Glenn Greenwald Resigns From The Intercept, Claims He Was Censored

Glenn Greenwald Resigns From The Intercept, Claims He Was CensoredGlenn Greenwald on Thursday announced that he had resigned from The Intercept—the digital outlet he founded in 2013 with fellow journalists Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, and with funding from First Look Media—claiming “repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity” at the publication. In response, the outlet disputed his claims of censorship and suggested his exit was essentially “a grown man throwing a tantrum.”In a post published to Substack, the long-time reporter claimed that “The final, precipitating cause” of his exit was that “The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.”He continued: “The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.”The long-time writer, whose reporting on the NSA’s surveillance operations helped The Guardian win a Pulitzer Prize in 2014, noted that he will publish the allegedly censored article in full on his Substack page.The Intercept’s editor in chief Betsy Klein responded in a scathing statement that “Greenwald’s decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Joe Biden will suffice to refute those claims.”She continued: “The narrative he presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies—all of them designed to make him appear a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s—the Trump campaign’s—dubious claims and launder them as journalism.”Klein concluded: “We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalism roots, not the Intercept.”Prior to the Trump presidency, Greenwald’s reporting and commentary was influential on the left—especially among civil-liberties and anti-war groups—but since 2016, his frequent Fox News appearances and increasingly Fox-friendly columns have been a source of tension at The Intercept. In recent years, Greenwald’s view of Russian interference in the U.S. election mirrored that of pro-Trump Republicans, leading to an increased presence on Fox News—especially on Tucker Carlson’s primetime program—as a non-conservative skeptic of the scandals that led to President Trump’s impeachment and as a critic of liberal “resistance” politics.“The Intercept published some of the most credulous and false affirmations of maximalist Russiagate madness, and, horrifyingly, took the lead in falsely branding the Hunter Biden archive as ‘Russian disinformation’ by mindlessly and uncritically citing—of all things—a letter by former CIA officials that contained this baseless insinuation,” he wrote in his resignation announcement.Greenwald’s appeared to hint at his criticism of his own outlet over coverage of the Hunter Biden emails during an Oct. 21 appearance on Carlson’s show, in which he insisted that editors at many publications were outright ordering their reporters to lay off the story.“There are newsrooms all throughout New York and Washington, D.C., where top editors are explicitly saying they do not want this story investigated and they are being clear that the reason they don't want to investigate it is because they think even if there is corruption that's exposed here,” Greenwald claimed. “In their view, Trump is worse and therefore it would be malfeasance on the part of the media to report corruption on the part of Biden when Trump is so much more corrupt.”“If what they are saying is, they see their role as journalists not as informing the public to let the public decide which candidate is better and which is worse, they see journalism, the function of it is to defeat Donald Trump and elect Joe Biden,” he added.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.


