We’re off to an all-crazy start in what promises to be a crazy week! Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America throw up their hands as President Trump goes on a Twitter rant demanding House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff be investigated for treason and quoting allies suggesting that impeachment could lead to another civil war. They also unload on Joe Biden and his campaign for demanding that the media stop interviewing Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. And they almost start to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton as she keeps talking about winning the popular vote and accusing Trump of being “an illegitimate president” almost three years after the election.

Subscribe to Three Martini Lunch in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There are 48 comments.

  1. Patrick McClure Coolidge

    We know it isn’t treason. President Trump also knows it isn’t treason. Finally the President knows we know that. It was noted during the election that Trump supporters take him seriously, but not literally and Trump opponents take him literally but not seriously. Do you think taking the President both seriously and literally makes you a moderate?

    • #1
    • September 30, 2019, at 12:20 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  2. Taras Coolidge

     Sometimes I want to tear my hair out when I listen to this podcast! 

     Jim Geraghty doesn’t get it, and doesn’t get it, and doesn’t get it, and doesn’t get it … (repeat ad infinitum).

     If Trump took Geraghty’s advice and expressed himself quietly and temperately, or remained silent, then the general public would have never heard of Hunter Biden at all. 

     If Trump didn’t call Adam Schiff a traitor, the liberal media would have swept Schiff’s outrageous falsehoods under the rug. Now, when they attack Trump for what he said, they have to explain why he said it. 

    • #2
    • September 30, 2019, at 12:24 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  3. Arahant Member

    «L’etat, c’est moi» is attributed to Louis XIV, not M. Bonaparte.

    • #3
    • September 30, 2019, at 1:04 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  4. Arahant Member

    Yes, Hillary should speak at the convention, a nice long speech to remind America who really owns the Democrat Party.

    • #4
    • September 30, 2019, at 1:18 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. Arahant Member

    Finally, on the Civil War thing, it should be taken much more seriously. If the Swamp forcibly ejects Trump, the people are going to burn down Washington and eject the Swamp. (My 80-year-old mother will probably be there manning the barricades.) This is really angering the people who pay attention, even the ones who don’t like Trump that much.

    • #5
    • September 30, 2019, at 1:20 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  6. Taras Coolidge

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Finally, on the Civil War thing, it should be taken much more seriously. If the Swamp forcibly ejects Trump, the people are going to burn down Washington and eject the Swamp. (My 80-year-old mother will probably be there manning the barricades.) This is really angering the people who pay attention, even the ones who don’t like Trump that much.

    Another example of Geraghty not getting it!

     He is of the school that teaches that Republicans should never hit back, but instead try to be good examples and hope that the Democrats will, someday, start to imitate them. 

    • #6
    • September 30, 2019, at 1:38 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  7. Arahant Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Finally, on the Civil War thing, it should be taken much more seriously. If the Swamp forcibly ejects Trump, the people are going to burn down Washington and eject the Swamp. (My 80-year-old mother will probably be there manning the barricades.) This is really angering the people who pay attention, even the ones who don’t like Trump that much.

    Another example of Geraghty not getting it!

    He is of the school that teaches that Republicans should never hit back, but instead try to be good examples and hope that the Democrats will, someday, start to imitate them.

    A lot of the folks in the middle of the country don’t give a fig for “being” Republicans or Democrats. They want stuff done. They want the borders protected. They do not want to see rogue FBI agents trying to get rid of a duly-elected President, even if they don’t like him.

    • #7
    • September 30, 2019, at 2:13 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  8. Blue Yeti Admin

    Taras (View Comment):

    If Trump took Geraghty’s advice and expressed himself quietly and temperately, or remained silent, then the general public would have never heard of Hunter Biden at all.

    This long and very detailed (and damaging) piece on Hunter Biden was published by The New Yorker last July. This story was followed by a number of others in the national press. It was not a secret.

    • #8
    • September 30, 2019, at 3:58 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. kedavis Member

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    If Trump took Geraghty’s advice and expressed himself quietly and temperately, or remained silent, then the general public would have never heard of Hunter Biden at all.

    This long and very detailed (and damaging) piece on Hunter Biden was published by The New Yorker last July. This story was followed by a number of others in the national press. It was not a secret.

    From what I can find rather easily, The New Yorker has a readership about equal to the people who watch Hannity and Rachel Maddow. That is to say, not very much. And I suspect most of them are on the left. As is most of the rest of the MSM. (And those people seemed to know a lot more about Epstein too. Not that it did much good.) All in all, Trump bringing it up is bound to get more attention.

