Month: October 2020

Facebook has reduced the distribution of a New York Post story containing bombshell information indicating that — contrary to his previous denials — Joe Biden allegedly did meet with an adviser to the board of Burisma while he was vice president, arranged by his son Hunter, who was then working as a lobbyist for the company. Twitter followed suit soon after, labeling links to the story “unsafe.”

The story made the front page of the Post, which also reveals that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating emails provided to it by a whistleblower, allegedly between Hunter Biden and executives at Burisma.

His father has previously said, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”

But according to emails obtained by the Post, Hunter introduced his father to a Burisma executive less than a year before the then-vice president pressured the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.

Facebook spokesman and former Democrat staffer Andy Stone announced the decision on Twitter, and also practically invited Facebook’s supposedly neutral fact-checkers to challenge the story.

Significantly, the social network took the rare step of acting in advance of a decision by its “third-party fact-checkers,” on which it usually relies on to defer responsibility for censoring news publishers.

That move is practically unprecedented, arguably protecting the former vice president from a major political scandal at a critical time in the 2020 election.

“While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners,” said Stone. “In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.”

Twitter followed Facebook’s lead, censoring existing links to the New York Post article as “unsafe,” and preventing people — including the newspaper’s own employees — from posting new ones.

“This is a Big Tech information coup,” said the New York Post’s op-eds editor, Sohrab Ahmari. “This is digital civil war.”

“I, an editor at the New York Post, one of the nation’s largest papers by circulation, can’t post one of our own stories that details corruption by a major-party presidential candidate, Joe Biden.”

A Twitter spokesman said the link was being banned across the platform “in line with our Hacked Materials Policy as well as our approach to blocking URLs.”

Twitter also claimed the article lacked “authoritative information,” but did not explain this position further.

The censorship drew instant condemnation from Republicans. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said, “So Facebook is going to actively censor a [New York Post] investigative story on the Democrat candidate for president. But rest assured, Facebook is a neutral platform with no political viewpoints!”

“I want to know on what grounds you are actively censoring a news report about potentially illegal corruption by the Democrat candidate for president,” said Hawley in a follow-up tweet. “If you have evidence this is ‘disinformation,’ disclose it immediately.”

“Expect a formal inquiry from my office.”

In a tweet later in the day, Hawley posted the full text of his letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, calling on him to explain his company’s actions.

In a tweet posted to the Trump War Room twitter account, the Trump campaign accused Facebook of election interference.

“This is a Facebook employee. Facebook is actively interfering in the election. Facebook is rigging the election for Joe Biden.”

“This is straight-up election interference by Facebook, being announced by their comms person who touts in his bio numerous past jobs with Dems,” said Donald Trump Jr. “Big Tech is openly trying to rig this election for Biden & should be held accountable immediately.”

The Post has responded with an article titled, “Facebook censors The Post to help Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign.” The Post writes, “Censor first, ask questions later: It’s an outrageous attitude for one of the most powerful platforms in the United States to take.”

Breitbart News has reached out to Facebook and Twitter for comment.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. His new book, #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election, which contains exclusive interviews with sources inside Google, Facebook, and other tech companies, is currently available for purchase.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Tuesday slammed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-RI) attack on “dark money,” noting that Fortune 500 companies and Wall Street “overwhelmingly favor” Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Whitehouse attacked dark money’s alleged influence in American politics and elections. The Rhode Island Democrat spent his 30 minutes allotted for questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s qualifications for the Supreme Court by attacking conservative institutions such as the Federalist Society. During his time, he failed to ask Barrett one question.

Cruz noted that most super PAC spending during the 2016 presidential election benefitted Democrats over Republicans. He explained:

Our Democratic colleagues when they address the issue of free speech, of so-called ‘dark money,’ and campaign finance contributions, are often deeply, deeply hypocritical. And, they don’t address the actual facts that exist. Here are some facts, of the top 20 organizations spending money for political speech in the year 2016, 14 of them gave virtually of their money to Democrats. And another three split their money evenly, so only three of the top 20 gave money to Republicans, what did that mean in practice? That meant that the top 20 super PACs donors contributed $422 million to Democrats and $189 million to Republicans.

“Those who give those impassioned speeches against dark money don’t mention that their side is funded by dark money with a massive differential,” Cruz added.

Breitbart News’ John Binder reported in September that “all the big banks” on Wall Street have backed Biden over Trump during the 2020 presidential election.

CNN wrote:

The securities and investment industry donated just $10.5 million to Trump’s presidential campaign and outside groups aligned with it, according to a new tally by OpenSecrets. It has sent nearly five times as much cash, $51.1 million, to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

That means Trump is losing the fundraising race among Wall Streeters by a slightly greater magnitude than in 2016. During that cycle, former New York Senator Hillary Clinton and groups aligned with her raised $88 million from the securities and investment industry, while Trump took in just $20.8 million. [Emphasis added]

…

But a CNN Business analysis of OpenSecrets research shows that Biden is beating Trump in fundraising from all of America’s big banks — in some cases by wide margins.

However, despite Whitehouse’s protestations about the influence of dark money in American politics, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Rhode Island Democrat has his own problems with dark money.

The Journal explained:

[O]n Tuesday Mr. Whitehouse refused to abide by the normal practice for congressional witnesses of answering questions.