Posted in Uncategorized

Lindsey Graham, you're on your own

Lindsey Graham, you're on your ownThere have been few high-profile Republican politicians more publicly and slavishly devoted to President Trump over the last few years than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Words like "toady" and "lapdog" have frequently been used to describe the senator's subservience. Apparently that near-total fealty hasn't been enough for Graham to earn a little loyalty in return.The Trumpiest corners of the conservative ecosphere have made it plain in recent weeks that they're ready to abandon Graham — who is locked in a tight re-election race with Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison — even if it means losing his Senate seat. "I don't know why anyone in the great state of South Carolina would ever vote for Lindsey Graham. It's just outrageous," Fox Business host Lou Dobbs said last week."It's about time" for Graham to be defeated, added a writer at the right-wing American Greatness website.Graham has never been particularly popular among hardcore conservatives, but it is still shocking to see them turn on a fellow Republican candidate in a close general election race. For right-wing activists, the senator's problem is that he is only about 97 percent steadfast in serving Trump's wishes, instead of a full 100 percent. Dobbs, for example, pointed out that Graham — in his role as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — had failed to pursue evidence of the fake "Obamagate" scandal that Trump has tried — and failed — to get going. It's the same reason Trump has talked about getting rid of FBI Director Christopher Wray after the election."He's done absolutely nothing to investigate Obamagate except to tell everyone, 'Stay tuned,' time and time again. Stay tuned," Dobbs said. "Senator Graham needs to be tuned out in South Carolina."The rhetoric could endanger Graham's campaign: If even a small portion of South Carolina conservatives decide to withhold their support, he could lose his seat. Trump could possibly discourage the attacks on Graham if he wanted to, but so far, he hasn't. One has to wonder if the president had Graham in mind last week when he told GOP donors there were some Republican senators he just couldn't support for re-election."There are a couple senators I can't really get involved in," Trump reportedly said. "I just can't do it. You lose your soul if you do. I can't help some of them. I don't want to help some of them."Trump's worried about his soul? This is the same man who endorsed Roy Moore for the Senate back in 2017 while Moore was under a cloud of allegations of pursuing relationships with teen girls when he was in his 30s. More recently, Trump endorsed QAnon conspiracy devotee Marjorie Taylor Greene, calling her a "future Republican star." It's difficult to determine the boundaries of Trump's conscience.But Trump's silence on Graham — and his willingness to savage other GOP candidates of dubious loyalty, like Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) — suggests the president either doesn't understand or doesn't care how important a GOP-controlled Senate might be to governing in his own possible second term in office.Republicans in the Senate have already saved Trump from conviction on impeachment charges; the president presumably liked having that security blanket. If Trump should win re-election and Democrats take the Senate, though, he will probably face more investigations and scrutiny of both his personal affairs and his operation of government. His biggest achievement, stacking the judiciary with conservative judges, would probably come to a halt. Trump wouldn't be totally powerless in such a scenario — he could speed up the pace of deregulation and continue to misuse the Justice Department — but his life would probably be a lot more difficult.Other presidents have recognized that their power depends on their relationships with the House and Senate, of course, which is why they usually grin and bear it when taking criticism from elected members of their party. Usually, they see the bigger picture of exercising power effectively, and they know not to take it personally if a senator or member of congress expresses a bit of independence. But Trump has shown little regard for the legislative branch of government, and there isn't evidence he cares about much beyond his own ego and well-being.Thus, it seems Lindsey Graham is being left to twist in the wind. And Republicans are in greater danger of losing their Senate majority.It's hard to feel sorry for Graham. Any reasonable observer has seen that for Trump, loyalty is a one-way street. Yet Graham gave it, and demanded it of others. "To every Republican, if you don't stand behind this president, we're not going to stand behind you," Graham told a South Carolina crowd last year. Which raises the question: Who is standing behind Lindsey Graham now?Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com How to make an election crisis 64 things President Trump has said about women Republicans are on the verge of a spectacular upside-down achievement


Posted in Uncategorized

Melania Trump hits the campaign trail, says the president has 'a very big heart'

Melania Trump hits the campaign trail, says the president has 'a very big heart'First lady Melania Trump had nothing but praise for her husband on Tuesday, telling a crowd in Atglen, Pennsylvania, that President Trump is "tough, successful, and fair" and "sees potential in everyone he meets, no matter their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation."Trump, she continued, is "a man who has a very big heart and a great sense of humor. Donald loves helping people, and he loves seeing those around him, and his country, succeed."This was the first lady's first solo campaign event for 2020, and she was joined by former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. The event was held in a converted barn usually used for wedding receptions, USA Today reports, with several hundred people in attendance. There was little social distancing, but most people did have on masks.Trump applauded the president for working "hard to keep people informed and calm" and said his impeachment was "a sham." She also accused Democrats and the media of working together to "all but destroy our traditional values," and claimed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden will push a "socialist agenda."More stories from theweek.com How to make an election crisis 64 things President Trump has said about women Republicans are on the verge of a spectacular upside-down achievement


Posted in Uncategorized

Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn't Buy It.

Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn't Buy It.By early October, even people inside the White House believed President Donald Trump's reelection campaign needed a desperate rescue mission. So three men allied with the president gathered at a house in McLean, Virginia, to launch one.The host was Arthur Schwartz, a New York public relations man close to Trump's eldest son, Donald Jr. The guests were a White House lawyer, Eric Herschmann, and a former deputy White House counsel, Stefan Passantino, according to two people familiar with the meeting.Herschmann knew the subject matter they were there to discuss. He had represented Trump during the impeachment trial early this year, and he tried to deflect allegations against the president in part by pointing to Hunter Biden's work in Ukraine. More recently, he has been working on the White House payroll with a hazy portfolio, listed as "a senior adviser to the president," and remains close to Jared Kushner.The three had pinned their hopes for reelecting the president on a fourth guest, a straight-shooting Wall Street Journal White House reporter named Michael Bender. They delivered the goods to him there: a cache of emails detailing Hunter Biden's business activities, and, on speaker phone, a former business partner of Hunter Biden's named Tony Bobulinski. Bobulinski was willing to go on the record in The Journal with an explosive claim: that Joe Biden, the former vice president, had been aware of, and profited from, his son's activities. The Trump team left believing that The Journal would blow the thing open and their excitement was conveyed to the president.The Journal had seemed to be the perfect outlet for a story the Trump advisers believed could sink Biden's candidacy. Its small-c conservatism in reporting means the work of its news pages carries credibility across the industry. And its readership leans further right than other big news outlets. Its Washington bureau chief, Paul Beckett, recently remarked at a virtual gathering of Journal reporters and editors that while he knows that the paper often delivers unwelcome news to the many Trump supporters who read it, The Journal should protect its unique position of being trusted across the political spectrum, two people familiar with the remarks said.As the Trump team waited with excited anticipation for a Journal expose, the newspaper did its due diligence: Bender and Beckett handed the story off to a well-regarded China correspondent, James Areddy, and a Capitol Hill reporter who had followed the Hunter Biden story, Andrew Duehren. Areddy interviewed Bobulinski. They began drafting an article.Then things got messy. Without warning his notional allies, Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and now a lawyer for Trump, burst onto the scene with the tabloid version of the McLean crew's carefully laid plot. Giuliani delivered a cache of documents of questionable provenance -- but containing some of the same emails -- to The New York Post, a sister publication to The Journal in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Giuliani had been working with the former Trump aide Steve Bannon, who also began leaking some of the emails to favored right-wing outlets. Giuliani's complicated claim that the emails came from a laptop Hunter Biden had abandoned, and his refusal to let some reporters examine the laptop, cast a pall over the story -- as did The Post's reporting, which alleged but could not prove that Joe Biden had been involved in his son's activities.While the Trump team was clearly jumpy, editors in The Journal's Washington bureau were wrestling with a central question: Could the documents, or Bobulinski, prove that Joe Biden was involved in his son's lobbying? Or was this yet another story of the younger Biden trading on his family's name -- a perfectly good theme, but not a new one or one that needed urgently to be revealed before the election.Trump and his allies expected the Journal story to appear Monday, Oct. 19, according to Bannon. That would be late in the campaign, but not too late -- and could shape that week's news cycle heading into the crucial final debate last Thursday. An "important piece" in The Journal would be coming soon, Trump told aides on a conference call that day.His comment was not appreciated inside The Journal."The editors didn't like Trump's insinuation that we were being teed up to do this hit job," a Journal reporter who wasn't directly involved in the story told me. But the reporters continued to work on the draft as the Thursday debate approached, indifferent to the White House's frantic timeline.Finally, Bobulinski got tired of waiting."He got spooked about whether they were going to do it or not," Bannon said.At 7:35 Wednesday evening, Bobulinski emailed an on-the-record, 684-word statement making his case to a range of news outlets. Breitbart News published it in full. He appeared the next day in Nashville, Tennessee, to attend the debate as Trump's surprise guest, and less than two hours before the debate was to begin, he read a six-minute statement to the press, detailing his allegations that the former vice president had involvement in his son's business dealings.When Trump stepped on stage, the president acted as though the details of the emails and the allegations were common knowledge. "You're the big man, I think. I don't know, maybe you're not," he told Biden at some point, a reference to an ambiguous sentence from the documents.As the debate ended, The Wall Street Journal published a brief item, just the stub of Areddy and Duehren's reporting. The core of it was that Bobulinski had failed to prove the central claim. "Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden," The Journal reported.Asked about The Journal's handling of the story, the editor-in-chief, Matt Murray, said the paper did not discuss its newsgathering. "Our rigorous and trusted journalism speaks for itself," Murray said in an emailed statement.And if you'd been watching the debate, but hadn't been obsessively watching Fox News or reading Breitbart, you would have had no idea what Trump was talking about. The story the Trump team hoped would upend the campaign was fading fast.The Gatekeepers ReturnThe McLean group's failed attempt to sway the election is partly just another story revealing the chaotic, threadbare quality of the Trump operation -- a far cry from the coordinated "disinformation" machinery feared by liberals.But it's also about a larger shift in the American media, one in which the gatekeepers appear to have returned after a long absence.It has been a disorienting couple of decades, after all. It all began when The Drudge Report, Gawker and the blogs started telling you what