The New York Times Plays Cop of the Internet

 As we and others have shown, the New York Times is not always a dependable news source. Yet the NYT's editors believe they are worthy of helping to police the Internet and it seems that the NYT has singled out certain statements or affirmations as being lies a priori, without investigation. Here is one such lie on the NYT's part that it would have the reader believe are a rejection of others' lies:

And there is no evidence that an "overwhelming amount of fraud" tipped Pennsylvania in 2020  [toward Biden instead of Trump] . . . .  [NYTimes 5 November 2022 --NYT Int'l ed; 8 November 2022; p 8]

Well, Rudolph Giuliani, who was highly respected as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York [chief federal prosecutor for NewYork City and surroundings] and later as a two-term  mayor of New York City, produced eyewitnesses who testified on Fox TV that they had observed election irregularities in Philadelphia, the largest city in Pennsylvania. These people had been Republican election observers and complained of being kept away from the actual counting  by officials working for the city and county of Philadelphia run by a Democratic mayor and other Democrats. Of course, even eyewitnesses can be cross examined and their testimony can be judged. But that requires an impartial investigation. Until there is a proper investigation and the witnesses can testify in court, the NYT has no call to claim "no evidence." 

Meanwhile, there is significant circumstantial evidence pointing to massive voting fraud in Pennsylvania [not only in Philadelphia] in the 2020 presidential election. But before bringing out that evidence, let us quote what the NYT article quoted above writes admitting its efforts to help police the Internet in favor of its own partisan cause in which opposing arguments are called "lies," "falsehoods" having "no evidence" to support them.

Youtube said it had removed a number of videos that The New York Times had flagged for violating its policies on spam and election integrity and it had determined that other content did not violate its policies. [emph. added; NYT 5 November 2022-- NYT Int'l ed; 8 November 2022; p8]

Flagged here means identified and pointed out to others, in  this case to Youtube. The sentence above is the NYT's admission, or perhaps modest boast, that it takes part in policing the Internet.

The circumstantial evidence relating to Pennsylvania is that on the evening of 3 November 2020, after the polls had closed, President Trump was reported as having a lead of more than 600,000 in that state. Now, Pennsylvania had 9,090,962 certified registered [eligible] voters for the presidential election of 2020, with a turnout of 76,5%, adding up to 6,553,695 actual voters [according to official statistics, not necessarily reliable]. So more than 600,000 is no small or narrow margin for a state with a population of 13,002,700 and approximately 6,553,000 actual  voters. Trump's leading margin over Biden on the night of election day was nearly 10% of  actual voters [by official numbers]. That is, nearly 10% of the perhaps fraudulently inflated "final count." And would have been significantly more than 10% of the count on election day after the polls closed.  Yet in a few days of counting newly found mail-in ballots [and the like], the president's margin had been outnumbered by pro-Biden ballots whereas one would think that many of the ballots that came in or were newly found after election day would have gone to Trump and that even if his lead would had been whittled down, he would have remained in the lead with enough votes to win. 

By the way, it was reported on Fox [Evil Fox, we are to believe] a truck carrying Pennsylvania ballots set out from the New York city area and went to Harrisburg [the state capital of PA] and to the city of Lancaster. But somehow that ballots that the truck was carrying were not accepted in either city. All very peculiar. 

Now, there is also circumstantial evidence involving the country as a whole. The vote for the House of Representatives in a presidential election year almost always favors the party of the newly elected president, when the newly elected president is not the incumbent but new to the office of president. Yet in 2020, the newly elected president's party, Biden's party, lost seats to the Republicans. 

A midterm election usually favors the party out of power [that is, the party not occupying the White House]. For example, the Republicans won the 1994 midterm election when Democrat Clinton was president. The Republicans again won a majority in  the House of Representatives in 2010, the midterm elections of Obama's first term. Following the rule, the Democrats won a majority in the midterm elections of Donald Trump's presidency in 2018.