    • #9
    • September 30, 2019, at 4:32 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  10. Blue Yeti Admin

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    If Trump took Geraghty’s advice and expressed himself quietly and temperately, or remained silent, then the general public would have never heard of Hunter Biden at all.

    This long and very detailed (and damaging) piece on Hunter Biden was published by The New Yorker last July. This story was followed by a number of others in the national press. It was not a secret.

    From what I can find rather easily, The New Yorker has a readership about equal to the people who watch Hannity and Rachel Maddow. That is to say, not very much. And I suspect most of them are on the left. As is most of the rest of the MSM. (And those people seemed to know a lot more about Epstein too. Not that it did much good.) All in all, Trump bringing it up is bound to get more attention.

    You missed my point: sure the NYer has a relatively small circulation but amongst the media and the political class, it is widely read and it spawned a bunch of other pieces in print and on TV. 

    That Trump brought it up in the context of a defense against impeachment will certainly bring more attention to it, but that does not mean it’s going to help him much. It will probably end up disqualifying Biden, though. 

    • #10
    • September 30, 2019, at 5:08 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    10 comments?

    What happened now? I’m afraid to listen.

    • #11
    • September 30, 2019, at 5:40 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  12. Taras Coolidge

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    If Trump took Geraghty’s advice and expressed himself quietly and temperately, or remained silent, then the general public would have never heard of Hunter Biden at all.

    This long and very detailed (and damaging) piece on Hunter Biden was published by The New Yorker last July. This story was followed by a number of others in the national press. It was not a secret.

    From what I can find rather easily, The New Yorker has a readership about equal to the people who watch Hannity and Rachel Maddow. That is to say, not very much. And I suspect most of them are on the left. As is most of the rest of the MSM. (And those people seemed to know a lot more about Epstein too. Not that it did much good.) All in all, Trump bringing it up is bound to get more attention.

    You missed my point: sure the NYer has a relatively small circulation but amongst the media and the political class, it is widely read and it spawned a bunch of other pieces in print and on TV.

    That Trump brought it up in the context of a defense against impeachment will certainly bring more attention to it, but that does not mean it’s going to help him much. It will probably end up disqualifying Biden, though.

    The coverage of the Biden scandals in the New Yorker, I suspect, gave the media an early start on thinking about how to minimize and bury the story.

    Unless, that is, they use it to minimize and bury Joe Biden himself, in favor of a more left-wing candidate. 

    • #12
    • September 30, 2019, at 8:13 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Blue Yeti Admin

    Taras (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    If Trump took Geraghty’s advice and expressed himself quietly and temperately, or remained silent, then the general public would have never heard of Hunter Biden at all.

    This long and very detailed (and damaging) piece on Hunter Biden was published by The New Yorker last July. This story was followed by a number of others in the national press. It was not a secret.

    From what I can find rather easily, The New Yorker has a readership about equal to the people who watch Hannity and Rachel Maddow. That is to say, not very much. And I suspect most of them are on the left. As is most of the rest of the MSM. (And those people seemed to know a lot more about Epstein too. Not that it did much good.) All in all, Trump bringing it up is bound to get more attention.

    You missed my point: sure the NYer has a relatively small circulation but amongst the media and the political class, it is widely read and it spawned a bunch of other pieces in print and on TV.

    That Trump brought it up in the context of a defense against impeachment will certainly bring more attention to it, but that does not mean it’s going to help him much. It will probably end up disqualifying Biden, though.

    The coverage of the Biden scandals in the New Yorker, I suspect, gave the media an early start on thinking about how to minimize and bury the story.

    Unless, that is, they use it to minimize and bury Joe Biden himself, in favor of a more left-wing candidate.

    Hey, here’s a crazy thought (stick with me here): The New Yorker commissioned, payed for, and published an extremely thorough and very tough piece on Hunter Biden (and by extension, Joe) simply because they thought it was information that needed to be in the public sphere. They weren’t doing for some nefarious reason or cause, they were not engaged in some 5 dimensional chess move in terms of politics or public opinion, they were just interested in doing good and important journalism. And they beat everyone else on it –including every journalist on the right at Fox News, Daily Caller, WSJ, etc.

    Nutty!

    • #13
    • September 30, 2019, at 8:46 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Arahant Member

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Hey, here’s a crazy thought (stick with me here): The New Yorker commissioned, payed for, and published an extremely thorough and very tough piece on Hunter Biden (and by extension, Joe) simply because they thought it was information that needed to be in the public sphere. They weren’t doing for some nefarious reason or cause, they were not engaged in some 5 dimensional chess move in terms of politics or public opinion, they were just interested in doing good and important journalism. And they beat everyone else on it –including every journalist on the right at Fox News, Daily Caller, WSJ, etc.

