READ: The CENSORED Glenn Greenwald article about Hunter (and Joe) Biden

The world renowned investigative Journalist Glenn Greenwald resigned from the publication he founded, The Intercept, after he says it censored his article about Hunter Biden.

What follows is Greenwald’s note at the link below, plus the article that was censored.

By Glenn Greenwald:

I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden — the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept’s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me — to shorten it, fix typos, etc — but it’s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not “edit” but completely gut as a condition to publication:


Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family’s pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories.

One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions — the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election — journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.

After the Post’s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father.

Individuals included in some of the email chains have confirmed the contents’ authenticity. One of Hunter’s former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist that Hunter along with Joe Biden’s brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of the published email chains, appeared to confirm the authenticity as well, though he refused to answer follow-up questions about it.

Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that “text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”

But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated — so the conclusion that one had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing.

Beyond that, the Journal’s columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of documentsand “found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post,” including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar conclusion: while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, “records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy,” and “make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his ‘family’s brand’ as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture.”

For more censored information, check the “Censored” tab at the top of the pages on

These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, “that the countries that Hunter Biden, James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe Biden had previously been involved as vice president.” Strassel noted that “a May 2017 ‘expectations’ document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for ‘the big guy’—who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden.” And the independent journalist Matt Taibbi published an articleon Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden’s attempt to replace a Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma.

All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son’s business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation’s most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them.

The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution) to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims.

Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked a highly unusual censorship campaign by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its “fact-check,” one that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for Twitter’s handling of the censorship and reversed the policy that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation’s fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as the election approaches, for almost two weeks.

After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs have donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation’s media outlets and former CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin responsibility for the story.

Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept, quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security state claiming that the documents have the “classic trademarks” of a “Russian disinformation” plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times reported that “no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation” and the paper said even the FBI has “acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.”

The Washington Post on Sunday published an op-ed — by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories — that contained this extraordinary proclamation: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”

Even the letter from the former intelligence officials cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was all part of some “Russian disinformation” scheme explicitly admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” though many media outlets omitted that crucial acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot: (See here)

Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he’s doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation,” said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden emails at Thursday night’s debate. Biden’s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: “if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation.”

The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman had her name trend all morning along with the derogatory nickname “MAGA Haberman.” CBS News’ Bo Erickson was widely attacked even by his some in the media simply for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer, accusing Erickson of spreading a “smear.”

That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in an anazing statement representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified NPR’s refusal to cover the story on the ground that “we do not want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers’ and listeners’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

To justify her own show’s failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl resorted to an entirely different justification. “It can’t be verified,” the CBS reporter claimed when confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program’s failure to cover the Hunter Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the laptop, Stahl simply repeated the same phrase: “it can’t be verified.”

After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel mocked the storyas too complex and obscure for anyone to follow — a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the network’s media reporter Brian Stelter noted with pride, the story has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times noted on Friday: “most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed Hunter Biden emails…. CNN’s mentions of “Hunter” peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC’s at 24 seconds one day last week.”

On Sunday, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC’s Elizabeth Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: “We’re not going to do your work for you.” Watch how the U.S.’s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic front-runner:

These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi wrote on Sunday about this tawdry press spectacle: ” The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies.”

All of those excuses and pretexts — emanating largely from a national media that is all but explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win — served for the first week or more after the Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it.

The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and, when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the absolute right to know, including:

  • whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific ones);
  • whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store;
  • whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did so;
  • whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and,
  • how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement — Yuriy Lutsenko, someone who had no experience in law; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself had a history of corruption allegations — was acceptable if Biden’s goal really was to fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal affairs for some other objective.

Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept’s questions, they have not done so. A statement they released to other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden “has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business overseas.” To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that anyone discussing this story is “amplifying Russian disinformation,” neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents — which they and the press continue to label “Russian disinformation” — are forgeries or whether they are authentic.

The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal scrutiny:

First, the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified — the excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others — is blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014 and the Intercept’s Brazil Archive over the last year showing corruption by high-level Bolsonaro officials), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden’s emails has been verified in ways quite similar to those.

With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected.

This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process.

The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake.

Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant? Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event in the reporting’s authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not kill the credibility of the reporting.

The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material’s authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large archives.

