Did ‘Project Censored’ Censor Hunter Biden Laptop Story?

It says something about the state of affairs of the U.S. media when even Project Censored appears to have censored the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Project Censored is a media research group founded in 1976 at Sonoma State University in California that produces an annual list of 25 stories that were ignored or covered up by the media in the past year.

Project Censored’s 2020 list omits perhaps the most egregious instance of media censorship in modern history – the media’s blatant pre-election censorship of the discovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop at a computer repair shop in Oct. 2019.

The laptop contains emails and information that show Biden’s family, including his father, the GOP candidate for president, may have engaged in foreign influence peddling when Biden was vice-president.

Project Censored Director Mickey Huff agreed in an email Tuesday that the Hunter Biden laptop story was censored but denied the Project has engaged in censoring. He said the Project’s list was compiled in March, prior to the discovery of the laptop, and the book was published in December. He said the laptop story will be considered for next year’s book.

“[W]e can’t cover what did not happen yet lol,” he wrote.

However, a search Tuesday morning of “Hunter Biden” on the Project’s web site produced only one article written on Nov. 25, 2019. It makes no claim of censorship. It fleetingly refers to the Democratic Party’s disregard of the activities of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in Ukraine during the Obama administration.

Continue reading “Did ‘Project Censored’ Censor Hunter Biden Laptop Story?”

Election: U.S. At A Crossroads

Trust is the glue that binds any relationship together, including the relationship between citizens and their government.

The presidential elections is a dagger in the heart of the relationship between tens of millions of American voters who question the integrity of the election and the U.S. government’s response (or lack, thereof).  

As poet Maya Angelou said, people will forget what you said and what you did but “people will never forget how you made them feel.”  

What is most important right now is that many Americans feel, with some justification, that their voice was illegally silenced and their rights as American citizens were abridged. It is the consequences of erosion of trust that should be most concerning right now.

Continue reading “Election: U.S. At A Crossroads”

There Is More Than Enough Evidence To Warrant Investigating Election Fraud

The nation is in turmoil.

There is overwhelming evidence of widespread voter fraud in Democrat controlled swing states that may have swung the election from the rightful winner, GOP Donald Trump, to Democrat Joe Biden.

Some obvious steps would go a long way to settle doubts and suspicions and, just as importantly, would remove the shadow looming over Biden and the next four years:

  • The U.S. Department of Justice could conduct an immediate forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems voting machines used in the election.
  • The DOJ and the FBI could conduct an intensive investigation of reports of ballot stuffing on a massive scale.

What is more important to the nation than insuring the right to vote was not compromised by malevolent actors in the United States and abroad?

Polls show that a third of Democrats and most Republicans suspect the election was stolen. What impact will their suspicions have going forward if they are ignored? It will grievously harm civic life in America for many years, and will utterly destroy respect for American laws and institutions.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

But nothing is being done.

Continue reading “There Is More Than Enough Evidence To Warrant Investigating Election Fraud”

Has The Dept. Of Justice Learned Nothing Since 2008?

Update: A bankruptcy judge on Nov. 18 over the objection of state attorneys general approved Purdue Pharma’s settlement with the DOJ resolving investigations into the OxyContin maker’s role in the opioid epidemic.

After causing a worldwide financial crisis in 2008, the well-heeled Wall Street executives who were responsible went to Florida and the Bahamas.

Not to jail.

The failure of the administration of former President Barack Obama to prosecute the financial titans whose greed triggered the worst economic collapse in a hundred years shook the faith of Americans in the U.S. justice system, contributing to the cynical attitude that justice is for penny ante car thieves but not the rich and powerful.

Is history about to repeat itself?

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a “global resolution of its criminal and civil investigations” into Purdue Pharma, LP, which spurred an opioid epidemic that wrought utter devastation for years throughout the U.S. The $8.3 billion plea deal must be approved by the bankruptcy court.

The DOJ settlement states that it does not release from criminal liability the Sackler family, which owns Purdue Pharma, or company executives -but the “global resolution” also doesn’t impose criminal liability.

The Sacklers

The Sackler family reportedly earned more than $10.7 billion in profits through the sale of Purdue’s addictive opioid painkiller, OxyContin. The company rewarded physicians for oversubscribing the drug, which is blamed for the deaths of an estimated 450,000 Americans since 1999.

Continue reading “Has The Dept. Of Justice Learned Nothing Since 2008?”

Yes, Virginia, There is a Thing Called Justice

justice-scale-761665_1Perhaps the most devastating aspect of the financial crisis on Wall Street is the uneasy feeling among people  that our system of justice is fundamentally unequal.

Not a single high-level executive has been prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for fraud that precipitated a world-wide financial collapse, from which many are still suffering. At the heart of the collapse was the bundling and sale  of bad mortgages into “securities” that were backed by nothing more substantial than a wish and a prayer.

The government’s “failure to prosecute” the  financial executives who set this fraud in motion and profited obscenely from it gives rise to a profoundly depressing notion that American democracy is just a front for predatory capitalists who ignore the law while reaping 99 percent of the nation’s wealth. Once that belief is credible, it is easier to think that other institutions, including our judicial system, look the other way.

Jed S. Rakoff, a federal judge for the Southern District of New York, has written an important article in The New York Review that offers real insight into and debunks the reasons proffered by the government for its failure to prosecute.  But most importantly, Judge Rakoff took off his black robe  for a moment to challenge the very idea that it is ever acceptable for our government to be willfully blind to corporate executives who engage in financial fraud.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress that it is difficult to prosecute when “we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute—if you do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”

Judge Rakoff’s response: “To a federal judge, who takes an oath to apply the law equally to rich and to poor, this excuse—sometimes labeled the “too big to jail” excuse—is disturbing, frankly, in what it says about the department’s apparent disregard for equality under the law.”

Judge Rakoff notes the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, in its final report, used variants of the word “fraud” 157 times to describe what led to the crisis, concluding that there was a “systemic breakdown,” not just in accountability, but also in ethical behavior. The commission found the number of reports of suspected mortgage fraud rose twenty-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then doubled again in the next four years.

The judge notes that the statute of limitations is expiring on fraud related to the financial collapse.

He said the U.S. Department of Justice’s position, until at least recently, was that “going after  suspect institutions poses too great a risk to the nation’s economic recovery. So you don’t go after the companies, at least not criminally, because they are too big to jail; and you don’t go after the individuals, because that would involve the kind of years-long investigations that you no longer have the experience or the resources to pursue.”