Saturday, November 21, 2020

LAWYER JOE BIDEN - A NASTY PIECE OF SHIT UNLESS HE'S PERFORMING HIS STAGED 'POPULIST' ACT - They're still counting on access to Biden insiders and big book deals for themselves thereafter. Like Biden, they're happy to be corrupted by the lure of swamp money.

 They're still counting on access to Biden insiders and big book deals for themselves thereafter. Like Biden, they're happy to be corrupted by the lure of swamp money.

Joe Biden mocks a reporter who asks him a legitimate question

By Monica Showalter

Right now as I write this, the press is having a cow about White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany getting into another scrap with the press after calling one of them, probably accurately, an "activist."

No such outcry though for Joe Biden, who mocked a reporter asking him a serious question:

 

 

Which was quite a dodge. Actually, the reporter was shouting the questions because he couldn't get answers otherwise, and Joe Biden, who's been in high office for 47 years, would most certainly know it.

He was just letting his utter 'mean' slip out, because packaging aside, he's no nice guy, no 'Mr. Decency,' -- he's 'the big guy' and as nasty as they come.

Naturally, he didn't answer the question. He chose instead to attempt to bully the reporter, who was just doing his job. We often speak of the lapdog press not doing its job but whenever one tries, he gets this kind of bullying stonewalling from Biden.

'Hey, your shoe's untied!'

Twitchy, which has a list of reactions, noted that the lapdog press never came to the reporter's aid. They're still counting on access to Biden insiders and big book deals for themselves thereafter. Like Biden, they're happy to be corrupted by the lure of swamp money. So they hurl their softballs instead, asking Biden about his ice-cream flavor.

But this mock-the-reporter incident does tell us a lot about Biden.

Apparently, he doesn't answer any uncomfortable questions. He's gotten away with it, again and again, most notably in his refusal to answer questions about Hunter Biden's laptop and all the massive corruption engulfing himself. He's also evaded scrutiny after numerous women charged him with pervy groping and worse. He never answers questions.

Now a reporter is asking him if he'll apply political muscle to the teachers' unions, which are blocking the opening of the schools on the COVID excuse, and Biden is refusing to answer. Obviously, that is because he owes them. And bringing up the matter holds them up in the spotlight as one of the obstructionist forces for giving children a normal educational life. Instead of just saying 'yes' or 'no' as to whether he plans to put a stop to it, Joe Biden attacks the reporter asking.

The Big Guy is effectively demanding a soggy marshmallow press instead of a true media outlet, and stonewalling as well as attacking the reporters to get it. The press should be up in arms about this. But they're not. And if Biden amasses power as the next president, the shallow snottiness of Biden will continue to get worse.

Image credit: Pixabay public domain

   

Certainly the Biden campaign would not make a lawyerly, evasive statement like that, would it?

WASHINGTON EXAMINER

BYRON YORK

Welcome to Byron York's Daily Memo newsletter.

ON HUNTER BIDEN, REMEMBER THE REAL STORY. 

The social media angle of the Hunter Biden email story has nearly taken over public discussion of the piece published in the New York Post headlined, "Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad." Yes, it's true that Twitter and Facebook censorship of the story is outrageous. The social media giants have taken a giant step toward earning new regulations from Washington. But the social media story isn't the big story.

The big story is: Did Hunter Biden introduce that Ukrainian businessman to his vice president dad? That would be important for two reasons. One, we already know that the corrupt Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, put the younger Biden on its board to win influence with the Obama administration, whose point man on Ukraine policy was Hunter Biden's father Joe, then Vice President of the United States. The Post story suggests that Burisma actually got something for the $50,000 (or more) it was paying Hunter Biden.

The Post story might also shed light on Joe Biden's flat denial of knowledge about Hunter Biden's Burisma connection. "I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings," Joe Biden said in September, 2019. As for Hunter Biden, the New Yorker reported in July, 2019 that, "As Hunter recalled, his father discussed Burisma with him just once: 'Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing,' and I said, 'I do.'"