Second, the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published emails and texts were “Russian disinformation” was, from the start, obviously baseless and reckless. No evidence — literally none — has been presented to suggest involvement by any Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible — when one does not know for certain what the provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out — but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was “Russian disinformation” was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA officials.

Worse is the “disinformation” part of the media’s equation. How can these materials constitute “disinformation” if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions about “Russian disinformation” is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were “disinformation,” became their placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these documents.

Third, the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden’s aggressive efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing $1 billion in aid.

But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son’s highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was?

The standard answer to the question about Biden’s motive — offered both by Biden and his media defenders — is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S. and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently vigilant in fighting corruption.

“Biden’s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine’s Western benefactors wanted to see as,” wrote the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a “fact-check.” Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. “The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine’s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky,” Kessler claims.

But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies.

Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption vigilance were really Biden’s goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable? Lutsenko, after all, had “no legal background as general prosecutor,” was principally known only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to “resign as interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and disorderly,” and “was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his defenders said the sentence was politically motivated.”

Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that’s exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden’s motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it.

As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied — that firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations against Burisma — the evidence does not justify that assertion.

It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden’s motive in demanding Shokhin’s termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that “no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general’s dismissal,” this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and Burisma:

[Biden’s] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament.

Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.

The Times added: “Mr. Shokhin’s office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma’s billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma.” By contrast, they said, Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, “initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office.”

So whether or not it was Biden’s intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding Shokhin’s firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced Lutesenko “cleared [Burisma’s founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office.”

The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed:

For all the negative press about Shokhin, there’s no doubt that there were multiple active cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like “dormant.” Here’s how Ken Vogel at the New York Times put it in May of 2019:

“When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources.”

Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during that time.

“There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14,” says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General’s Office, when asked how many Burisma cases there were.

“There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so I don’t know the exact amount.” But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin.

The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another “13 or 14” cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky.

Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi concludes, “one can’t say there’s no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky’s assets] that got him fired.”

And, Taibbi notes, “the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement — Yuri Lutsenko — who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular.” In sum: “it’s unquestionable that the cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin’s successor, chosen in consultation with Joe Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of $50,000 per month.”

The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden’s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son’s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried — regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump family has.

But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President’s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi’s headline put it: “With the Hunter Biden Exposé, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.”

The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years — cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated.

It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their eagerness to help Biden win.

But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign, news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked, and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly reported on their contents.

Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic — large-city, college-educated professionals — has vanishingly little Trump support. A New York Times survey of campaign data from Monday tells just a part of this story of cultural insularity and homogeniety:

Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in the last two months….It is not just that much of Mr. Biden’s strongest support comes overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does…. [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486 million to only $167 million — accounting for almost his entire financial edge….One Upper West Side ZIP code — 10024 — accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York City in total delivered $85.6 million for him — more than he raised in every state other than California….

The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was actually ahead by $53.4 million.

Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post’s Executive Editor Marty Baron, for instance, issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt.

That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump’s tax returns and — despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? — the Times reported on its contents.

When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source’s motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow compellingly explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions — (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? — but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them:

The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.

A media outlet that renounces its core function — pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people — is one that deserves to lose the public’s faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.

As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: “The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear.” Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: “The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it’s true.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

95 thoughts on “READ: The CENSORED Glenn Greenwald article about Hunter (and Joe) Biden”

  1. It seems like you are also a journalist who looks the other way when it comes to Joe Biden and Kamala’s faults. Your tone assumes that someone’s sin is more scarlet than another and that Trump in his Bombastic personality Trumps (no pun intended) all misgivings. When you look at the bigger picture…at least you know who Trump is.: “.a bull in a China shop” that gets things done..or a wolf in sheep’s clothing like Biden and the Clintons before him that are corrupt with smile on their face.

  2. Incredible work , how do we turn the cameras on these pathetic activists posing as writers ? Thank you for your bravery !

  3. Several months ago, some news source reported that Ukraine had criminally charged Joe Biden for his role in forcing Shokin’s removal. I only heard it once. I expected to see that in Mr. Grunwald’s article

    1. Randy:

      How about simply re-educating, rather than S h o o t i n g ?

      What had corrupted Hunter and his father?

      Could it have been, for example, rejecting majority opinion about removing prayer from pubic schools and the public square—teaching children “values-free” curricula ?