Nevertheless, in the 2020 presidential  election year, Biden's Democrats lost seats in the House. They went from 235 seats in the 2018 midterm election to 222 in the 2020 presidential election year, when  their candidate for president, Biden, presumably won election for president. Yet going by the traditional pattern of elections to the House in years when somebody new becomes president, his party gets a majority in the House of Representatives. So the 2020 anomaly suggests that there may have been much more fraud in the presidential election than in the elections for the House which elect 435 representatives in 435 congressional districts. This anomaly and others suggest the possibility or likelihood of widespread fraud in the presidential election. And for those not familiar with the United States, election fraud has a long history there. Chicago, ruled for many years by the Richard Daley Democratic Party machine, was especially notorious for voting fraud. Indeed, the Daley machine was accused of "voting the cemeteries." Why voting fraud could not also take place in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix [Arizona] and so on, is a mystery to me. Yet the NY Times denies an "overwhelming amount of fraud" in the 2020 presidential elections in Pennsylvania. Isn't it comforting to know that the New York Times is policing the Internet to protect us from fake news?

The Rights of the President: Joe Biden, Trump and the Ukraine

The Rights of the President by Leon Kozak

Mr Trump, as President, has the Constitutional duty to enforce the laws of the land and to lead the way in the conduct of US foreign affairs. Thus, he is entitled to investigate acts that could be illegal under US law including the Foreign  Corrupt Practices Act which addresses certain acts of US persons taking place in foreign countries. Moreover,  a treaty with the Ukraine specifies that the US may ask the Ukraine to assist the US in investigating  potential criminal behavior of US persons under US law and the Ukraine is required to comply.

The President has significant discretion under the Constitution  in his use of foreign aid as a means of conducting foreign affairs and may withhold, delay or make it s release conditional in many circumstances.

In my view, the above Presidential powers are applicable even  if the target of the investigation is a potential political opponent of the President as long as there is at least some colorable claim that illegal activity under US law involving a foreign country or foreign officials  may have taken place. The threat to withhold US aid is a perfectly legitimate means of using these Presidential powers in the international context. Although  President Trump  is adamant that there was in fact no”quid pro quo” (ie, “quid”-investigate Biden in order to “quo”- get military aid from the US), it would not matter if there were  in fact a quid pro quo.

Was there at least a colorable claim that some illegal activity took place involving VP Biden? Here are some facts which make it clear that the colorable claim test has easily been met.

—Mr Shokin was the chief prosecutor in the Ukraine during some of the years of the Obama administration. His office had commenced an investigation of Burisma Holdings a Ukraine-based energy group. The investigation raised questions as to whether Burisma had violated the criminal corruption laws of the Ukraine and other countries. Officials of Burisma were reported to be concerned about the investigation.

—Mr Shokin has indicated in a signed affidavit  and in other documents that he was told to exercise caution in  proceeding with this investigation because of the connection of Burisma to powerful interests in the US government. Mr Shokin has also stated that he believes he was dismissed as prosecutor at the insistence of US government officials because of his office's investigation into Burisma. 

—Hunter Biden (son  of former VP Joe Biden) was given a Board position by Burisma during the years of the Obama administration. He was paid at least $50,000.00 per month as compensation for  serving in this position and much more for undisclosed activities. Prior to taking on this position, Hunter Biden had no experience in the energy sector, in corporate governance or in Eastern Europe. Hunter Biden admitted in a television interview that he likely would not have obtained the position but for his family connection to VP Joe Biden.

—-VP Joe Biden was given primary responsibility for dealing with Ukraine matters by Pres Obama.

—-VP Joe  Biden knew about Hunter s involvement with some company in Ukraine and told him to make sure he knew what he was doing. 

—-The staff of VP Joe Biden was informed by the staff of Pres Obama and by certain State Department officials that Hunter Biden's Ukraine activities represented at least a perception of a conflict of interest (and could be an actual conflict of interest) when considering VP Joe Biden's responsibilities with respect to the Ukraine.

—-At some point, VP Joe Biden flew to the Ukraine on official business. (The VP flew on Air Force #2. Hunter Biden joined him on the flight.) VP Joe Biden informed the government  of the Ukraine that the government needed to dismiss Mr  Shokin immediately. VP Joe Biden later admitted in a public conference (shown on television numerous times) that in the course of that visit to the Ukraine he informed the Ukrainian government officials that if Mr Shokin were not dismissed before VP Biden headed back home (six hours hence), the US would withhold $1 billion in foreign aid intended for the Ukraine.

