The MS Media: Accessory After the Fact In Biden Case?
Accessory After the Fact
While merely failing to report a crime is one thing, helping to conceal a crime is another. A person can generally be charged with accessory after the fact, or aiding and abetting, if he or she wasn't actually present during the commission of a crime, but took actions to conceal the crime or help the perpetrators avoid capture.
The recent revelations regarding the Hunter Biden laptop embrolglio angers me. Crimes have been revealed that should be exposed and investigated, But forces within our nation conspire to hide or submerge these. In this case it is clear that the politicized media and social media are conspiring with Democrats to aid and abet criminal activity. They should be charged as accessories after the fact.
Several months ago a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden,former VP Joe Biden’s son, was dropped off at a computer shop in Delaware for repairs after it was damaged. The owner, Hunter Biden, failed to collect the instrument after signing an agreement which stipulated that failure to collect and pay the repair costs would result in forfeiture of the laptop to the shop owner.
After months went by, the shop owner—by this time the formal owner of the abandoned computer—inspected the hard drive and content of the instrument in an attempt to locate the owner and perhaps get paid for his services. What he found was evidence in the form of imagery and e-mails indicating probable criminal activity. Fearful that he may become an accessory to a crime ( aiding and abetting a criminal activity) he called in the FBI and presented the instrument to that organization. He took the precaution to copy the contents of the hard drive to protect himself.
That hard drive eventually came to the attention of the NY Post ( oldest and third or fourth largest newspaper in circulation) which reported last week ( Wednesday Oct 14, 2020) that besides incriminating pictures of the former owner, (Hunter Biden) there were incriminating emails. These reveal that Hunter, while on the board of Burisma Holding Co. (a Ukrainian natural gas firm) introduced his father, VP Joe Biden, to a chief executive (Vladimir Pozharsyi) of that firm with the apparent intention of influencing or encouraging favorable action from the White House in regard to Burisma and its dealings with the USA.
Pozharskyi’s email thanks Hunter for the introduction to his father and the opportunity for time spent with the VP. The document (dated April 17, 2015) is evidence of a possible troubling act of collusion between father and son to use government position for personal gain.
The email is of interest because it occurs just about one year before VP Joe Biden (at the time “ point man” for President Obama in Ukraine) infamously called for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma for illegal activities (where Hunter was on the Board earning an exorbitant fee). Was this act the payoff for Hunter’s job?
At the time, Biden bragged on TV that he threatened the Ukraine President to withhold a billion dollar US loan, unless the offending prosecutor was fired within the next six hours—the time of Biden’s planned departure from Ukraine. Biden proudly stated that the man was fired and in return he released the loan money.
The VP didn’t reveal at that time that Burisma was paying Hunter Biden some $80,000 per month to sit on the board of the Burisma gas company in Ukraine, a nation in which Hunter had no knowledge and an industry in which he had no expedience. Hunter was simply being paid for his connections to the White House. During the Obama years a “pay for play” operation was rampant in both the Clinton-run State Department, and now it seems as well, in Biden’s VP office. Famously, Biden denied any knowledge of Hunter’s compromising position when questioned about the firing of the prosecutor. Biden’s reply has always been, “the firing had nothing to do with Hunter”, adding somewhat unbelievably: “I never spoke with my son about his business dealings”.
Now we know, as a result of the abandoned laptop, Biden lied. Biden is not the lovable “ old uncle Joe”, an act he has spent 47 years in DC polishing and perfecting portraying for re-election. His record instead reveals more of a typical corrupt professional “pol” in the worst sense of the word. A lecher, a plagiarist, a master of self emolument by “pay for play.” Biden is the head of a family, in which his sister, his brother and his two sons were all well schooled and proficient at using the Biden name to sell access to the .”regular guy“ Senator who rode the commuter train home each day, but who ( in Hunter’s now exposed emails) was really the “big guy” who skimmed 10% off the top of all of Hunter’s deals.
But Biden’s connivance and malfeasance is totally ignored by the press. Biden is the benefactor of the main stream media’s abandonment of its critical role of acting as members of the “Fourth Estate” — journalists- who function to expose such acts. Sadly, in our time the media are in cahoots with the perpetrators, rather than eager to expose them. In the Trump era they function as co-conspirators as they aid and abet the criminals by ignoring and helping to hide criminal activity.
After the NY Post broke the story, all other MSM remained silent, either failing to report the story at all or claiming it was a Russian hoax. Tech giants Twitter and Facebook actually blocked accounts of those who attempted to retweet or pass on the NY Post piece. The social media giants even went to the extreme of actually blocking the accounts of the NY Post and government officials as well. What about our First Amendment?
In our system of jurisprudence, those who aid or abet a criminal act can be charged with being an accessory after the fact. I suggest here that the media and social media are hiding aiding and and abetting criminal acts of the Biden family. Certain editors, reporters and publications which knowingly hold the incriminating stories and fail to report them are acting like the dozens of witnesses in the infamous 1964, New York, Kitty Genoese slaying who stared out of their windows, ignoring the violence they heard below but doing nothing to report or aid the screaming victim. Those folks were held culpable for failure to report a crime. But gave no aid to the criminal. Can these publishers and journalists today who actually conspire with a criminal to avoid detection be considered accessories after the fact? They are intentionally concealing a crime and aiding a criminal to avoid prosecution.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment