You may not like it, but Biden hunter’s pranks are real news

Crime dramas of the 1980s Hunter features a protagonist of the same name, who popularized the catchphrase, “Work for me.” Today’s crime drama around Biden Hunter evokes a different repetition of saying: “Who did Hunter work for?? ”

The The background of the president is in trouble again reporting and questioning his father, President Joe Biden. This unwanted attention has also renewed questions about Relative to the media’s lack of interest in young Biden’s questionable business interests in the 2020 presidential election.

Last week, Politico reported: “New York Times still digging into Hunter Biden’s business relationships. Gray Lady sued the State Department for emails about Hunter Biden sent or received by the US Embassy in Romania. It will be interesting to see what these new emails reveal.

Although it garnered more attention on the right than in the mainstream media, last September, Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger, author of The Bidens, verified the validity of several controversial emails appeared in the 2020 campaign — including an email with a Chinese oil executive, mentioning equity to be held for the “big man.” (The big man is Joe Biden, according to the recipient, Tony Bobulinskia Hunter’s business partner.)

Schreckinger also confirmed an email involving a Ukrainian business executive thanking Hunter for introducing him to his father at a dinner the previous night. (Joe Biden’s team declined the meeting.)

Meanwhile, the conservative media is turning up the heat. Fox Nation is currently streaming a four-part series called Who is the Biden Hunter?and author Peter Schweizer just published a new book called Red handwhich alleging that the Biden family “About $31 million has been received from Chinese individuals who have connections to the highest levels of Chinese intelligence.” According to Schweizer, one of those individuals is investor Che Fung, who Hunter Biden referred to in an email as ‘Super Chairman.’ “Schweizer also allege that “Biden Hunter paid his father’s bills in foreign currency…”

If true, these revelations have dramatically advanced the story from seedling corruption (the Biden Hunter trades in his father’s name) to something much more nefarious.

But how reliable is Schweizer’s report? On the one hand, he is the chairman of a research group co-founded by Steve Bannon, and is Guardians report, “Part of a right-wing ecosystem.” His convenient timer book Clinton Cash (published in 2016), raises legitimate questions about Bill and Hillary Clinton, but also includes omissions and errors.

On the other hand, Schweizer’s 2011 book Throw them all out took a shot on both sides, and it caused a 60 minutes segment on how members of Congress monetize insider information (which led to the creation of the HEALTH Act).

In short, Schweizer’s books often reveal important and overlooked information, but his motives are questionable. This begs the question: Instead of outsourcing this investigative work to Schweizer (whose goal is to provide his reporting to the mainstream media), should the press do its own work? does this?

Some, like Politico’s Schreckinger and New York Times‘Ken Vogel, spent considerable time doing it. But let’s be honest, if this were any other president’s son, the coverage would be sky-high.

Even without these post-election revelations and accusations, it always seemed out of place. We know Hunter already pay a lot of money to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, apparently never visited Ukraine and without any obvious expertise in the energy sector. And his father happened to be the key person there for the Obama administration.

We also now know that Hunter has become an artist, with some of his paintings costing upwards of $500,000.

There’s a lot of delicious stuff here. So why doesn’t this get the coverage it probably deserves before Joe Biden elected president? However, Donald Trump – and his family – have raised the bar for what counts as a credible scandal, especially when it comes to profit from the presidency.

And, to be honest, there were a lot of red flags. Come back May 2019There is information that Rudy Giuliani has planning to dig soil on Hunter Biden in Ukraine. We also know that in a July 2019 phone call, Trump pressured the President of Ukraine to work with Giuliani on this project.

There’s a hint that this “October surprise” (the release of Hunter Biden’s emails) could be Russian disinformation (like former intel officials said).

Continuing to fuel skepticism, the email story first appeared in a tabloid, New York Postand one of the reporters refused to allow his content to be included in the story, while another reporter only found out that her content was included after the story was published.

Serious mistakes were also made by Trump and his allies. The original plan was yes The Wall Street Journal Break email stories. But Trump wowed them by bragging that they were working on “an important piece.” Giuliani also deceived their report by leaking documents to New York Post—And Bobulinski, a former Hunter Biden partner who became a Trump campaign witness, got tired of the wait and brought his case to Breitbart.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden continues to defend his son and vehemently denies any wrongdoing. I suspect there’s also a natural hesitation in going after Biden family members, especially considering the tragedies they’ve endured.

I just explained why the story didn’t get the attention it might have deserved in 2020, but what about in the future? Via sue the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New York Times has signaled that it is serious about investigating the new Hunter Biden revelations. That is a good start.

Media outlets and investigative reporters should pursue new allegations and actively lead, no matter where that takes them. They shouldn’t let fear or dislike of Trump guide their reporting.

The credibility of the media is at stake. And in the unlikely event that (as the Schweizer report shows) Joe Biden has been compromised by a foreign government, the stakes are a lot higher than that.