      Could it have been the mainstreaming of pornography against the public’s majority opinion, moving human sexuality from the sacred to the sacrilege—from “Holy Matrimony” to “Sex is fun” ?


      1. I remember the MSM continually attacking President Reagan, but even then the popular belief was that the press still respected our constitution and would never cross the many lines of unethical behavior we see today.
        When Clinton was in office it was obvious that things were changing for the worst with the Clinton Gores having no issue taking money from the Chinese and lying openly about anybody and anything with the press backing them up and either making excuses for them or just dismissing obvious illegal activity without any questions, hell Hillary literally tried to steal China from the White House.
        Character does indeed matter! Character tells everyone what you will and will not do in situations that require you to put your country above your own personal well being and anyone that’s honest knew the Clinton’s were rotten to the core.

      2. What could have corrupted the Bidens ? It’s called GREED ! You need to lay the Jung down and stop over thinking a problem. Put a bullet in them and walk away. Problem Solved ! No expense to hard working taxpayers for housing,feeding,clothing P.O.S. that take hard earned money from the mouths of children in low income families. These(Bidens)are the same people that are aborting children !

      3. You cannot reeducate sheep eating dogs. As to what corrupted Biden and his son, political power and money. A very open license to steal.

        1. Correct and if things go Biden’s way in this election the only people prosecuted will be Trump supporters and Trump along with his family.

      4. Because the traditional punishment for treason is the death penalty. A country cannot survive allowing its media to actively hide information that it finds damaging to it’s chosen political side.

    2. I tried to leave a comment & the site disappeared. I hope this election result is such a shock that it teaches them a lesson they will never forget.

    1. Yes! I agree, Sharyl we thank you for your courage and ethics. That is what will save our country and our Constitution – only ethical people who cherish the truth!!????

  4. “Fair enough.” That was the reporter’s response when Biden refused to answer even one question. Sounds like a good title for your next book!!

  5. Here is why nothing has happened to joe and his spawn: The Biden’s were working to sell 14% of Rosneft Oil Company to the Chinese to circumvent US sanctions on Russia. FBI Director Christopher Wray represented Rosneft

    When Wray was nominated for FBI Director CNN reported that he removed ALL references to his representation of Rosneft. Hunter’s laptop includes details about the deal between the Russians and Chinese to circumvent Trump’s Russian sanctions.

    Wray had his firm delete all mentions of Rosneft from their website. You may recall that the dossier included claims that Russia offered Trump 16% of Rosneft to circumvent sanctions. How ironic it was the Bidens who actually were doing the deal?

    The reason why Wray’s FBI has been sitting on Biden’s laptop is that it includes all of the details about his client’s (Rosneft) deal with the Bidens and China. I doubt he wants the details of the attempted circumvention of Trump’s sanctions to get out.

    Spalding & King that Wray left to join the FBI represented Rosneft and Gazprom for the Russian Federation.

  6. Thanks Sheryl. I’d heard about this Glenn Greenwald story, but didn’t know where to find it. A sad state of journalistic affairs.

  7. Gosh! I read the story. Joe took no money it says.
    Donald Trump takes money every day as do his sons, son in law and daughter.
    This is the first story I read about this from you. All the info in here has been published before. I read it in The NYPost and have heard it discussed on many outlets including NPR, Daily Beast, Huff Post, AP. You are the Media, too.

    1. You seem to be boasting that Donald Trump and family were taking money, however, there wasn’t much documentation provided to back your claim. care to elaborate and enlighten the readers?

  8. If this prevarication accomplishes its goal (the election of Biden) then we all will be the victim of one of the all time great bamboozles of modern history (think the Reichstag fire or McCarthy’s red scare)

  9. The purpose of the press is to hold the powerful accountable. Other than you, Glenn and a few others, they are no longer interested in doing this if it harms their own agenda.

  10. Agreed, Sharyl you are a treasure. Thank you so much for posting this article. The suppression of news by “journalists” is actually treason in my opinion.

  11. Thanks for posting Mr. Greenwald’s article. Once he creates a new platform please let us know so we can financially reward him for his high journalistic standards.

  12. Thanks, Sharyl!

    If we’re going to get macro here, I have to wonder whether the press is actually cancelling the readers, and if the readers are cancelling each other.

    Could these interactions happen if this was a face-to-face world??

    Is all of this a natural consequence of the e-mail and social media culture we have embraced without question or suspicion??

    Is this how the machines first alter humans??