—-Mr Shokin was dismissed on that day before VP Joe Biden left the country

[Thanks to Leon Kozak, Esq, for allowing circulation of this well-reasoned essay]

[Mr Kozak is an attorney living in northern New Jersey]
See two previous posts on Emet m'Tsiyon [here] and [here] and [here]

The Real Joe Biden; two videos to show his reality

Here are two prize videos showing the real Joe Biden:

1) Biden boasts before an audience at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations that he had made the two top Ukrainian officials, of several years ago, Pres. Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatseniuk, bend to his demand to fire an investigating prosecutor. The prosecutor was investigating corruption at the Burisma energy company, on the board of directors of which his son Hunter sat. To be sure, Biden claims that he himself was fighting corruption in Ukraine and that the dismissed prosecutor had not been "solid." Steve Hilton of Foxnews reported that Biden did various favors for Burisma, such as getting a law passed with some of his Democratic friends in the Senate that facilitated the import into the USA of natural gas from Burisma.
The part of the discussion on the Ukraine comes at about 50:30 on the video, if the video does not open up at the desired point. See video here.

2) Joe Biden's hoof in mouth video. It is very short but telling [here]

Also see our two previous posts on Biden exerting improper pressure on Ukraine
1--  Biden pressured Ukraine to vote against Israel. See post here.

2-- This post shows how Biden was used by Obama to force Ukraine to change its vote on UN SC res 2334 in December 2016, after the last presidential election. The resoluton in question was very anti-Israel. Ukraine wanted to abstain but Obama wanted it to vote in favor eventhough the USA was going to abstain itself. I explain why: Obama wanted to protect the sacred anti-Israel narrative [here]

What Did Russia Get in Return for Alleged Support for Trump?

For the past year, the first year of the Trump administration, Washington has been roiled by the quarrel between anti-Trump and pro-Trump factions, roughly speaking Democrats against Republicans although some Republicans also have worked against the president. The anti-Trumpers have tried to delegitimize Trump and his presidency. Allegations have been made by the anti-Trump side --including most of the press & media-- of Trump complicity or collusion with Russia in order to win the election. These charges led Trump to appoint a special investigator to conduct an inquiry. The special investigator was Robert Mueller, former head of the FBI.

The investigation has turned up little so far to support those allegations, as far as the public knows, even according to anti-Trump sources. Be that as it may, one essential question has not been asked, to my knowledge. That is: What did the Russians get for their alleged collusion with Trump? After all, if they colluded with Trump's representatives to support him, if they wanted to put him in the White House, and colluded with Trump or his campaign for that purpose, would they have done it expecting nothing in return?

In fact, if we look at Trump's foreign policy over the past year since the inauguration, we see that he in fact worked against Russian policy in three areas, Syria, the Ukraine, and North Korea. In Syria, Trump had American aircraft attack a Syrian air force base from which planes flew to make a chemical warfare attack on civilians in rebel-held areas. The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad is being protected and aided by Russia. In Ukraine, the Trump administration sold weapons to the Ukrainian government which is engaged in a war, now in a cease fire phase, with Russian-backed, ethnic Russian rebel militias in eastern Ukraine. Perhaps Russian troops too are directly involved in combat on the side of the rebels.

As to North Korea, Trump has several times attacked and threatened the regime and its dictator, Kim Jung Un [Little Rocket Man]. This policy on Trump's part has led to clashes with Russia at the UN Security Council. Further, Trump succeeded in getting Security Council resolutions passed critical of North Korea. Hence, we do not see what Russia got in return for any help to Trump and his campaign.

