Remember When The NY Times Had a Problem With Hunter Biden’s Ukraine Job?

It was that long-ago era of December 2015. At that time, Vice President Joe Biden was over in Ukraine talking about the need to be tough on Russia (met with uproarious applause) and the need to clean up corruption in Ukraine (met with cold silence). Biden had turned his vice presidency into a job predominately focused on specialty projects like Ukraine; his boss in the Oval Office had handed him almost complete autonomy on the subject.

“In his address, Mr. Biden specifically called for an overhaul of the office of the prosecutor general, changes in the energy sector, transparency about official sources of income and other reforms,” noted a December 11 New York Times editorial.

It was, of course, Biden’s threat to withhold military aid unless Ukraine officials fired that “prosecutor general” that landed him in the middle of a difficult-to-explain controversy all these years later. While no one really disputes that Ukraine was a corrupt, Russia-influenced cesspool during the Obama years (and beyond), the conflict of interest central to Joe Biden specifically made him a poor delivery man.

And THAT bit of business was already known at the time. In fact, the Times editorial board made (harsh) mention of it.

“Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden’s message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices,” they wrote at the time.

“A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father’s efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on,” they continued.

Whoa. That doesn’t sound like The New York Times we’re familiar with, now does it? No, no, these days any mention of Hunter Biden’s Burisma job, the inexplicable $50,000 a month he received for his utter lack of energy experience, and his pop’s job in the White House is tantamount to conspiratorial thinking, only engaged in by Donald Trump and his deplorable defenders.

The media has been busy in recent days trying to stuff a great number of facts down the ol’ Memory Hole, and this is one of them. Only a few short years ago, the most liberal paper of them all could admit that Hunter Biden had no business working for a corrupt foreign business while his dad was in charge of U.S. foreign policy with that country.

Nowadays, they want to impeach a president for asking pointed questions about that extremely-dubious arrangement.

About Admin