    Nutty!

    Yeah, Yeti. That’s just crazy talk. You should probably flag yourself for making us look like a bunch of nuts.

    • #14
    • September 30, 2019, at 8:48 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. Blue Yeti Admin

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Hey, here’s a crazy thought (stick with me here): The New Yorker commissioned, payed for, and published an extremely thorough and very tough piece on Hunter Biden (and by extension, Joe) simply because they thought it was information that needed to be in the public sphere. They weren’t doing for some nefarious reason or cause, they were not engaged in some 5 dimensional chess move in terms of politics or public opinion, they were just interested in doing good and important journalism. And they beat everyone else on it –including every journalist on the right at Fox News, Daily Caller, WSJ, etc.

    Nutty!

    Yeah, Yeti. That’s just crazy talk. You should probably flag yourself for making us look like a bunch of nuts.

    I prefer Occam’s Razor when I don’t have actual evidence for a person’s or institution’s motive. 

    • #15
    • September 30, 2019, at 8:51 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  16. kedavis Member

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Hey, here’s a crazy thought (stick with me here): The New Yorker commissioned, payed for, and published an extremely thorough and very tough piece on Hunter Biden (and by extension, Joe) simply because they thought it was information that needed to be in the public sphere. They weren’t doing for some nefarious reason or cause, they were not engaged in some 5 dimensional chess move in terms of politics or public opinion, they were just interested in doing good and important journalism. And they beat everyone else on it –including every journalist on the right at Fox News, Daily Caller, WSJ, etc.

    Nutty!

    Yeah, Yeti. That’s just crazy talk. You should probably flag yourself for making us look like a bunch of nuts.

    I prefer Occam’s Razor when I don’t have actual evidence for a person’s or institution’s motive.

    But I don’t think that’s how Occam’s Razor works when dealing with leftist MSM. When dealing with leftist MSM, Occam’s Razor would say something like, maybe they figured it would undermine Biden so that Hillary can run again.

    • #16
    • September 30, 2019, at 10:37 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  17. Blue Yeti Admin

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Hey, here’s a crazy thought (stick with me here): The New Yorker commissioned, payed for, and published an extremely thorough and very tough piece on Hunter Biden (and by extension, Joe) simply because they thought it was information that needed to be in the public sphere. They weren’t doing for some nefarious reason or cause, they were not engaged in some 5 dimensional chess move in terms of politics or public opinion, they were just interested in doing good and important journalism. And they beat everyone else on it –including every journalist on the right at Fox News, Daily Caller, WSJ, etc.

    Nutty!

    Yeah, Yeti. That’s just crazy talk. You should probably flag yourself for making us look like a bunch of nuts.

    I prefer Occam’s Razor when I don’t have actual evidence for a person’s or institution’s motive.

    But I don’t think that’s how Occam’s Razor works when dealing with leftist MSM. When dealing with leftist MSM, Occam’s Razor would say something like, maybe they figured it would undermine Biden so that Hillary can run again.

    One of the great things about Occam’s Razor is that you don’t get to make up your own definition for Occam’s Razor.

    • #17
    • September 30, 2019, at 11:05 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. kedavis Member

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Hey, here’s a crazy thought (stick with me here): The New Yorker commissioned, payed for, and published an extremely thorough and very tough piece on Hunter Biden (and by extension, Joe) simply because they thought it was information that needed to be in the public sphere. They weren’t doing for some nefarious reason or cause, they were not engaged in some 5 dimensional chess move in terms of politics or public opinion, they were just interested in doing good and important journalism. And they beat everyone else on it –including every journalist on the right at Fox News, Daily Caller, WSJ, etc.

    Nutty!

    Yeah, Yeti. That’s just crazy talk. You should probably flag yourself for making us look like a bunch of nuts.

    I prefer Occam’s Razor when I don’t have actual evidence for a person’s or institution’s motive.

    But I don’t think that’s how Occam’s Razor works when dealing with leftist MSM. When dealing with leftist MSM, Occam’s Razor would say something like, maybe they figured it would undermine Biden so that Hillary can run again.

    One of the great things about Occam’s Razor is that you don’t get to make up your own definition for Occam’s Razor.

    But when dealing with “the eimplest explanation is usually the best,” “the simplest explanation” on the left is different.