Next, we have to ask whether Russia or its government did anything that gave or might have given the election to Trump. This question is important because it was being alleged by Democrats that Russia did indeed help Trump against Hillary Clinton. Did the Russkis do anything to swing the election in Trump's favor? And if so, the thinking ran, then Trump's election was illegitimate. This is obviously a partisan claim on behalf of the Democrats and Hillary. But is there any truth to it? Anti-Trumpers have pointed to a massive dump of information by Wikileaks of emails exchanged among active employes of the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic figures, emails which put the Democratic Party and Clinton's campaign in a very bad light. Indeed, these emails were embarassing to Clinton, her party and her campaign organization. One item that emerged was that high officials of the DNC [democratic national committee] had worked against Hillary's rival in the primary elections, one Bernie Sanders --who espoused a political line allegedly to the "Left"  of  Clinton-- whereas the DNC was supposed be impartial.

The Democrats and Hillary did not deny that these embarassing emails were real and truthful. Rather they counter-attacked, after release of the emails, by claiming that Russia had leaked them to Wikileaks, as if only a state or only Russia could have hacked into the computers of the DNC and then supplied the emails to Wikileaks. However, Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, specifically denied on TV [I watched the TV program] that his organization had gotten the emails from Russia. You don't have to believe Assange of course. However, did the emails uploaded to the Internet by Wikileaks have to have come from a hacking operation? Besides, there are other hackers and other interested parties. Another possible explanation is that someone in the DNC organization had leaked them to Wikileaks. And here we have the unexplained murder of Seth Rich, an employe of the DNC whose body was found in Washington with valuable personal effects like his watch and wallet still with him. Did Rich have anything to do with supplying the emails to Wikileaks? We can only  speculate.

If anything or any person swung votes from Hillary to Trump, it was FBI director, James Comey's last minute revelation before the election that the investigation into Hillary had to be renewed because additional emails. from and to Hillary had been found on the computer of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of Hillary's gal Friday, Huma Abedin [before, after and during Hillary's presence at the State Department]. That's why Hillary was so angry at Comey. She wanted him fired from the FBI. She in fact called for him to be fired from the FBI about a week before Trump did in fact fire him in early 2017. At that time, nobody was saying that Hillary was undermining public respect for law and order.

Before concluding, we must say that many countries want to influence elections in other countries. Least of all is the United States ashamed of doing that. During the 2015 election campaign for the Knesset, it was notorious in Israel that the Obama administration, of which a Hillary presidency would have been a continuation, was interfering with money and personnel in Israel's election in favor of the Labor Party, or to be more precise, in favor of the Zionist Union party which brought together Labor with a few members of Tsipi Livni's HaTenu`ah party.

So it would come as no surprise to learn that Russia wanted to influence the 2016 US presidential election. But Russia would hardly be unique in doing that or trying to do that.

Before concluding, one might argue that Obama's administration, of which Hillary was a shameful part, both aided Russia and hurt Russia. Obama helped Russia in Syria among other ways by allowing Assad's regime to get away with using poison gas against his own population through not enforcing Obama's own "red line" against such use and making an agreement that Russia would take Syria's stock of poison gas and chemical weapons away from Syria, as a substitute for US military action against Syria's stock of such weapons. In fact, Syria still has such weapons and they were reportedly used just the other day against the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Moreover, while Hillary was secretary of state, it is credibly alleged, she intervened to facilitate the purchase by a Russian company of part of US uranium production [used in building nuclear weapons]. This facilitating of the Russian purchase took place after the Russian company had made a sizable "charitable" contribution to the Clinton family foundation, widely considered a tax free depository for moneys paid to the Clintons.

But back to the point. While letting Russia's protege, Assad in Syria, get away with murder literally, the Obama administration also worked against Russia in its next door neighbor, the Ukraine. Victoria Nuland of the State Department and other US officials were encouraging neo-fascist parties in the Ukraine --Right Sektor & Svoboda-- to work to overthrow the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich, who was considered pro-Russian. This overthrow was in fact accomplished. Ms Nuland, by the way, met with leaders of the anti-Yanukovich movement in Kiev, such as Mr Klichko, whom she affectionately called Klich. So the Russians had reason to hate Obama as well as reasons to appreciate his help for them, as in Syria. Furthermore, it is hardly clear that any help or support Russia may have given to Trump's candidacy won or swung the election for him.

Nevertheless, the most important argument against Russian complicity or collusion with Trump to help him win the election is the lack of any sign that Trump has delivered any return or quid pro quo to Russia or Putin personally. Rather, Trump record has been more anti-Russian.