Now, the Post has published an email, reported to be from a Burisma executive to Hunter Biden. The Post says it was sent on April 17, 2015, when Joe Biden was vice president and Hunter Biden was on Burisma's board. "Dear Hunter," the executive, Vadym Pozharskyi, wrote, "thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It's realty [sic] an honor and pleasure."

Democrats and Biden's partisans in the press pushed back ferociously. It's Russian disinformation, they claimed, without any specific knowledge that it was Russian disinformation. Facebook limited the distribution of the Post story. Twitter banned it altogether. All of this was done before anyone made any serious attempt to confirm the allegation.

The Biden campaign denied it all. "The New York Post never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of this story," spokesman Andrew Bates said. "They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani -- whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported -- claimed to have such materials. Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place."

The last sentence is what matters. With it, the Biden campaign seemed to be flatly denying that Hunter Biden introduced Pozharskyi to Vice President Biden. Of course, one could parse the meaning. For example, the statement referred only to Biden's "official schedules." There could not have been some sort of unofficial introduction, could there? And the statement said that no meeting "as alleged by the New York Post" ever took place. There could not have been some sort of introduction that did not fit the allegation in the Post, could there? Certainly the Biden campaign would not make a lawyerly, evasive statement like that, would it?

The answer is not clear. Especially after Politico reported: "Biden's campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn't appear on Biden's official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory. Pozharskyi did not respond to a request for comment."

Oh. That reporting, if accurate, made the situation a bit murkier. Perhaps there had been an "informal" interaction between the elder Biden and Pozharskyi, but it would just have been "cursory." In other words, the Post article -- banned by social media, denounced by many journalists -- might be accurate.

Hunter Biden's lawyer told the Washington Post that "this purported meeting never happened." But the Washington Post factchecker noted, of the various denials, "This does not exclude the possibility that [Joe] Biden briefly shook hands and chatted with Pozharskyi during a public event. Hunter Biden, for instance, helped arrange for a potential business partner, Jonathan Li, to shake hands with his father in the lobby of a Beijing hotel when the vice president made an official trip to China."

That's not nothing. Does anyone remember the Trump-Russia investigation? There were news stories that characterized a handshake and a chat between a figure in the Trump circle and a Russian, like ambassador Sergey Kislyak, as "contacts with Russians" worthy of investigation. Robert Mueller's prosecutors probed one such meet-and-greet moment at the 2016 Republican convention, taking testimony under oath from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, former Trump aide J.D. Gordon, and others. Prosecutors also questioned Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner about a handshake and chat with Kislyak. Now, when the Biden campaign allows that there might have been an "informal" and "cursory" encounter between Joe Biden and an executive from the corrupt Ukrainian company that was paying his son $50,000 a month to do nearly nothing, much of the political world's reaction is not only to deny the story without investigating but to praise social media companies for banning it.

Biden again reminds the world what a nasty man he is


By Andrea Widburg

One of the tropes of the election is that Biden will bring sweetness and light to the White House, in stark contrast to Trump’s extraordinary meanness. And it is true that Trump is often mean. If you’re a powerful person who strikes at him, Trump will come back with a vengeance (especially if you’re John Bolton). However, Trump is never mean to ordinary people. Joe Biden, by contrast, is chronically and horribly nasty to ordinary men and women who get in his way.

Think about this: Has Trump ever insulted an ordinary American? I can’t think of any time he’s done that. Instead, Trump attacks only the powerful and he attacks them only if they’ve aimed a blow at him first. My favorite of Trump’s recent scathing denunciations is the insult he leveled at the execrable John Bolton:

When I consider the extraordinary vindictiveness that Bolton directed at Trump, I smile every time I read that tweet. Trump has been mean to powerful people who betrayed him, including Rex Tillerson and John Kelly. His message is clear: If you betray him, he will punch back twice as hard. But again, Trump will not personally insult ordinary people, even those who are mean to or about him. (And no, Trump did not crudely imitate a physically impaired reporter. That’s long-since been debunked.)

It’s quite different with Joe Biden. While he’s happy enough to fawn over and grovel before powerful people, Biden is an unusually nasty man when he feels that ordinary people have failed to respect him. Herewith a collection of just how vicious “Mr. Unity” really is. 

