CNN’s Amazingly Inept ‘Fact-Check’ on Impeachment Inquiry Instead Proves Republicans Correct
It has been a revealing week in the press as Kevin McCarthy has decided to move forward with an impeachment inquiry. The Republican Oversight Committee delivered more problematic details about the labyrinth of funding channels President Joe Biden established for his family, via his recidivist son Hunter. As a result, the White House sent out marching orders to the press and the compliant journalists have been calling out the GOP as well as insisting there is no evidence at all that Joe Biden is complicit in any fashion.
That hilarious position is made uproarious by CNN, as it gathered a three-person team to come up with a lengthy fact-check allegedly disproving the contentions being made by Republicans regarding the questionable acts. What is truly amazing is how these geniuses manage to assert that many things are in fact accurate, yet at the very same time insist that despite the verifiable evidence there is no way to say Biden did anything objectionable. Co-author Annie Grayer goes to the point of saying the assertions made are baseless.
There is a problem with her assessment; the piece from her and her colleagues is rife with them saying the Republicans are in fact accurate. What is attempted here is a desperate dose of reframing, finding things to be verifiable as they try to reframe the specifics. This is a shameless piece of slanted interpretation by CNN that needs to be seen to be appreciated. Note how many times what Grayer has called “unproven” allegations are declared to be “true”:
Claim: Biden family and associates got $20 million through shell companies
Facts First: “This is true about Joe Biden’s family and associates, but there is no public evidence to date that the president personally received any money.”
- What is attempted here is that despite widespread familial money transferred in the millions through shady banking cashing in on the Biden name, there is no direct promissory note to Joe, with him signing a “thank you” note upon receipt. The transcripts of Hunter bemoaning having to half of one payment to his father, and the infamous comment about “10% to The Big Guy” somehow do not count.
Claim: An informant alleged the Biden family got a bribe
Facts First: “It’s true that an informant gave a tip of this nature to the FBI in 2020, and that the bureau had viewed him as a credible informant. But the underlying allegation that the Biden family was given a bribe is totally unproven; the informant was merely reporting something he said he had been told by a Ukrainian businessman.”
- Suddenly, witness testimony is something to be completely dismissed. Recall that Democrats were perfectly fine with impeachment from a whistleblower who accused Donald Trump of saying things on a call the whistleblower was not privy to hearing. No testimony of this nature is not worthy to be investigated
Claim: Biden participated in calls and dinners with son’s business partners
Facts First: “McCarthy’s claim omits key context about what was – and wasn’t – reportedly discussed in the calls and dinners. A Hunter Biden associate testified that even though Joe Biden was on these calls and at these dinners, he didn’t discuss business. And Republicans have not presented any evidence that Joe Biden himself benefited financially from his appearances at the dinners or on the calls.”
- Whenever a fact-checker relies on “context” you can be sure contorting of the facts is taking place. CNN is unbothered that this is the same man and team that has for years told us Joe was never a part of any of Hunter’s calls and never had met his business associates. Now it has shifted to, “Well he was there, but never did business.”
Claim: Biden family members’ financial transactions were flagged as suspicious
Facts First: “The existence of these suspicious activity reports don’t prove wrongdoing on their own.”
- Once again, it is “True, but…” from these experts. Suspicious activity is normally the kind of thing that you investigate, through inquiry or other means. CNN sees suspicious activity but does not want it investigated. This then leads to the claim “There is no proof!” That is a rather convenient flow chart.
(Next, get ready for this serving of strained grasping; it is logic twisted to a level requiring mustard to be applied.)
Claim: Biden lied about his knowledge of family’s business deals
Facts First: “Joe Biden’s unequivocal denials of any business-related contact with his son have been undercut over time. But so far there is no public evidence that his occasional interactions with Hunter Biden’s business partners led to him getting substantively involved in his son’s financial arrangements.”
- Hooray for euphemisms! Saying “undercut over time” is a desperate recasting of “He was shown to have been lying for years.” To most people the presence of long-term dishonesty like this is grounds to look into a matter.
The best way to expose the level of desperation from the press - and CNN specifically here – is to apply their own wording to prior scandals. They spent years on the Russian collusion narrative despite something they say is disqualifying; there was no proof. Somehow that failed to stop them. Now consider what they are facing regarding evidence and back things up by a few years.
Consider the press reaction had it been known the Trump family had been pocketing millions from questionable overseas sources, and funneled the cash through shell companies. Would they have backed away because there was no direct channel seen to Donald Trump, or would they have spent time looking for it? If a foreign broker said they had paid Trump a bribe, would CNN have said, “Well, where are the receipts?” Had Trump been caught lying for years about squirrely business payments would that be shrugged off with “Yeah, but…” type of commentary?
The media would be screeching for weeks over any of these findings were it the prior president, but now when faced with a laundry list of impropriety they use a broad broom in order to try to fact-check it away. It is clear what this means when facing mounting evidence – this time it’s (D)ifferent.
No comments:
Post a Comment