Ted Cruz Wants to Know

Today the New York Post published an explosive expose on Joe Biden. Here are some of the highlights:

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, according to emails obtained by The Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

This correspondence contradicts Joe Biden’s claim that he never discussed Hunter’s overseas adventures with his son. The drive also contains, among other things, “a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter … smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.”

The hard drive reportedly has been in the FBI’s possession since last December.

Twitter and Facebook are trying to censor the story, as the Post reports. The fact that Joe Biden has made a career out of influence peddling is something that Twitter and Facebook think you are better off not knowing. (As I have said before, no one has ever bribed Hunter Biden, a worthless neer-do-well.) Twitter’s explanation is laugh-out-loud funny:

The company said it took the step because of the lack of authoritative reporting on where the materials included in The Post’s story originated.

Which explains why no one was ever allowed to tweet about the Russia collusion hoax.

Senator Josh Hawley has asked the FEC to investigate Twitter and Facebook for potential violations of federal election laws. And Ted Cruz, writing as Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote today to Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO:

Twitter’s censorship of this story is quite hypocritical, given its willingness to allow users to share less-well-sourced reporting critical of other candidates for public office. Accordingly, this can only be seen as an obvious and transparent attempt by Twitter to influence the upcoming Presidential election.

So Senator Cruz has some questions for Mr. Dorsey:

1. Who made the decision to prevent users from sharing this story? On what basis did they make that decision?

2. When was the New York Post made aware of Twitter’s decision and what process was afforded to it to contest the censorship?

3. Has Twitter prevented the New York Times, Washington Post, or any other major news outlet from posting its own reporting? If so, when?

4. If Twitter did not prevent Buzzfeed from sharing its reporting on the Steele dossier or the New York Times reporting on President Trump’s tax returns, please explain a politically neutral principle for why the reporting is treated differently?

5. Has Twitter ever restricted a story published by a major news outlet about Donald J. Trump during his four years as President of the United States?

6. Have Twitter or any of its employees involved in the decision to censor this reporting been in contact in any capacity with the Biden-Harris campaign or any of its representatives regarding this reporting or the allegations contained therein?

I’m sure Cruz isn’t holding his breath, expecting answers. But this episode will add still more impetus to the effort to hold the social media giants accountable, whatever form that effort ultimately takes.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.