stodgy old newspapers and television networks wouldn't. Then social media brought floods of content pouring over the old barricades.By 2015, the old gatekeepers had entered a kind of crisis of confidence, believing they couldn't control the online news cycle any better than King Canute could control the tides. Television networks all but let Donald Trump take over as executive producer that summer and fall. In October 2016, Julian Assange and James Comey seemed to drive the news cycle more than the major news organizations. Many figures in old media and new bought into the idea that in the new world, readers would find the information they wanted to read -- and therefore, decisions by editors and producers, about whether to cover something and how much attention to give it, didn't mean much.But the past two weeks have proved the opposite: that the old gatekeepers, like The Journal, can still control the agenda. It turns out there is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks, a difference between a Trump tweet and an article about it, even between an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal suggesting Joe Biden had done bad things, and a news article that didn't reach that conclusion.Perhaps the most influential media document of the past four years is a chart by a co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, Yochai Benkler. The study showed that a dense new right-wing media sphere had emerged -- and that the mainstream news "revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set."Bannon had known this, too. He described his strategy as "anchor left, pivot right," and even as he ran Breitbart News, he worked to place attacks on Hillary Clinton in mainstream outlets. The validating power of those outlets was clear when The New York Times and Washington Post were given early access in the spring of 2015 to the book "Clinton Cash," an investigation of the Clinton family's blurring of business, philanthropic and political interests by writer Peter Schweizer.Schweizer is still around this cycle. But you won't find his work in mainstream outlets. He's over on Breitbart, with a couple of Hunter Biden stories this month.And the fact that Bobulinski emerged not in the pages of the widely respected Journal but in a statement to Breitbart was essentially Bannon's nightmare, and Benkler's fondest wish. And a broad array of mainstream outlets, unpersuaded that Hunter Biden's doings tie directly to the former vice president, have largely kept the story off their front pages, and confined to skeptical explanations of what Trump and his allies are claiming about his opponent."SO USA TODAY DIDN'T WANT TO RUN MY HUNTER BIDEN COLUMN THIS WEEK," conservative writer Glenn Reynolds complained Oct. 20, posting the article instead to his blog. Trump himself hit a wall when he tried to push the Hunter Biden narrative onto CBS News."This is '60 Minutes,' and we can't put on things we can't verify," Lesley Stahl told him. Trump then did more or less the same thing as Reynolds, posting a video of his side of the interview to his own blog, Facebook.The media's control over information, of course, is not as total as it used to be. The people who own printing presses and broadcast towers can't actually stop you from reading leaked emails or unproven theories about Joe Biden's knowledge of his son's business. But what Benkler's research showed was that the elite outlets' ability to set the agenda endured in spite of social media.We should have known it, of course. Many of our readers, screaming about headlines on Twitter, did. And Trump knew it all along -- one way to read his endless attacks on the establishment media is as an expression of obsession, a form of love. This week, you can hear howls of betrayal from people who have for years said the legacy media was both utterly biased and totally irrelevant."For years, we've respected and even revered the sanctified position of the free press," wrote Dana Loesch, a right-wing commentator not particularly known for her reverence of legacy media, expressing frustration that the Biden story was not getting attention. "Now that free press points its digital pen at your throat when you question their preferences."On the Other Side of the GateThere's something amusing -- even a bit flattering -- in such earnest protestations from a right-wing movement rooted in efforts to discredit the independent media. And this reassertion of control over information is what you've seen many journalists call for in recent years. At its best, it can also close the political landscape to a trendy new form of dirty tricks, as in France in 2017, where the media largely ignored a last-minute dump of hacked emails from President Emmanuel Macron's campaign just before a legally mandated blackout period.But I admit that I feel deep ambivalence about this revenge of the gatekeepers. I spent my career, before arriving at The Times in March, on the other side of the gate, lobbing information past it to a very online audience who I presumed had already seen the leak or the rumor, and seeing my job as helping to guide that audience through the thicket, not to close their eyes to it. "The media's new and unfamiliar job is to provide a framework for understanding the wild, unvetted, and incredibly intoxicating information that its audience will inevitably see -- not to ignore it," my colleague John Herrman (also now at The Times) and I wrote in 2013. In 2017, I made the decision to publish the unverified "Steele dossier," in part on the grounds that gatekeepers were looking at it and influenced by it, but keeping it from their audience.This fall, top media and tech executives were bracing to refight the last war -- a foreign-backed hack-and-leak operation like WikiLeaks seeking to influence the election's outcome. It was that hyper-vigilance that led Twitter to block links to The New York Post's article about Hunter Biden -- a frighteningly disproportionate response to a story that other news organizations were handling with care. The schemes of Herschmann, Passantino and Schwartz weren't exactly WikiLeaks. But the special nervousness that many outlets, including this one, feel about the provenance of the Hunter Biden emails is, in many ways, the legacy of the WikiLeaks experience.I'd prefer to put my faith in Murray and careful, professional journalists like him than in the social platforms' product managers and executives. And I hope Americans relieved that the gatekeepers are reasserting themselves will also pay attention to who gets that power, and how centralized it is, and root for new voices to correct and challenge them.This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2020 The New York Times Company