    • #18
    • October 1, 2019, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Taras Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Hey, here’s a crazy thought (stick with me here): The New Yorker commissioned, payed for, and published an extremely thorough and very tough piece on Hunter Biden (and by extension, Joe) simply because they thought it was information that needed to be in the public sphere. They weren’t doing for some nefarious reason or cause, they were not engaged in some 5 dimensional chess move in terms of politics or public opinion, they were just interested in doing good and important journalism. And they beat everyone else on it –including every journalist on the right at Fox News, Daily Caller, WSJ, etc.

    Nutty!

    Yeah, Yeti. That’s just crazy talk. You should probably flag yourself for making us look like a bunch of nuts.

    I prefer Occam’s Razor when I don’t have actual evidence for a person’s or institution’s motive.

    But I don’t think that’s how Occam’s Razor works when dealing with leftist MSM. When dealing with leftist MSM, Occam’s Razor would say something like, maybe they figured it would undermine Biden so that Hillary can run again.

    One of the great things about Occam’s Razor is that you don’t get to make up your own definition for Occam’s Razor.

    But when dealing with “the eimplest explanation is usually the best,” “the simplest explanation” on the left is different.

    @blueyeti — Just to clarify, I was not accusing the New Yorker of any kind of nefarious motives.

    I was just commenting on the fact that the article should have caused a furor, but instead acted like Bishop Berkeley’s famous tree in the forest.

    If, as you say, the New Yorker is widely read in liberal media circles, their reaction was not to start covering the story. My slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestion was that, instead, it gave them a head start on thinking about how to cover up the story, if necessary. 

    • #19
    • October 1, 2019, at 9:58 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  20. kedavis Member

    Taras (View Comment):
    If, as you say, the New Yorker is widely read in liberal media circles, their reaction was not to start covering the story. My slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestion was that, instead, it gave them a head start on thinking about how to cover up the story, if necessary. 

    If nothing else, since it was already “widely reported” they could just claim “old news.” Or “asked and answered.” Or the good old “already adjudicated.”

    • #20
    • October 1, 2019, at 11:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. Taras Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    If, as you say, the New Yorker is widely read in liberal media circles, their reaction was not to start covering the story. My slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestion was that, instead, it gave them a head start on thinking about how to cover up the story, if necessary.

    If nothing else, since it was already “widely reported” they could just claim “old news.” Or “asked and answered.” Or the good old “already adjudicated.”

    Ah, yes, the old Clinton defense: it’s not true — it’s not true — it’s not true — it’s old news. 

    The philosophical rule of thumb known as Occam’s (or Ockham’s) Razor states that the simpler explanation should be preferred as long as it accounts for all the facts.

    For example, that DNA acts as the template for RNA. But then they discovered RNA viruses, which copy in the opposite direction. 

    If the New Yorker had wanted to maximize interest (and number of copies sold), they would have published their Hunter Biden story at the height of the campaign (the way damaging information about Republicans usually comes out).

    Instead, they chose to publish it months earlier: just as if, remembering the John Kerry debacle, they were trying to help the Democratic Party vet potential candidates for vulnerability, early enough to switch to a different candidate, if necessary. 

    • #21
    • October 1, 2019, at 11:58 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. kedavis Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    If, as you say, the New Yorker is widely read in liberal media circles, their reaction was not to start covering the story. My slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestion was that, instead, it gave them a head start on thinking about how to cover up the story, if necessary.

    If nothing else, since it was already “widely reported” they could just claim “old news.” Or “asked and answered.” Or the good old “already adjudicated.”

    Ah, yes, the old Clinton defense: it’s not true — it’s not true — it’s not true — it’s old news.

    The philosophical rule of thumb known as Occam’s (or Ockham’s) Razor states that the simpler explanation should be preferred as long as it accounts for all the facts.

    For example, that DNA acts as the template for RNA. But then they discovered RNA viruses, which copy in the opposite direction.

    If the New Yorker had wanted to maximize interest (and number of copies sold), they would have published their Hunter Biden story at the height of the campaign (the way damaging information about Republicans usually comes out).

    Instead, they chose to publish it months earlier: just as if, remembering the John Kerry debacle, they were trying to help the Democratic Party vet potential candidates for vulnerability, early enough to switch to a different candidate, if necessary.

    But the thing is, what Yeti may forget, that CAN BE “the simplest explanation” FOR THE LEFT.

    • #22
    • October 1, 2019, at 2:04 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  23. Blue Yeti Admin

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    But the thing is, what Yeti may forget, that CAN BE “the simplest explanation” FOR THE LEFT.

