|
If you love the Weekly Speak, consider making a one-time or monthly donation to So We Speak! Thanks to everyone who supports our ministry. We couldn't equip Christians to think Christianly about the world without you!
|
|
|
|
The Bidens in 2009 | Photo: Acaben
|
|
The New Huntergate
On Wednesday, the New York Post published emails obtained from a laptop they said belonged to Hunter Biden. In the story, they detail the contents of the emails and the information found on the laptop, concluding, “Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.”
That’s not all. The next day, they published another story detailing Biden’s business dealings in China. In 2013, Hunter Biden flew on Air Force Two with his father to China where the two of them met with Chinese investors. Later the Bank of China created an investment fund called BHR led by one of the men Biden met with (a detail that came out in a 2019 New Yorker interview). Hunter Biden then served on the board of BHR until he stepped down in 2019. The Post calculates a $1 billion windfall from business in China, meetings at the White House, and a multi-million dollar kickback for Joe Biden.
These stories were immediately surrounded by controversy. When the NYP shared the stories on Twitter Wednesday, Twitter began blocking the links, keeping people from tweeting, sharing, or messaging the story to others, froze the NYP’s account and many others who tried to share the story and eventually froze the White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. Why would Twitter block such an important story from one of the nation’s most prominent newspapers?
Andy Stone, Facebook’s head of communications and a former employee of two Democratic PACs and two Democratic congressmen, tweeted that he would be “reducing [the story’s] impact on our platform” until it could be fact-checked.
Twitter claimed the stories broke their private information guidelines, prohibiting anyone from publishing private information without consent. They also put warnings on the posts because the stories broke their hacked materials policy which prohibits information collected through hacking or “attempts to compromise or infiltrate computer systems for malicious purposes.” Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted that the communication around their actions “was not great.” The stories and the New York Post’s Twitter account remained frozen. Many have been quick to point out that they did not take similar actions when the New York Times published information on Trump’s tax returns, which were illegally obtained. Neither did they take any action when The Atlantic reported that the President called members of the military “losers” and “suckers” based on anonymous sources. No one who would have heard these comments has confirmed them. Social media companies have taken no actions to limit circulation or “provide context” for these stories.
The Biden campaign has not denied any of the information in these stories or any of the events it alleges. The campaign and other mainstream media sites have called these stories Russian disinformation, a smear campaign, and a distraction from the election. The day after the stories broke Joe Biden was not asked a single question about it at ABC’s town hall. The New York Times has published stories claiming the president was briefed on Russian misinformation schemes surrounding Rudy Giuliani. They also published a story last night detailing the conflict in the New York Post newsroom over breaking the story. CNN has called the story “dubious” and not fully reliable.
Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley immediately requested a subpoena to bring Dorsey before the Judiciary Committee this week. This adds to growing concern over Section 230, which gives tech companies liability shelter from information published on their platforms. It also bars them from facing legal action for censoring posts and accounts of their choosing. Additionally, these actions may be considered election interference. Some in the GOP have pointed out that this is tantamount to aiding the Biden campaign.
Are the Emails Real?
The details of the story are admittedly odd. Hunter Biden dropped off a laptop at a Delaware computer repair shop in April of last year. After he didn’t come back to get it, the owner took legal control of the device, and upon looking through it discovered hundreds of emails, lude photos, a sex tape, and other communications. The store owner reached out to various senators and the FBI with the information before going to Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani who contacted the New York Post.
Newsweek reported that Hunter Biden and his lawyers have attempted to get the laptop and hard drive back. Fox News has been investigating the emails as well. On Thursday night, Tucker Carlson claimed proof that the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden and that the emails were authentic. They claim to have a source with inside knowledge of the business deals, maybe Biden’s former business partner Devon Archer, who has been convicted of fraud. They also claim that the emails are not Russian plants. After Rep. Adam Schiff told Wolf Blitzer that the information was Russian interference, the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said there was no evidence Russia was involved or that the emails were fabrications.
Does This Matter for the Election?
It’s easy to get carried away with stories of Hunter Biden’s escapades and immorality, but it’s important to remember that Hunter Biden isn’t running for president, Joe Biden is. Many of the emails show a tender and compassionate side to Joe Biden that should be celebrated. And in a better world, Joe Biden would not have allowed his son to be involved in politics, and Joe Biden’s political opponents would involve Hunter Biden in their attacks. As distasteful as it is, it is not illegal for Hunter Biden to join boards across the world when he doesn’t have the requisite experience. Beyond that, if he did do anything illegal it doesn’t necessarily implicate his father or his election chances. “Explainers” and fact-checkers have seized upon this part of the story.