Posted in Uncategorized

Samsung Boss Dies as Ex-Con Son Tries to Seize Control of World’s Biggest Phone Maker

Samsung Boss Dies as Ex-Con Son Tries to Seize Control of World’s Biggest Phone MakerSEOUL—Now the battle rages for “the Republic of Samsung.”The death Sunday of Samsung boss Lee Kun-hee, probably Korea’s most admired, if hated, man, leaves his son, Lee Jae-yong, battling the authorities and a legion of lawyers for control of the empire that controls 20 percent of the Korean economy. The world’s biggest smartphone manufacturer has a turnover that exceeds many republics.Lee Jae-yong, or Jay Lee, was in Vietnam where Samsung Electronics produces the majority of its smartphones, when he got word that his father was on the verge of death.Jay Lee, who is 52, made it to his father’s bedside in a Samsung hospital here in Seoul before he breathed his last. His father, 78, had been bed-ridden and mostly in a coma since suffering a heart attack six years ago.While in Vietnam, Jay Lee had managed to avoid the opening of the latest trial by prosecutors who are out to get him on charges of manipulating share prices in two Samsung companies in a bid to guarantee his inheritance.Having already spent a year in jail while on trial on charges of bribing the ousted Korean president Park Geun-hye, Lee now faces more jail time if prosecutors can pin another conviction on him—this time for lowering the share price of one company to merge it with another. By pulling off that merger—Hey Presto!—Lee hoped to have enough shares in the combined companies to hold a controlling stake in Samsung Electronics, the crown jewel of an empire whose 80 or so enterprises range from ship-building to insurance to construction to an amusement park rivaling any Disneyland.Jay Lee is an engaging figure unlike his stern father, who took over the group from his own father, the Samsung founder Lee Byung-chull, more than 30 years ago. And, just to show he means well, he formally apologized for his rule-bending efforts to secure what he sees as his dynastic right.“I and Samsung have been reprimanded for the succession issue,” he said, looking suitably penitent when promising to “try to not have additional controversy regarding the management succession.”Those nice words are scorned by reform-minded authorities, however, and it’s the matter of succession that’s sure to consume his energies once he’s gone through an elaborate funeral. His father was the country’s richest man, whose net worth of nearly $21 billion made him the world’s 67th richest person, according to Forbes.Jay Lee, already Korea’s second richest man with a net worth of $6.4 billion, has perfected the art of displays of humility in the face of powers-that-be. But Korean president Moon Jae-In wants to reform the country’s traditional dynastic conglomerate system, known as chaebol, which keeps huge businesses in the hands of a few rich families and effectively controls the entire economy. The current system has led to wild disparities between rich and poor—brilliantly captured by the Oscar-winning movie Parasite.Geoffrey Cain, author of the newly published Samsung Rising, the Inside Story of the South Korean Giant That Set Out to Beat Apple and Conquer Tech, sees the HBO series Succession as an even more suitable artistic representation. Scene after scene captures the battle to secure a family enterprise making it “an apt show for understanding the Lees,” said Cain.It’s not as though Jay Lee’s two sisters, who stand to inherit lesser shares of the empire, are fighting him for a bigger slice of the inheritance, but the machinations to seize and hang on against enemies do bear distinct similarities.