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    If the New Yorker had wanted to maximize interest (and number of copies sold), they would have published their Hunter Biden story at the height of the campaign (the way damaging information about Republicans usually comes out).

    Instead, they chose to publish it months earlier: just as if, remembering the John Kerry debacle, they were trying to help the Democratic Party vet potential candidates for vulnerability, early enough to switch to a different candidate, if necessary.

    They published it when they did because they wanted have it first as it was common knowledge that several other places including but not limited to the NYT, the WSJ, The Atlantic, 60 Minutes, and of course the oppo research teams of several campaigns including the Trump re-election org. Many of those stories have since been published. Go Google them.

    Again, that pesky razor theory.

    • #23
    • October 1, 2019, at 2:57 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. kedavis Member

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    But the thing is, what Yeti may forget, that CAN BE “the simplest explanation” FOR THE LEFT.

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    If the New Yorker had wanted to maximize interest (and number of copies sold), they would have published their Hunter Biden story at the height of the campaign (the way damaging information about Republicans usually comes out).

    Instead, they chose to publish it months earlier: just as if, remembering the John Kerry debacle, they were trying to help the Democratic Party vet potential candidates for vulnerability, early enough to switch to a different candidate, if necessary.

    They published it when they did because they wanted have it first as it was common knowledge that several other places including but not limited to the NYT, the WSJ, The Atlantic, 60 Minutes, and of course the oppo research teams of several campaigns including the Trump re-election org. Many of those stories have since been published. Go Google them.

    Again, that pesky razor theory.

    Wanting to publish it first might account for the Occam’s Razor part of WHEN they printed it. But not WHY. It doesn’t prove that they wanted to – or expected to – cause trouble for any of the Bidens, versus – for example – wanting to get it out to their actually quite small circulation so that later it could be dismissed as “old news” or whatever.

    • #24
    • October 1, 2019, at 3:02 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. Taras Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    But the thing is, what Yeti may forget, that CAN BE “the simplest explanation” FOR THE LEFT.

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    If the New Yorker had wanted to maximize interest (and number of copies sold), they would have published their Hunter Biden story at the height of the campaign (the way damaging information about Republicans usually comes out).

    Instead, they chose to publish it months earlier: just as if, remembering the John Kerry debacle, they were trying to help the Democratic Party vet potential candidates for vulnerability, early enough to switch to a different candidate, if necessary.

    They published it when they did because they wanted have it first as it was common knowledge that several other places including but not limited to the NYT, the WSJ, The Atlantic, 60 Minutes, and of course the oppo research teams of several campaigns including the Trump re-election org. Many of those stories have since been published. Go Google them.

    Again, that pesky razor theory.

    Wanting to publish it first might account for the Occam’s Razor part of WHEN they printed it. But not WHY. It doesn’t prove that they wanted to – or expected to – cause trouble for any of the Bidens, versus – for example – wanting to get it out to their actually quite small circulation so that later it could be dismissed as “old news” or whatever.

     I think it is plausible to suggest that there are still some real journalists out there, as hard as that is to believe sometimes.

    • #25
    • October 1, 2019, at 4:00 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. kedavis Member

    Taras (View Comment):
    I think it is plausible to suggest that there are still some real journalists out there, as hard as that is to believe sometimes.

    Of course there are. But how many are working for The New Yorker?

    • #26
    • October 1, 2019, at 4:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. Arahant Member

    Taras (View Comment):
    I think it is plausible to suggest that there are still some real journalists out there, as hard as that is to believe sometimes.

    Byron York. Mollie Hemingway.

    • #27
    • October 1, 2019, at 4:50 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. Blue Yeti Admin

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    I think it is plausible to suggest that there are still some real journalists out there, as hard as that is to believe sometimes.

    Of course there are. But how many are working for The New Yorker?

    Here’s a wild and crazy idea: how about actually reading the piece instead of endlessly punditizing about it based on your pre-conceived notions? 

    • #28
    • October 1, 2019, at 4:52 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. kedavis Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    I think it is plausible to suggest that there are still some real journalists out there, as hard as that is to believe sometimes.

    Byron York. Mollie Hemingway.

    Neither works for The New Yorker. And they certainly didn’t write the Hunter Biden story.

    • #29
    • October 1, 2019, at 4:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Blue Yeti Admin

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    I think it is plausible to suggest that there are still some real journalists out there, as hard as that is to believe sometimes.

    Byron York. Mollie Hemingway.

    Neither works for The New Yorker. And they certainly didn’t write the Hunter Biden story.

    This is not the clever point you think it is.

    • #30
    • October 1, 2019, at 5:00 PM PDT
    • 1 like