Posted on 08/01/2023 1:20:20 PM PDT by Red Badger
The New York Times is now changing its tune as the narrative from the White House crumbles regarding Democrat President Joe Biden’s role in his family business.
The NY Times is now claiming that it “has long been known” that the president “interacted” with his son Hunter Biden’s “business partners.”
The gaslighting shift in position from the corporate media outlet comes after Hunter’s longtime friend and business partner Devon Archer gave an explosive whistleblowing testimony against the Bidens before Congress on Monday.
Archer was called to testify before the House Oversight Committee on the Biden family business.
He confirmed to congressional lawmakers that Joe Biden played a key role in the family’s business deals.
He said it was Joe Biden’s job to sell “the brand” – access to the White House – to foreign oligarchs.
Archer testified that he was involved in at least 20 meetings where Joe Biden spoke with business associates.
As the evidence now become irrefutable, the corporate media appears to be shifting its handling of the scandal.
In response to Archer’s testimony, the NYT tried to downplay the news by arguing that “It has long been known that the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with his son’s business partners.”
The claim led to widespread mockery and allegations that the left-wing newspaper is “gaslighting” its readers.
“I’m guessing most NYT readers did not know this,” Washington Free Beacon investigative reporter Chuck Ross said in a Twitter post alongside a screenshot of the passage.
New York Post columnist Miranda Devine replied, “This takes the cake!
The Democrat Party (of which NYT is part) is about to point out that when its unchecked corruption is open and obvious, then it is obviously acceptable to the American people.
This sounds like a CYA maneuver. “We all knew about this. Let’s move on.”
This is ‘old news’, etc...................
Snort.
This is a modified limited hangout.
Fully approved by Deep State.
I was talking to someone and this person said the story will keep shifting.
B
He said that a new defense may be, that all of the business dealings happened before Joe was president. So what they may do is eventually admit that Joe had some involvement, but that this happened long ago and isn’t still happening.
The significance there, would be they would claim you can’t do an impeachment ,because this deals with issues that happened before Joe was president.
Honestly, I truly wonder what it’s like to be so utterly lacking in integrity.
They think they are clever for lying.
The significance there, would be they would claim you can’t do an impeachment ,because this deals with issues that happened before Joe was president.
———-
Bingo. He was guilty but he’s innocent now
“This is a modified limited hangout.”
Yup—it is a form of psychological warfare and gaslighting.
Not the years later that the NYSlime finally opined that the laptop was real.
Nor the years later that the obvious corruption became too well documented to hide.
I expect to see another Pulitzer Prize for investgative reporting coming up.
......the NYT argued, “It has long been known that
Mr. Biden interacted with his son’s business partners”.......
Meaning the NYT knew......but didnt report it......
Let the Dems take him out...
Lol.
Biden has Kamala insurance—he could murder a classroom of kids on the WH lawn and I still would not support impeaching him.
;-)
The New York Slimes has morphed into the New York Semislimy
“The NY Times is now claiming that it “has long been known” that the president “interacted” with his son Hunter Biden’s “business partners.”
Oh we believe he ‘interacted’ alright. We’re in the process of revealing the mountain of evidence that proves it.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
iT is easy. On the Left, honesty is not an important virtue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.