  13. This is a most amazing piece of journalism and should be used to “indict “ those “‘ “ so called journalists “
    That the 4th power has dived so low only demonstrates that the so called “journalists “ do not merit that name and they have.Become derelict in their duty as true journalists .
    If the 4th power has failed miserably in its “raizon d’etre” than , they should be deprived of their “journalistic “ perks and a new “5th” power instituted ( like the internal affairs units in the police , Inspector general in several institutions ,etc ) to keeping them true to their mission
    What is clear is that a Cleaning of House is very much needed even if Trump is not elected because these MSM papers , TVs , “journalists “ have lost ALL AND ANY CREDIBILITY and no one can or SHOULD EVER TRUST THEM AGAIN

  14. Harvey Wallbanger

    I came here to read the Greenwald article. What I got, was an interpretation of the article. Where is the article, THAT I MAY JUDGE FOR MYSELF?

  15. Thank you Glenn Greenwald for being one of the best journalists in History because you really care about finding out what is the truth and then reporting it.

    I first found your reports when Ron Paul was running for president in 2012 and I’ve been a huge fan of your work ever since.

    Everyone is biased to some degree but we must do our best to be biased to finding out the TRUTH and admit our faults in the search for the TRUTH, and you have done exactly this. This is all we ask for: That you do your best.

    Thank you for being a Champion Glenn Greenwald, for not selling out and caving to pressure, for being a man of integrity and staying true to the search for TRUTH.

    And thank you Sharyl Attkisson for your amazing journalism as well. You also are one of the best journalists in History. Thank you for publishing Greenwald’s article, which asked the right questions and analyzed the situation with sound logic and critical thinking.

  16. The Media can get away with saying or not saying anything. Americans do not and or cannot comprehend what is happening beyond headlines, true or otherwise.

  17. Some very good journalism here. Huge scandal on so many levels. And like Watergate, it’s going to be about the cover-up. (Watergate itself was a keystone cops operation shortly before McGovern lost in the greatest electoral defeat in American history. I think he pulled seven electoral votes. The Watergate operation served absolutely no purpose, but then Nixon tried to cover up.)

  18. I am so glad that you published this! I was looking for this article because I did see the headline in the grapevine out there that Greenwald left Intercept and I was SO SO SO happy to see a real awesome journalist that I used to listen to on Democracy Now all the time, step up. I ADMIRE this action of his extremely. Bravo!!

    I was SO SO SO disappointed to see all these “journalists” out there acting trashy, I was shocked, and so scared of fascism. I had lost all trust in most of the media. We need the likes of Greenwald, brave, truth tellers, courageous, and understanding of what journalism is about or else we will lose our freedom and power as human beings. Thank you.

    1. Well said Goli – completely agree. Happy to be on Sharyl’s website now that Parlee will go down for a while – at Midnight.

  19. Thanking God for giving men and women such as Mr. Snowden, and Mr. Greenwald. And let’s not forget Sharyl for walking out right on TV. These people are heroes, in my opinion.

  20. It is refreshing to hear Mr. Greenwald speak the truth. I had lost faith that The Intercept had fallen to the lows of other media outlets of bias reporting., now I am convinced they are corrupt. Mr. Greenwald had to resign to tell the unadulterated truth. Integrity is a rare virtue, these days.

  21. Amazing!, but we all knew this. The lame Stream media thinks Americans are fools, they’re stuck in their liberal bubbles.

  22. True, true, true. Today’s media is mostly a disgrace to itself. And this comes from an Independent who voted Clinton, Obama, Obama in the last 3 general elections.

  23. The Biden’s wee involved in coou

    The Biden’s were involved in corrupt practices in Ukraine the MSM, supposedly the guadians of honest journalism, covered it. up. Ironic, since the charge against Trump was a shady deal with Ukraine, which wouild have, we were told, made US foreign policy subject to Ukrainian control. How important these facts are compared to other issues I leave to your judgment.

  24. What about the three cell phones that Tony B. offered for corroboration of his story? Has anybody seen those? Why is his version of events even in question?

  25. I sincerely hope more traditionally ethical journalists will take this as an opportunity to go clean. But with Columbia and the Ivy League factories in the cockpit of education, I doubt it. The damage is done. It’ll take generations and real sacrifice.

  26. We depend upon the press as a cornerstone of freedom, yet they have failed our country and we are in jeopardy. This is shameful. Just shameful.

