The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.
Yeah agreed, but the intercept still shouldn't be claiming a quid pro quo without evidence. That only hurts their legitimacy given how often people try to play them off as a joke when they actually do find fully verifiable quid pro quos like what happened between the students at UMass and the MA dem party fucking over Alex Morse.
No one hires Hunter Biden from reading his resume, you only get a 80k+ a month no show job because daddy is the VP, requiring "evidence" for these kinds of obvious corrupt deals is a ludicrous argument on its face.
Except he was allowed to report on that, it was the implication of quid pro quo with Barisma that was questionable. There's obviously more context here than he revealed though.
Greenwald isn't saying a quid pro quo took place though. He's presenting a case that rings true with reality and stating what evidence there is and isn't. GG is clear that there is no evidence that Biden knew about Hunter's business dealings or that Hunter was profiting off his dad's power, and that there is no proof that "the big guy" that Hunter references is his dad. But c'mon, if you start from the assumption that Hunter has been rewarded with a job because of who his dad is, all of these other bits of evidence raise huge red flags that need to be investigated. If Biden didn't know his pressuring to replace a prosecutor in Ukraine would work in favor of his son's business dealings, it's a HELLUVA coincidence. Imagine Thanksgiving: "How are things, my boy?" "Gee dad you'll never believe it, but I made out like gangbusters on my Ukraine contract because they fired that guy you told them to fire for a completely unrelated matter." "Cum on Jack, I love you Beaunter."
Yeah agreed, but the intercept still shouldn't be claiming a quid pro quo without evidence. That only hurts their legitimacy given how often people try to play them off as a joke when they actually do find fully verifiable quid pro quos like what happened between the students at UMass and the MA dem party fucking over Alex Morse.
No one hires Hunter Biden from reading his resume, you only get a 80k+ a month no show job because daddy is the VP, requiring "evidence" for these kinds of obvious corrupt deals is a ludicrous argument on its face.
Except he was allowed to report on that, it was the implication of quid pro quo with Barisma that was questionable. There's obviously more context here than he revealed though.
Greenwald isn't saying a quid pro quo took place though. He's presenting a case that rings true with reality and stating what evidence there is and isn't. GG is clear that there is no evidence that Biden knew about Hunter's business dealings or that Hunter was profiting off his dad's power, and that there is no proof that "the big guy" that Hunter references is his dad. But c'mon, if you start from the assumption that Hunter has been rewarded with a job because of who his dad is, all of these other bits of evidence raise huge red flags that need to be investigated. If Biden didn't know his pressuring to replace a prosecutor in Ukraine would work in favor of his son's business dealings, it's a HELLUVA coincidence. Imagine Thanksgiving: "How are things, my boy?" "Gee dad you'll never believe it, but I made out like gangbusters on my Ukraine contract because they fired that guy you told them to fire for a completely unrelated matter." "Cum on Jack, I love you Beaunter."