NYT: Late to the Party
-
That's what it sounds like to me but weakening an already limping presidency at this time of global crisis is a huge mistake.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
That's what it sounds like to me but weakening an already limping presidency at this time of global crisis is a huge mistake.
-
That's what it sounds like to me but weakening an already limping presidency at this time of global crisis is a huge mistake.
-
So, here's the tin-foil hat stuff...
DNC knows that this stuff on the laptop is real, and they always have. They managed to suppress it in October of 2020.
NYPost has an editorial:
How did The Times “authenticate” the laptop? It doesn’t say. Unlike The Post’s reporting, which detailed exactly how we got the files and where they came from, The Times does a hand wave to anonymous sources. No facts have changed since fall 2020. They knew the laptop was real from the start. They just didn’t want to say so.
There’s never any shame with these 180s. Sorry that we wrote a “fact check” that turned out to be bull! Sorry we wrote a piece claiming something wasn’t a story and you were stupid for thinking so!
Twitter banned us for supposedly publishing “hacked materials” that weren’t hacked. The company’s CEO apologized, but by that point they had accomplished what they wanted. Like The Times, they cast enough doubt to avoid making their preferred candidate look bad.
Readers of The Times have discovered in March 2022 that Hunter Biden pursued business deals in Europe and Asia, and may have leveraged his father’s position as vice president to do it. Hunter also may not have properly registered with the government nor declared all his income. All legitimate topics of discussion about a presidential candidate’s family, no?
Readers of The Post have known this since October 2020. We also have a much better sports section. We’ve authenticated it.
So, the question is this: Why is the New York Times releasing this story now?
One blog speculates: "Why is the NY Times suddenly reporting the Hunter Biden corruption probe with such zeal? One would start to speculate that the word has gone out from somewhere that the Hunter Biden lever might be useful in prying President Biden from office before he dooms Democrats in 2024."
I have no idea how that plays out...
@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:
So, the question is this: Why is the New York Times releasing this story now?
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
-
@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:
So, the question is this: Why is the New York Times releasing this story now?
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.
Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is
impeachableinteresting."Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.
Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is
impeachableinteresting. -
@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.
Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is
impeachableinteresting.@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:
@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.
Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is
impeachableinteresting.I meant an indictment of the son.
-
@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.
Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is
impeachableinteresting.@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:
@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.
Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is
impeachableinteresting.There’s no question that Biden will be impeached if/when the GOP wins the house. It’s simply a question of what the charges will be. IOW, which handful of spaghetti is most sticky.
-
@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:
@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:
The more likely answer is they suspect an indictment is coming.
Indeed. The other interesting question is, if Biden is indicted, what will the fallout be.
Selling influence is one thing, but agreeing to be part of that influence is
impeachableinteresting.There’s no question that Biden will be impeached if/when the GOP wins the house. It’s simply a question of what the charges will be. IOW, which handful of spaghetti is most sticky.
@jon-nyc said in NYT: Late to the Party:
There’s no question that Biden will be impeached if/when the GOP wins the house.
Interesting comment on a number of levels. I take it you assume the GOP will win the house. Probably a safe bet today, unless something dramatic happens in the next 8 months.
It’s simply a question of what the charges will be.
Indeed. "High crimes and misdemeanors?" That bar was set pretty low with the impeachment of Trump a few years ago regarding his alleged Ukraine involvement. If having your son sell influence because of your position, I'd guess that's a bit of a higher bar.
However, can a president be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" which occurred BEFORE he was president? I don't know, but I'd guess no. Biden, like Trump, is a ham sandwich when it comes to
indictmentimpeachment.Will the Senate vote to convict? If the GOP wins the senate, they still have a heavy lift - they have to convince at least 14-16 Democrats to convict.
IOW, which handful of spaghetti is most sticky.
If the evidence is strong enough, if the spaghetti sticks enough, do you think they have a case? I'd say that, right now, it's way too early to say. Let's see what comes out in the next year or so.
-
Right wing rags?
Turned out they were right
Now, it's glaringly apparent that The Grey Lady decided to squash a really hot story, in order to effect election fraud. Because isn't that the bottom line?
-
Right wing rags?
