Category Archives: MSNBC

Can the mainstream media be punished for Hunter Biden election interference?

The drive-by media committed election interference by lying about Hunter Biden. I think there’s a a common law remedy against them.

In October, the New York Post revealed that Hunter Biden was in bed with Russia, China, and Ukraine, and that Joe Biden was a part of it. As I like to say, the information from what is indubitably Hunter’s hard drive showed that Joe Biden pimped his son to various countries with interests antithetical to America. In exchange, Biden got a cut from the money that flowed in. He did the same with his brother, James.

The evidence was incontrovertible: Joe Biden is not just corrupt in the way of an ordinary politician making money from graft; he sold out America for his and his family’s enrichment. Rather than seemingly heading for the White House, he should be heading for Club Fed (where he should have a cell next to Bill Clinton, while Hillary tries to dominate her sector in the women’s Club Fed). But nobody said that life was fair and America has become, I think, an irredeemably corrupt nation. Trump tried valiantly, but the task of cleaning out the Augean stable was too great for one man.

Of course, the Hunter Biden scandal isn’t just Hunter Biden — it’s also the media. The media did everything possible to squash the story:

We know that this media cover-up affected the election — so much so, that it’s reasonable to believe that, but for the cover-up, Trump would have sailed to victory. Even fraud would not have been enough to scale that difference.

Now, though, the media have a different goal: They believe they got Trump out of the White House. Now they need to get Biden out too. After all, we all understand that he was a mask, a puppet, a figurehead, and a phony. He existed solely as a vehicle to get Kamala Harris into office. She will be Obama’s third term and America’s Chavez/Maduro. That’s why the media, which could have continued to stifle the Hunter story, is suddenly reporting it. Joe Biden needs to be tainted and given the boot ASAP.

What the media did was extraordinarily corrupt and it constituted very real, very effective election interference. The problem, as many have pointed out, is that the media didn’t break any laws. I wonder, though, if they can be sued. This is a very inchoate idea, but wouldn’t it be lovely if the media could be financially broken?

Here’s the way I see it: The mainstream media have represented to Americans that they are purveying comprehensive and accurate information. Since 2017, CNN has been using as one of its slogans, “Facts first.” It also claims to be “the most trusted name in news.” The New York Times has long claimed to provide “all the news that’s fit to print.” Even if their mottos aren’t so explicit, all of the mainstream media outlets implicitly and intentionally hold themselves out to the public as sources of reliable information that will help citizens become informed voters.

These are promises these outlets are making to the American public: If you rely on us, you will be informed. You will know the important stories. You will be an informed voter able to make the correct choice on all the information available.

Yet with the Hunter Biden revelations, as those videos show (and the Times and WaPo did the same thing in print), the mainstream media deliberately lied about and suppressed a major news story. Moreover, they did so because the story ran counter to their openly stated desire to get Trump out of the White House, and Kamala Harris (oh, and Joe) into the White House.

So media outlets consistently did two things before the election when it came to the Hunter Biden story that they now acknowledge was true: They told affirmative lies and they omitted information in what they reported to an American public that relied upon them for accurate information in assessing presidential candidates. The media outlets did so deliberately, with the intended purpose of affecting people’s vote-making decisions.

We know that people relied upon these misrepresentations and omissions in casting their votes. Had they not been on the receiving end of bad information, they would have voted differently and that would have changed the election outcome.

Lawyers know where I’m going with this. I’m describing the elements of fraud by commission and omission. Here are the elements of both causes of action from the California Civil Jury Instructions. By the way, the last time I prepared jury instructions, the state still had some semblance of sanity and did not contemplate that people could jettison human biology and pretend to be something other than male or female

1900. Intentional Misrepresentation

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] made a false representation that harmed [him/her/nonbinary pronoun/it].
To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] represented to [name of plaintiff] that a fact was true;
2. That [name of defendant]’s representation was false;
3. That [name of defendant] knew that the representation was false when [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] made it, or that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] made the representation recklessly and without regard for its truth;
4. That [name of defendant] intended that [name of plaintiff] rely on the representation;
5. That [name of plaintiff] reasonably relied on [name of defendant]’s representation;
6. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
7. That [name of plaintiff]’s reliance on [name of defendant]’s representation was a substantial factor in causing [his/her/nonbinary pronoun/its] harm.

1901. Concealment

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was harmed because [name of defendant] concealed certain information.
To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
[1. (a) That [name of defendant] and [name of plaintiff] were [insert type of fiduciary relationship, e.g., “business partners”]; and
(b) That [name of defendant] intentionally failed to disclose certain facts to [name of plaintiff];] [1. [or] [1. That [name of defendant] disclosed some facts to [name of plaintiff] but intentionally failed to disclose [other/another] fact[s], making the disclosure deceptive;]
[or]
[1. That [name of defendant] intentionally failed to disclose certain facts that were known only to [him/her/nonbinary pronoun/it] and that [name of plaintiff] could not have discovered;]
[or]
[1. That [name of defendant] prevented [name of plaintiff] from discovering certain facts;]
2. That [name of plaintiff] did not know of the concealed fact[s];
3. That [name of defendant] intended to deceive [name of plaintiff] by concealing the fact[s];
4. That had the omitted information been disclosed, [name of plaintiff] reasonably would have behaved differently;
5. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
6. That [name of defendant]’s concealment was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

Any enterprising lawyers out there?