Mr. Whitehouse knew that, if he answered questions, he was under legal obligation to tell the truth. House Republicans might have asked him about the dark-money outfit Arabella Advisors. This for-profit entity oversees nonprofits including the Sixteen Thirty Fund and the New Venture Fund, which together reported nearly a billion dollars in revenue in 2017 and 2018.

Arabella affiliate Demand Justice ran a smear campaign against Brett Kavanaugh and is now calling for Democrats to pack the Supreme Court. Demand Justice bills itself as a “project” of the Sixteen Thirty Fund and the New Venture Fund, and in public disclosures it lists the same office address as the two nonprofits.

Mr. Whitehouse’s silence about his own ties to dark-money networks shows his goal isn’t to clean up politics. He wants to silence those who disagree with him. If Mr. Whitehouse holds power in the Senate majority next year, do not expect what Joe Biden says will be a new era of comity and fair play.

“The senator from Rhode Island spoke about big corporate powers, without acknowledging that the contributions from the Fortune 500 in the presidential election overwhelmingly favors Joe Biden and the Democrats,” Cruz said. “Without acknowledging that the contributions from Wall Street in this election overwhelmingly favor Joe Biden and the Democrats.”

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) took the opportunity during his platform at the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing on Tuesday to discuss one of the touchstone topics concerning Barrett being seated on the U.S. Supreme Court: the Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion on demand the law of the land, and the efforts of pro-lifers to reverse the ruling.

Cruz said:

I do think that it is interesting that our Democratic colleagues, No. 1, do not discuss what would actually happen if there came a day in which Roe v. Wade were overruled, which is namely that it would not suddenly become the case that abortion was illegal but rather it would revert to the status of the laws [as has] been for nearly 200 years of our nation’s history. Which is that the question of the permissibility of abortion is a question for elected legislatures at the state levels and at the federal level.

“It is difficult to dispute that there are great many jurisdictions, including jurisdictions like California and New York, who even if Roe v. Wade were no longer the law of the land, their elected legislatures would almost certainly continue unrestricted access to abortion with virtually no limitations,” Cruz said.

Moreover, Cruz pointed out, while Democrats seem concerned that Barrett would bring a pro-life component to the court, they are in no way concerned that liberal judges embrace abortion rights to the extreme, including those who voted against the federal ban on partial birth abortion — the practice of aborting a baby by delivering it legs first and then sucking out the brain.

“What I find interesting, though, it that our Democratic colleagues do not discuss what is really the radical position of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, which is no restrictions whatsoever are permissible when it comes to abortion,” Cruz said.

Cruz noted that he took part in the 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart case as an Amicus.

“The case concerned the constitutionality of the federal ban on partial birth abortion,” Cruz said. “That was legislation that passed Congress, signed into law, that made the really gruesome practice of partial birth abortion illegal.”

“An overwhelming majority of Americans believe partial birth abortion should be prohibited,” Cruz said. “Even those who identify as pro-choice.”

The High Court upheld the federal partial birth abortion ban on a 5/4 vote.

“That means there were four justices ready to strike it down,” Cruz said. “Ready to conclude that you can’t ban partial birth abortion. That you can’t ban late term abortion.”

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose seat Barrett will fill if she is confirmed, wrote the dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 59 million abortions have been performed across the United States.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

Tara Reade is writing a memoir to detail her journey since she came out against Joe Biden and alleged that he sexually assaulted her in 1993.

In March, Reade, like several other women before her, went public with claims that Biden had touched her inappropriately without consent. That incident is to be told in Reade’s new book, Left Out: When The Truth Doesn’t Fit In, which is set to be released on October 27, one week before the presidential election.

According to Fox News, the excerpt reads:

Tara Reade shares the aftermath of the re-victimization of speaking out about her sexual assault, with then-Sen. Joe Biden in 1993, where the shaming, attacks and threats instigated by the media set (sic) her into a personal tailspin. Tara-rized viciously by cyberbullies, receiving death threats, and fearing for her life and those of her family, Tara tells how living with no regret and coming forward was right for her conscious (sic). The moment that defines Tara will not confine, but instead move her forward by reclaiming her identity and pulling back together the pieces of life left.

While Biden has denied Reade’s claims, Jacquie Jordan, founder of TVGuestpert Publishing, told Fox News that she believes Reade’s story is “worth” understanding.

“As a woman-owned business, we believe Tara Reade’s story was worth being written, memorialized and shared,” Jordan said.

Reade spoke exclusively to Fox News about the book and she hopes “by being really frank about my life, about what has happened to me, and how I keep forward” will assist other sexual assault survivors.

In her comments to Fox News, Reade insisted that her book will not focus fully on the election or Joe Biden, saying, “It’s about my life and what it’s like to experience trauma and then move forward.”

“It doesn’t have anything to do with the election,” Reade said. “I do discuss Joe Biden and how I experienced Joe Biden as a staffer and as a woman. And it was not a positive experience, yet he is going to the most powerful position in the Western world.”

Reade said she hopes those that read her memoir will get the “truth.” Reade said:

It’s just about the human experience. It’s about trying to move through trauma, move through – and when you try to get heard, what it’s like to really, you know, move through all of that that I experienced, losing my job, losing my career, that all of the smears that I experienced and then trying to piece together my life back.

“I don’t regret coming forward, but it definitely feels like things were broken in a million pieces and I’m trying to piece together back my life,” Reade added.