“The biggest question is how Jay Lee will cement shareholding control when he might not have enough shares to control the company,” Cain told The Daily Beast. One huge problem: “He might have to sell shares to pay his colossal inheritance tax estimated at $6 billion divided between him and his sisters.”He also faces a maternal problem. His mother, Hong Ra-hee, “gets a sizable share of the chairman’s assets that could hamper Jay Lee’s quest to control the company,” said Cain. “Jay Lee’s succession is not guaranteed.”One reason prosecutors are reportedly so eager to punish Jay Lee—as seen in his current trial—is resentment over the breaks that Lee Kun-hee got from conservative presidents over the years before the Candlelight Revolution of 2016 ousted Park Geun-hye.Jay Lee’s father was forgiven in 1997, when the conservative Kim Young-sam exonerated him after he and others had been convicted of bribery charges, and again 10 years later when he was convicted of evading massive taxes, among other things. Forced to resign as chairman of Samsung Electronics, he got totally off the hook when Lee Myung-bak, the conservative businessman who was then president, gave him a complete pardon in 2009.Jay Lee, however, does have plenty of sympathizers. One advocate, Tara Oh, a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence officer, who founded and now serves as president of the East Asia Research Center in Washington, accuses the government of “aggressive and unreasonable investigations against the company” and denounces the charges against him as “frivolous, without merit and unjust.”In a lengthy study of the whole case against Samsung, Oh claims that Jay Lee was “convicted of a crime without evidence” simply as justification for the impeachment of Park Geun-hye, who was convicted of corruption and influence-peddling and sentenced to 25 years in prison. It was Samsung’s gift of two horses for the equestrian daughter of a confidante of Park that triggered a series of events that precipitated Park’s downfall. “My Kingdom for a Horse,” was the headline over a Wall Street Journal story at the time.“The Moon administration appears to be interested in taking over control of Samsung,” Oh wrote. “Globally, the actions of the Moon administration threaten the future of 5G technology developments as well as the global supply chain for critical life-saving biopharmaceuticals and COVID-19 treatments.”Jay Lee himself avoids what might appear as incendiary statements. In meetings with executives as well as occasional sessions with lower-level staffers, he appears almost soft-spoken and modest, quite the opposite of his late father.Lee Kun-hee, who set Samsung Electronics on its trajectory as the world’s leading smartphone manufacturer and also the producer of almost half the world’s memory chips, is remembered for berating those around and below him, haranguing them in 10-hour meetings and once simply destroying Samsung products that he said were inferior to those of rivals.Appropriately, he is most quoted for shouting “Change everything but your wives and children!” at executives during a meeting in Frankfurt in 1993.After presiding over Samsung’s rise from an also-ran competitor to global dominance, Lee Kun-hee’s final years were marked by debilitating illness. Long before suffering his heart attack in 2014, he had been treated for cancer and lung disease and got about in a wheelchair.The bombastic formal statement issued by Samsung after his death did not overstate his success: “Chairman Lee was a true visionary who transformed Samsung into the world-leading innovator and industrial powerhouse from a local business.”That much was true, but the final line of the statement is still up for grabs. “His legacy will be everlasting,” it read. If prosecutors get their way at the latest trial of his son, the Lee legacy may not last forever after all.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.