  27. thank U for publishing mr. greenwald’s piece, and his comments on it. i will be saving a copy locally (with active links … FWIW when the links go dead), and might even get copies of all the linked-to articles as well. it’s nice to be able to throw a lying leftist’s own words back in his face in order to rebut a bald-faced lie he has just told me.

    i’m glad that i no long subscribe to any left-wing propaganda sources; instead, when find good reporting like this, i try to scrounge up some money to send in order to help the effort. the internet has made things better by providing lots of sources, but the internet has also made things worse by *requiring* me to search out lots of sources. and of course, as is usual, the fault of the extra work is due to lying leftists.

  28. I am from a journalistic family that has been involved in print media from the 1930s until newspapers became “obsolete”. I am sure that my father who believed strongly in a free and independent, press would be in tears if he had to see what now remains of what was once, not long ago, vital and relatively honest broker of the public trust in passing knowledge to the vox populi. Shortly before he retired after a long and very successful stint as “Editor” of a major regional daily, he told me of his growing frustration in hiring journalism graduates. He would not hire from some of the biggest names in journalism academia because they were training advocates, not reporters. We are seeing the result. A failure to provide basic even handed information so we can make our own intelligent decisions. The media in general has reaped the “benefit” by becoming as distrusted as “used car dealers” and politicians. Good work. The country may disintegrate because of it. -30-

  29. I don’t care if Hunter made money from the family name. Look at IVANKA for instance, Look at the whole effing family. They are no doubt stuffing money they are grifting from the US taxpayers in bank accts world wide with the blessing of the orange buffoon.

  30. Iva:

    Use the below quote, to express your outrage.

    Our republic’s weak link is what this scribbler terms: “Jumping Jack Journalists”; a derogatory term borrowed from John Swinton’s truth-telling criticism of his profession:

    “There is no such thing, at this date in the world’s history, in America, as an independent press . . . If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

    -John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, speaking before the New York Press Club to toast an “independent” press.


    1. P.S.


      To which “rich men” does Swinton refer?

      The answer to that question gets to the C R U X of the West’s ongoing dismantlement, and which R O O T CAUSE is very dangerous to reveal,


    2. Do you happen to know how that statement was received by those very same jumping jacks?? I’m curious as to whether there were any knowing glances, uncomfortable shifting in chairs, etc., or just the same old sh*t of indignation and feigned outrage? Prostitutes they are; every damn one of them.

  31. The suppression of news, opinion and thought is insidious and has gone on for years but now knows no bounds. It’s in your face now and the people behind it have no fear of repercussions. Even everyday people like me with limited influence are targeted. I have been locked out of FB since March & from Twitter since the last half hour of the last Trump-Biden debate. Multiply that by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and you can understand how corrupt media & big tech have become.

    Stay engaged & speak out – if you have to do by word of mouth to one person at a time.

    Apparently our representatives don’t really care or they’d have done something years ago.

  32. The letter from former intelligence officers raises a much scarier issue than corrupt media. We know the media is biased and untruthful. But to see a group of Deep State operatives, who where instrumental in the collusion delusion farce, openly and unashamedly try to once again point the finger a Russia with zero evidence is just remarkable. Why oh why is the press, corporate American and the intel community protecting a Communist regime? The answer is Deep State is a major player in UN Agenda 2030 and have been for some time. NOT your protector at all!!

  33. “Would a Biden presidency be “better?” And if so, how? If the goal of Mother Nature is enantiodromia – that is, cutting a great empire down to size – Biden is probably her man.

    His policy notions are even worse than those of Donald Trump. And his advisors and probable apparatchiks are more competent than those of the Big Man (for whom loyalty was more important than competence)… and therefore, perhaps, more likely to succeed in implementing his policies.
    (Competence is not always a benefit. If your 10-year-old tries to build a bomb in the basement, for example, you should be happy that he lacks the necessary skills.)

    Now on the downswing… In theory, the nation faces a choice. It could turn away from crackpot economics and divisive politics… balance its budget… recall its troops… and reenter the community of stable, civilized nations in a dignified and graceful way. Or… it could continue on the path set by Bush, Obama, and Trump.

    But in practice, there is no choice at all. Because the people who actually run the U.S. government – the Deep Staters – are not about to renounce the source of their pride, their prejudices, their reputations, their power… and their wealth. And in Joe Biden they have found their champion. He is no visionary… no intellectual… no ideologue. Instead, he is a go-along, get-along political hack.