The most important development in this story is evidence that might prove Joe Biden received money from foreign governments during and after his time in the White House. As of right now, the most significant piece of information is an email discussing compensation packages between Biden’s firm and a Chinese energy company. In this email, compensation is reserved for Biden and “10 held by H for the big guy.” If this is Joe Biden, it would be after he left the White House but might describe payments and agreements during his time in office.
Even if these payments weren’t for foreign policy influence it would be of the highest importance to the election and to Biden’s fitness for office. An American presidential candidate should not be paid by foreign governments or foreign entities. If it did have anything to do with his foreign policy it’s treasonous and Biden should not only drop out of the race, he should face Senate hearings and criminal charges. It’s shocking and irresponsible that after three years of accusations and an impeachment trial for Donald Trump on far less evidence that the media and the Democratic establishment have been silent about what might have happened between Joe Biden and the Chinese and Ukrainian governments.
Over the next few weeks, this story will likely break into three pieces, all of them worth paying attention to.
First, are these emails real and do they tell the truth about the Bidens involvement with foreign leaders? Based on the most recent reporting from Fox News, it looks likely that these emails are going to be validated but more information is necessary to corroborate the NYP’s stories.
Second, did Joe Biden receive money in exchange for access and foreign policy influence? This is the most serious of the storylines and the most difficult to prove. The emails do allege interference in foreign policy before and after Biden’s time in the White House, so this claim is certainly within the realm of possibility.
Third, what will happen with big tech companies? Should Facebook and Twitter be able to censor posts and accounts when stories violate their rules? This is not the first time they’ve blocked content across their platforms. Will they be penalized for unevenly enforcing their rules? Just imagine if this were the other way around. Imagine that Twitter and Facebook had blocked the New York Times’ story about Trump’s tax returns, frozen their accounts, frozen the Biden campaign director, or censored the mainstream media for sharing the story. It’s almost unthinkable. Now that it’s a conservative story, it doesn’t just seem plausible, most news outlets are ignoring it.
This storyline also hinges on the veracity of the content. In theory, this is a separate question, but if the emails turn out to be doctored it will be unlikely big tech is held accountable. On the other hand, the hearings this week and the verification of the NYP stories could lead to a big shakeup in big tech.
|
|
Study Philippians
When Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians, he saw an opportunity for the Gospel in a difficult time. In this series, Terry Feix walks through the unique opportunity we have to see our world changed by the Gospel during these unprecedented times.
|
|
|
|
|
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, 2019 | Photo: Gage Skidmore
|
|
In France, a teacher was beheaded by a Muslim extremist after showing cartoon drawings of the prophet Muhammed. Samuel Paty was teaching a class on the freedom of expression and showed pictures of the prophet Muhammed that Charlie Hebdo had published in 2015. Shortly after showing these pictures in class, Paty was attacked on his way home from school, killed, and beheaded.
An 18-year-old Chechen refugee has claimed the attack on social media, saying “I have executed one of the dogs from hell who dared to put Muhammad down.” The French saw the reports and shot the suspect while attempting to arrest him. Nine other people have been detained in connection with the beheading. Hours later, protesters filled the streets in France in support of the victim. French President Emmanuel Macron responded with strong rhetoric denouncing the act of violence and the influence of religious violence in France and western Europe.
The media in the US has drawn criticism for headlines that obscure and downplay Islamic extremism in the story. The original headline in the New York Times was “French Police Shoot and Kill Man after Fatal Knife Attack on the Street.” It’s hard to imagine a more obfuscating title. NBC News did one better, “Decapitated French teacher warned not to show Prophet Muhammad images before 'Islamist' attack.” Macron’s response shows a stark contrast to these headlines in the United States, pointing out the nature and reality of Islamic extremism and taking actions to root out violent networks and prosecute their members.
It’s going to be a busy three weeks for the Senate. This week the Senate is scheduled to vote on narrow stimulus bills. On Tuesday, Sen. McConnell has scheduled a vote to refund the PPP and on Wednesday senators will vote on a $500 billion stimulus program. Democrats are expected to vote against both bills. The judiciary committee will vote on Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination Thursday and McConnell will bring the motion to the floor the next day. There could be a vote as early as next week.
On Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to issue subpoenas to Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey to testify about big tech censorship.