Posted in Uncategorized

Rep. Stefanik: ‘Joe Biden Is Lying to the American People’ about Hunter’s Business Dealings

Rep. Stefanik: ‘Joe Biden Is Lying to the American People’ about Hunter’s Business DealingsDemocratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is “lying to the American people” about his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, claimed Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) on Saturday.The House Intelligence Committee member's comments came during an appearance on Fox & Friends Weekend, in which she accused the former vice president of lying when he issued his denial of wrongdoing during Thursday night’s presidential debate. Stefanik detailed her experience asking each witness in President Trump’s impeachment hearings whether there was a conflict of interest, or an appearance of one, created by Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian natural-gas firm Burisma Holdings during Joe Biden’s time as vice president. All of the witnesses said yes, she recalled.She said the Obama administration “proactively brought this up as a conflict of interest” while preparing former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch for her Senate nomination. “This is Joe Biden running from his record and trying to wipe away this very clear conflict of interest,” Stefanik said."This is not just a Hunter Biden scandal. This is a Joe Biden scandal, and it's not just Burisma. It's also now the Chinese Communist government and the Chinese Communist Party," she added, referring to allegations of a business arrangement between a Chinese company and the Biden family.During Thursday’s debate, the former vice president claimed there was “nothing unethical” about Hunter Biden’s involvement in Burisma.He said though questions had arisen over whether he had done something wrong in respect to Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Burisma that, “every single solitary person, when [Trump] was going through his impeachment, testifying under oath, who worked for him said I did my job impeccably, I carried out U.S. policy, not one single, solitary thing was out of line.”


Posted in Uncategorized

Biden Confronted at Debate over Hunter’s Dealings, Issues Blanket Denials

Biden Confronted at Debate over Hunter’s Dealings, Issues Blanket DenialsDemocratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Thursday called Rudy Giuliani a “Russian pawn” and claimed stories of his involvement in his son’s foreign business dealings are “not true,” saying he has “not taken a penny from any foreign source in my life.”The comments came during the final presidential debate on Thursday evening. Earlier in the day the recipient of an email that purportedly detailed a business arrangement between a Chinese company and the Biden family confirmed that the email is “genuine” and said the family “aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions” from foreign entities. Giuliani provided a trove of documents to the New York Post last week that includes a number of emails between Hunter Biden and foreign business partners. One email exchange between the younger Biden and representatives of a Chinese energy firm reads, “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” Tony Bobulinski, who is listed as a recipient of the email, told Fox News that the "big guy" is a reference to Joe Biden, who was slated to receive a ten percent equity stake in the joint venture.Biden lashed out at Giuliani at the debate.“We are in a situation where we have foreign countries trying to interfere in the outcome of our election,” he said. “[Trump’s] own national security advisor told him that what is happening with his buddy Rudy Giuliani — he’s being used as a Russian pawn, he’s being fed information that is Russian, that is not true,” he said.Though Biden claimed that Giuliani has been fed untrue information, he has not come out and said the emails were forged.President Trump pushed back, accusing Biden of "getting a lot of money from Russia.""You probably still are, but now with what came out today it's probably even worse. All of the emails … of the kind of money that you were raking in, you and your family," he said.Biden responded: "I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life.""I don't make money from China, you do," Trump responded. "I don't make money from Ukraine, you do. I don't make money from Russia, you made $3.5 million, Joe, and your son gave you — they even have a statement that 'We have to give 10 percent to the big man.' You're the big man."The former vice president claimed there was "nothing unethical" about Hunter Biden's involvement in Ukranian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings.He said though questions had arisen over whether he had done something wrong in respect to Hunter Biden's role on the board of Burisma that, "every single solitary person, when [Trump] was going through his impeachment, testifying under oath, who worked for him said I did my job impeccably, I carried out U.S. policy, not one single, solitary thing was out of line."He accused Trump of "trying to bribe the Ukranian government to say something negative about me, which they would not do and did not do because it's never, ever happened.""My son has not made money in terms of this thing," he said.Later, the pair clashed again when Trump accused Biden of being a "corrupt politician" over the news of the Biden family's foreign dealings."There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant," Biden said. "Five former heads of the CIA — both parties — say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani."The documents Giuliani had given the New York Post were reportedly recovered from a laptop computer that was dropped off at a repair shop in Delaware in April 2019 but never retrieved that purportedly belongs to Hunter Biden. Fox News reported Thursday that the FBI had subpoenaed the laptop in connection with a money laundering investigation."You mean the laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax?" Trump asked. "The laptop is Russia, Russia, Russia? You have to be kidding me, here we go again with Russia."