    He went along with the war mongering of George Bush and Hillary Clinton. He went along with the Forever War… as it continued under Obama. He went along with Obama’s medical care extravaganza.
    A senator for 36 years… and vice president for eight, Joe Biden has gone along with practically every jackass program that saw the light of day. And he’s ready to go along with a whole new set of trillion-dollar bamboozles and boondoggles. What was refreshing about Donald Trump was that he was willing to say what others only thought, and resist popular fads. (He had his own crackpot ideas.)
    Biden, on the other hand, will get behind every politically correct, claptrap idea that comes down the pike.
    A Green New Deal? Sounds good!
    A universal basic income? Check.
    Higher taxes on the rich? Sure…
    Free college? Yep, it’s on the list.
    Reparations? Maybe.

    These things tend to have open-ended price tags. But the most recent estimate for the package Biden is campaigning on is about $6 trillion, guaranteeing deficits of trillions of dollars per year. Enantiodromia, Here We Come!

    And check this out. Federal Reserve governor Lael Brainard has been mentioned as a possible Treasury Secretary in the new Democrat-led government. What does she think? She spoke out on Wednesday… possibly to raise her visibility: Further targeted fiscal support will be needed alongside accommodative monetary policy to turn this K-shaped recovery into a broad-based and inclusive recovery…

    Biden in the White House? Brainard at the Treasury? More fake money! More inflation! Whoopee! Enantiodromia, here we come!

    But wait… Will Biden really win? And what will happen if he does? Will he actually be worse than Trump?”

    (Extracted from “Bill Bonner’s Diary.)

  34. I say they need to re institute hanging and hang all the traitors on the front white house lawn. Shooting is too quick.

  35. 1984 has come and gone. So much of this country’s leadership is done on the ‘wink and nod’ principle these days. Do they think we don’t see it or do they just not care since they hold the reigns of power? What can the little guy do? Speak truth to power and vote! Every night I ask God to pull our country out of the morass of greed. lies and outright madness that our so-called leaders have plunged us into. I ask that you do the same

  36. It is tragic.The average person in America today that as you mentioned is getting their news from the extremely slanted media.
    We need to remember the media has also had their brains moulded over a period of time. I am not sure what payback will be coming their way ? The answer is nothing
    they will be part of the many that will be governed by the few.. if Biden prevails they will understand before to long. One need only to take a look at any socialist country where Elections have turned into a sham! Yes they won’t like their new jobs when they are working in a. Banana Republic . Thinking through this brutal political nightmare that the Dem’s have given us it brings to mind one word Machiavellian.!

  37. What you miss on Shokin is that he was regarded in Ukraine as completely ignoring the necessity of the mandate for the prosecutor general’s office to proceed with prosecuting corruption cases. This was the reason both reformists in Ukraine, which represented the vanguard of the people who supported Maidan, and the US, EU, IMF and World Bank wanted Shokin replaced. His removal was in keeping with Ukraine’s agreement to the terms of being granted international loan guarantees being dependent on working to eliminate corruption.
    If you were familiar with the depth of corruption in Ukraine you would know that Shokin, even though he had the case against Burisma open, did not actively pursue the case and multitudes of others. Therefore Shokin’s removal was entirely justified and had nothing to do with Joe Biden personally.

  38. ‘YOU NEED TO TALK TO ONE OF OUR REPORTERS” SHEE SAID so I did, two & one got it as shee did and passed me off to his higher up: “uhh but it affected one of your own people and has been going on since before 1997?” … “We cannot help you with this story” – “tech reporter” with Lexington Hearld Leader(Liberal) when a woman’s personal private phone in their Circulation Department locked up our studio phone line about 2011 and she being in media marketing ‘got it’ for the significance of hot mic room audio being distributed out UNENCRYPTED since years prior to the patriot act or the sessionizer’s software deveoped by NSA of Narus and Verint were gifted to Israelis #talpiot programs. SEE MY hasty “Declaration of Michael Williamson” in 23-5337 before the 6th Circuit Ct of Appeals in Cincinnati OH and well S.o.S . ASAP been attempting to get legal help and reporting on this since 2008 or before being long labeled ‘Conspiracy theorist” even with PROOF and Proof of DAMAGE which is why E.F.F. ACLU William Binney and others are told they don’t have a case. WE DO, Businesses and Individuals from the “targeted town of Kim Davis” as I call it.

Scroll to Top