan group of top spies looking out for the best interest of the nation.

But the 51 former “intelligence” officials who cast doubt on The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop stories in a public letter really were just desperate to get Joe Biden elected president. And more than a year later, even after their Deep State sabotage has been shown again and again to be a lie, they refuse to own up to how they undermined an election.

The officials, including CNN pundit and professional fabricator James Clapper — a man who was nearly charged for perjury for lying to Congress — signed a letter saying that the laptop “has the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

What proof did they have? By their own admission, none. “We do not know if the emails . . . are genuine or not,” the letter said. They’re just “suspicious.” Why? Because they hurt Biden’s campaign, that’s evidence enough.

Keep in mind this was written Oct. 19, 2020, five days after The Post published its first story. Neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden had denied the story, they simply deflected questions.

The dishonest men never should have held positions of such high authority. They are incapable of being honest with the American public.

And they weren’t the only ones. The fake news mainstream media all lied about the laptop too.
NEVER trust the fake news!

Source: The Gateway Pundit