Tyrant Joe Biden Being Loving Father In Public And New York Times Is ON IT
Teach the controversy, NYT.
There is tacky, and then there is the New York Times on one of its access journalism benders, searching like a lost, naked Chuck Todd on the side of the road for those elusive Both Sides to each and every issue. And Peter Baker has a SPECIAL one for us today, which endeavors to make Joe Biden loving his son Hunter as disgusting as Hillary Clinton having a Gmail account.
He sets it up on Twitter.
— (@)
"In the nation’s capital, where such things are rarely accidental and always noticed, Hunter BIden's appearances at a state dinner and Camp David came across as an in-your-face message of defiance by a president determined to show that he stands by his son."
OK, not so terrible so far.
Let's see that headline.
"Hunter Biden Isn't Hiding. Even Some Democrats Are Uncomfortable."
There it is. The New York Times has figured out how to make this nasty , to show both sides of Joe Biden publicly showing that he's there for his (only surviving) son.
Of course, you’d think if you click on that, you’d find reporting about Democrats who have a problem with Joe Biden standing by his son. That's what it promises, yes? These are scoops about Democrats who came to Peter Baker and said "Peter, please help us, because you are the newspaper! Hunter Biden isn't hiding, and even we are uncomfortable!" But no. It’s just the same old lazyass clickbait we’ve come to expect from NYT reporters.
Here are the sole mentions of the Democrats who are uncomfortable because Hunter Biden isn't hiding.
Yet some Democrats, including current and former Biden administration officials, privately saw [Hunter's presence at the State Dinner] as an unnecessary poke-the-bear gesture. [...]
While Democrats scorn the conspiratorial fixation of the hard right on Hunter’s troubles , some of the president’s allies privately complain that, however understandably, he has a blind eye when it comes to his son. They lament that he did not step in more assertively to stop the younger man from trading on the family name in business dealings.
It is not a subject that advisers raise with Mr. Biden easily, if at all, and so many of them are left to watch how he handles it and react accordingly. They take solace in the belief that many Americans understand a father’s love for his son, even one who makes mistakes, and in the assumption that it will not significantly hurt Mr. Biden’s bid for re-election next year any more than it did his victory over President Donald J. Trump in 2020. And they recognize that no matter what the family does, Hunter will be a target for the next 16 months.
You got all that? We hope you got all that, because it is very juicy! It says "some Democrats" thought Biden was poking the bear and "some of the president's allies" are just really upset that Joe Biden (however understandably) loving his (only surviving) son. They lament! But yet "They take solace in the belief that many Americans understand a father's love for his son, even one who makes mistakes."
Yes, "They take solace in the belief that many Americans understand a father's love for his son, even one who makes mistakes."
Once more for those in the back, "They take solace in the belief that many Americans understand a father's love for his son, even one who makes mistakes."
We just wanted to type that three times in case anybody missed how goddamn fucking weird it was the first two times.
The rest of the article is a pursed lip examination of a father loving his son (even if he makes mistakes).
It talks about Hunter Biden riding Marine One to Camp David with his father, like some kind of person who has a father and that father is the president.
It quotes Barack Obama's ethics chief Norm Eisen, who correctly says that Joe Biden absolutely knows what he's doing, making Hunter Biden visible right now. (WHAR'S HUNTER?) But if you want Eisen to have some kind of problem with it like Peter Baker seems to, you're shit out of luck. “Certainly, there’s no violation of any ethics rule as long as they didn’t talk about the case.”
It's not that Baker doesn't present the other side of the story, the White House's side, as heathen and radical as it may be:
The White House said Mr. Biden was simply being a father.
“In all administrations, regardless of party, it’s common for presidential family members to attend state dinners and to accompany presidents to Camp David,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said on Tuesday. “The president and first lady love and support their son.”
Why, in at least one recent administration we can remember, the president's daughter and her nepo baby husband had big important jobs in the White House they weren't qualified for, all while they sat under constant clouds of suspicion for their notoriously hinky ethics and national security situations and so much worse! And when the son-in-law left that position, he went and sat on old man Saudi Arabia's lap and giggled while they pulled $2 billion from behind his ear and gave it to him!
Turns Out The Kushners Got Their Security Clearances The Old-Fashioned Way — From Daddy
Did Saudi Prince Torture A Guy On Jared Kushner's Info? This Is Not 'Good'
By the way, those links are just three little tiny examples. For a fuller account, Google the entire internet.
The rest of Baker's article is just a dutiful recitation of all the verbal diarrhea Republicans have been throwing at Hunter Biden and the Trump-appointed US attorney who handled his case and the bullshit Deliverance banjo congressional investigations into him. You know, in case we hadn't heard. It even quotes Republican congressmen who were just incredibly grossed out by Hunter Biden being allowed in public with a man who claims to be his father and also the president.
Baker also jerks his dick into a lather throughout trying to make something out of the fact that Attorney General Merrick Garland was also at that state dinner, all the while admitting he has zero evidence anything untoward happened there.
He does admit, there in the 24th paragraph, that Democrats who might "bristle" at all this really don't give a shit, considering Donald Trump, "who put his daughter and son-in-law on the White House staff and whose [fucking grifter — Ed. ] children have profited off his name for years."
We're glad he got around to that in the 24th paragraph.
At press time, Baker's tweet is getting ratioed to all fuck on Twitter, and the replies are full of people shitting all over him, and this is exactly what he deserves, because he is bad at his job and should feel bad.
[ New York Times ]
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter right here.
Just got to BlueSky!
I have profiles those other places but I think I forgot how to log on.
Have you heard that Wonkette DOES NOT EXIST without your donations? Please hear it now, and if you have ever enjoyed a Wonkette article, throw us some bucks, or better yet, SUBSCRIBE!
Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .
And hadn't gone AWOL from military service.
Congrats on the new Times gig!