Speaker Pelosi has called for a 48-hour limit on further stimulus talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. This would be the last opportunity to reach an agreement before the election. The president has indicated that he wants a deal and is willing to agree to the $2 trillion price tag. Republicans in the Senate are not so sure.
|
|
Best Reads:
“The ‘Good Censors’” - Niall Ferguson, Bloomberg
What should be done about social media, big tech, and section 230? We’ll hear a lot of proposals in the coming weeks, but it would be hard to beat Ferguson on force or lucidity. He frames the issue, not as a matter of whether or not the New York Post story will turn out to be true, but as to the power tech companies exert on our public dialogue and the legal catch-22s they exploit to do so. If they don’t like the content, they can delete it. If others don’t like the content, they plead immunity. Contra Josh Hawley, the problem isn’t that Facebook and Twitter have monopolies, but that they have become the public sphere and arbitrarily violate their own rules. As Ferguson argued in a 2018 white paper, section 230 should be rewritten to force media companies to comply with the 1st amendment, so that “the platforms will finally discover that there are risks to being a publisher and responsibilities that come with near-universal usage.” This is a sharp primer for the hearings this week and the conversations to follow.
“Why the Nicene Creed?” - Peter Sanlon, Credo Magazine
For many in the non-credal tradition, the Nicene Creed is something said in Catholic services or a rote regurgitation of doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the opening article of the latest issue of Credo, Sanlon gives a brief history of the Council of Nicea and an overview of the creed. He summarizes the arguments between Arius and Athanasius, the role Constantine played, and how the church codified the basic beliefs of Christianity to provide a summary for a largely illiterate public. The main focus in this creed is the trinity. Although it is present in Scripture, this summary of the trinity gives us language that the church has used for 1700 years to speak about God, to know him, and to serve him.
“US Citizens Obligated to ‘Higher Power from Which Their Rights and Freedoms Derived’” - William Barr, The Washington Times
In the midst of our current political scuffles, it’s easy to lose sight of the foundational tenets of our politics, and of our faith. In America, unlike any other country in the world, the founders had a chance to design the nation based on their own philosophy of government, and in light of their faith. One of the groundbreaking assertions Jefferson, Madison, and others included in our founding documents is that human rights are not given by the government but by God. Barr points out that enduring phrases like “In God We Trust” are not a call for universal church attendance - because the freedom of religion is another one of our foundational freedoms - but a reminder that the whole apparatus depends on our acknowledgment that our lives and our freedoms are guaranteed by something much more significant than the government. Because of this vision, they designed the US with an eye to human sin. Natural and written laws serve to restrain sinfulness and provide for the common good. Barr details this founding mindset and reminds us where our rights and freedoms truly come from.
“Why Is Wokeness Winning?” - Andrew Sullivan, The Weekly Dish
“A question I’ve wrestled with this past year or so is a pretty basic one: if critical race/gender/queer theory is unfalsifiable postmodern claptrap, as I have long contended, how has it conquered so many institutions so swiftly?” This is a crucial question. For many of us, the extremes of “woke” ideology seem so far-fetched, illogical, and radical that it’s hard to believe anyone actually thinks that way. We’re watching our country undergo a tectonic shift around the issues of race, merit, language, identity, and history. One reason, Sullivan mentions, is emotional. There are some good and healthy sources of empathy and compassion driving everyone to think more critically about race. Second, it’s simplistic. Third, it’s ruthless. But most importantly, we’ve been duped into thinking it’s not debatable. The game has been set up in such a way that arguing against CRT only serves to prove your own inherent bias. It’s important to understand why and how these shifts are happening. Sullivan takes you under the hood in a way few other writers have the clout and the intellect to pull off.
“A Back-to-Basics Primer for Conservatives” - Cass Sunstein, Bloomberg
We’re starting to get a glimpse of life after November 3, no matter who wins. If Biden wins, especially if the Democrats take the Senate, things could change quickly for the country. If Trump wins, conservatives will have to prove that they have a plan for the next four years. What both parties need to show is that they have policy proposals that will actually move the country forward. The Dems have promised progressive reforms, some of which like the $15 minimum wage and the Green New Deal, Sunstein points out, will be counterproductive. Sunstein is a former Obama administration official and a professor at Harvard Law. He’s no conservative, but he’s no progressive either, and here, he has the foresight to see the common ground proposals that might be able to bring progressives and conservatives together for the good of the country.
|
|
|
|