Posted in Uncategorized

Progressive Groups Call to Impeach AG Barr in Effort to Delay Supreme Court Confirmation

Progressive Groups Call to Impeach AG Barr in Effort to Delay Supreme Court ConfirmationMore than 20 progressive groups signed a letter Tuesday urging House Democrats to impeach Attorney General Bill Barr in an attempt to delay Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation vote until after the November 3 election.In a letter addressed to House speaker Nancy Pelosi, groups including Demand Progress, Our Revolution, and the Sunrise Movement outlined a list of what they consider impeachable offenses by the attorney general.The letter reads:> Dozens of members of your caucus and various outside groups have for months urged an inquiry into Barr’s impeachment on any of several grounds. They include: misleading Congress with respect to the Mueller investigation and other matters; overruling career prosecutors for political purposes, such as helping the president’s allies; sanctioning investigations into the president’s political rivals; supporting the use of federal troops against protestors in support of racial justice while standing aside for armed right-wing protestors; prohibiting the referral of an Intelligence Community whistleblower complaint to Congress; and failing to comply with subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives while ordering others to not comply with subpoenas from the House of Representatives.> New: 20+ progressive groups, including the Sunrise Movement and Our Revolution, signed onto a letter urging Nancy Pelosi to back impeaching AG Barr. They said it "would have the salutary effect of delaying the confirmation process and may help push it towards after Election Day." pic.twitter.com/con05vfwuF> > -- Holly Otterbein (@hollyotterbein) October 21, 2020The letter claims Barr has “made a career out of undermining our democracy” and accuses the attorney general of “ramping up efforts to undermine the upcoming elections and invalidate the votes of millions of Americans.”Instead the group suggests that House Democrats serve as a roadblock to both Barr and the Senate’s confirmation of Barrett, which is expected next week, by impeaching Barr and forcing action in the Senate, delaying the confirmation process."Should you impeach Attorney General Barr prior to October 23rd, the Senate would be required to take one of two actions. On one hand, the Senate would be obligated to hold a trial, which would occupy a day or more of floor time and delay the hasty and irregular consideration of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court associate justice," the groups explained. "In the alternative, Senate Republican leadership would be forced to go 'nuclear' by changing the rules that govern how that chamber responds to receiving articles of impeachment from the House of Representatives.""Either outcome is desirable," the groups concluded.Democrats have fought hard against Barrett’s confirmation, accusing Republicans of being hypocritical in going back on the standard they set in 2016 by refusing to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, months ahead of an election. With a Republican majority in the Senate, Democrats have had no recourse for stopping or delaying Barrett’s confirmation. However, many in the party have called on Democrats to add additional seats to the Supreme Court in retaliation if Barrett is confirmed.


Posted in Uncategorized