Turned out they were right
Now, it's glaringly apparent that The Grey Lady decided to squash a really hot story, in order to effect election fraud. Because isn't that the bottom line?
-
I want to know who the 50 or so "intelligence experts" who debunked this are.
And when will Twitter ban the New York Times?
-
I want to know who the 50 or so "intelligence experts" who debunked this are.
And when will Twitter ban the New York Times?
@George-K said in NYT: Late to the Party:
I want to know who the 50 or so "intelligence experts" who debunked this are.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
Clapper
Hayden
Panetta
Brennan
Morelland a bunch of others whose names I don't recognize.
-
The Post reached out to those who signed the letter. Most would answer the question. A few doubled-down, including Clapper. No remorse. No shame. And no apologies:
Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didn’t respond.
Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit: “Yes, I stand by the statement made AT THE TIME, and would call attention to its 5th paragraph. I think sounding such a cautionary note AT THE TIME was appropriate.”
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary, now runs a public policy institute at California State University: Declined comment.
John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University: Didn’t respond.
Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank: Didn’t respond.
John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University: Didn’t respond.
Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University: Didn’t respond.
Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems: Didn’t respond.
Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico: Didn’t respond.
Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism: Didn’t respond.
Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director: “The letter explicitly stated that we didn’t know if the emails were genuine, but that we were concerned about Russian disinformation efforts. I spent 25 years as a Soviet/Russian analyst. Given the context of what the Russians were doing at the time (and continue to do — Ukraine being just the latest example), I considered the cautionary warning to be prudent.”
Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director: “As far as I know I do [stand by the statement] but I’m kind of busy right now.”
John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.
Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group:Didn’t respond.
Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.
Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel: Didn’t respond.
David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager: “Thank you for reaching out. I have no further comment at this time.”
Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis: Didn’t respond.
Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Kristin Wood, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard: Didn’t respond.
David Buckley, former CIA inspector general: Didn’t respond.
Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and targeting officer, now senior fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute: Didn’t respond.
Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence office: Didn’t respond.
David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst: Didn’t respond.
Janice Cariens, former CIA operational support officer: Didn’t respond.
Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst: Didn’t respond.
Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Roger Zane George, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Steven L. Hall, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Don Hepburn, former national security executive, now president of Boanerges Solutions LLC: “My position has not changed any. I believe the Russians made a huge effort to alter the course of the election . . . The Russians are masters of blending truth and fiction and making something feel incredibly real when it’s not. Nothing I have seen really changes my opinion. I can’t tell you what part is real and what part is fake, but the thesis still stands for me, that it was a media influence hit job.”
Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis: Didn’t respond.
Ron Marks, former CIA officer: Didn’t respond.
Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the International Spy Museum: “I don’t have any comment. I would need a little more information.”
Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIA’s Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, now at University of New Mexico: “I have not seen any information since then that would alter the decision behind signing the letter. That’s all I can go into. The whole issue was highly politicized and I don’t want to deal with that. I still stand by that letter.”
Gerald A. O’Shea, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the director: Didn’t respond.
John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer: Declined to comment.
Stephen Slick, former National Security Council senior director for intelligence programs:
Didn’t respond.Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for global issues: Didn’t respond.
Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy executive director: Didn’t respond.
David Terry, former National Intelligence Collection Board chairman: Couldn’t be reached.
Greg Treverton, former National Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “I’ll pass. I haven’t followed the case recently.”
Winston Wiley, former CIA director of analysis: Couldn’t be reached.
-
@Jolly said in NYT: Late to the Party:
Wowser...
Tell me again how there's no politicization of our "intelligence" services.
This is third-world stuff. Information, damaging to a political candidate, is suppressed by the "legacy" media, which and is parroted as "disinformation" by the state. These same guys, who for years, trumpeted the "Russia collusion" narrative, shown to be a lie, now are exposed again.
-
I have a question - somewhat related to this forum thread, but not directly
I would guess that the US is like other democracy countries - that 90% + of the people who work for the federal government are "career employees", and not appointed by the group in power, correct?
-
Much higher than 90%. But yes.
In the post civil war era “civil service reform” was one of the main political themes. Prior to that the president appointed just about everyone. Even local post masters at literally every US post office.
We even had a president get assassinated by a frustrated office seeker. That probably tipped the balance toward reform.