Just today, Biden vented his spleen at a reporter from the mainstream media:

And then there are his routine attacks, not even against media figures who have some power, but against every day people, a pattern that goes back decades:

Trump, in his own way, is like a noble gentleman of old: A strong, secure man himself, he will defend the weak and fight those who are both wicked and powerful. Biden, on the other hand, is a small, weak person and, like so many of that stature, he makes himself larger in his own eyes by associating with the powerful and bullying the weak.

Image:  Biden Yelling. Creative Commons.

 

November 21, 2020

Biden supposedly ‘won,’ but it’s Obama who’s everywhere

By Andrea Widburg

In 2000, everybody in America, whether Democrat or Republican, wondered who had won the election and anxiously awaited the outcome. In 2020, the Democrats have dredged up an imaginary constitutional clause that allows the Associated Press to declare Biden the winner. Biden has now arrogated for himself the equally imaginary title of “president-elect.” Despite his new status, though, Biden is still hiding in the basement. It’s Obama, once again, who won’t get out of our faces.

Biden’s claiming the title of president for himself reminds me of nothing so much as the moment in 1806 when Napoleon, having declared himself Emperor of France, grew impatient with how slowly Pope Pius VII was conducting the ceremony, took the crown from the Pope’s hand, and crowned himself. That Act did not end well for Europe, France, or Napoleon.

JACQUES-LOUIS DAVID, THE CORONATION OF NAPOLEON IN NOTRE DAME, 1806.

Napoleon, at least, looked magnificent and had before him a brilliant career before his ultimate, drastic downfall. Biden . . . not so much:

Biden’s incoherent appearance was a rare moment in the limelight. Despite his claimed presidential status, and the groveling affection the media are showing him, Biden hasn’t really moved on from his basement. He’s still hiding there and, apparently, keeping Kamala at his side. The real face of this imaginary administration looks exactly like the face of the last Democrat administration. It’s all Obama, all the time (and God help us).

Obama is out there touting his 6,393,305-page new book, which is his second (or is it his third?) autobiography. In it, we’re told, Obama reminds everyone how truly wonderful he is and how lucky Americans were to have him as their president, along with all his “peeps,” many of whom are appearing again in the putative Biden presidency. He also nastily attacks anyone who didn’t bow before him:

Of course, writing a book means making the rounds:

And then there’s Obama’s famous “roguish charm,” which showed itself on Jimmy Kimmel with his smiling suggestion that a military coup be used to take Trump out of the White House:

We’ve seen more of Obama in the last week than we saw of Biden during the entire campaign. That is intentional.

It’s a reminder to the American people that Biden is just a fill-in. This is the Obama administration, Part II. Lee Smith, in a powerful article entitled “Behind the Scenes, Obama Never Left,” points out that Obama, unlike every president before him, continued to pull strings behind the scenes to destroy his successor and reinstate himself in the White House through a puppet:

The coup is evidence of his choice. The senior U.S. officials, Democratic Party operatives, and media personalities who targeted the Trump circle for four years weren’t simply defending the privileges of the “Deep State.” These are bureaucrats, deputies, and courtiers who wouldn’t dare an attempt that bold unless it was OK’d from above.

The purpose of the coup was to block Trump from destroying Obama’s legacy until he could find an opening for him to return.

[snip]

In political circles, it was no secret that Obama had thrown his support behind Kamala Harris. She’s ambitious and appealing and, without any strong ideas or opinions of her own, poses no threat to him.

[snip]

Whether or not Obama is now able to consolidate his legacy, the fact is that he’s already carved out his singular place in U.S. history—he’s the first president who interfered in the peaceful transfer of power, for four years. And it’s on his behalf that a rolling coup has pushed a nation to the edge of the abyss in order to remake it in his image.

Obama believes he’s living out the Second Coming of the “Magic Negro,” the most transformative president America’s ever experienced. That’s a thought that should make every sane, patriotic, law-abiding American nervous.

Indeed, considering the cost of recounts and litigation, you might act upon that nervousness by donating a bit of money to Trump’s legal fund. If every one of Trump’s voters donated $1, he would have at least $80,000,000 to fight the good fight.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)