President Trump asked another county to investigate Hunter Biden; the son of a former Vice-President and current candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. Trump asked this of another county to possibly expose corruption and hurt Joe Biden.  The story of Hunter Biden sitting on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019 is suspect.  To deny this peculiarity, the bazaar peculiarity of Hunter Biden being asked to be on the board of Burisma Holdings, is willful ignorance.  When the news media, when the New York Times, when Peter Baker turns a blind eye towards any information or evidence that might harm democrats and their liberal agenda, that’s an unacceptable breach of the public’s trust based on the dishonorable intent to deceive.

Liberal bias is a lot like alcoholism.  The people with the worst cases of either or both will always be the people that deny it the most.  The New York Times has a longstanding liberal bias.  Its political headlines, the majority of times, will put democrats in a favorable light while spinning misdirection and mediocrity about republicans.

One of the latest examples of liberal bias from the New York Times is brought to us by Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent.  In Baker’s November 23rd article “A Split Decision from Congress Will Leave Voters with Final Say on Trump”, the bias and intent to deceive is clearly visible immediately in the title.  For any political news junkie, there is really no need to read Baker’s piece because it is exactly what you would expect from most Times reporters. 

Peter Baker has covered four presidents in his career; President Trump being the fourth.  He is highly respected by his peers.  He is an award-winning journalist and author.  He has enjoyed a storied career.  So he knows that there is no such thing as an impeachment split decision from Congress.  Baker is not confused by the process.  If the House of Representatives decides to charge President Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors, this is called impeachment. Next, Articles of Impeachment are drafted and sent to the United States Senate for a trial.  The result of a Senate trial is either convict or acquit.  That’s the process.  The conclusion is a vote to convict or a vote to acquit.  There is no split decision…only a conclusion.

 When Baker was working at the Washington Post during the Clinton Administration, he wrote an article with Helen Dewar titled “The Senate Acquits President Clinton”.  In this February 13, 1999 piece, Baker and Dewar describe in great detail the intense politicking on the Senate floor as well as the final votes.  Not once did Baker or Dewar write that the Senate vote created a split decision between the House and the Senate.  The acquittal of President Clinton was the conclusion of the impeachment process. 

In 2016, the voters had their final say on Donald J. Trump.  They elected him President of the United States of America.  In 2020, voters will also have their final say.  If Trump is impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate, the impact of the entire impeachment process will prove to have minimal influence on the voter.  Trump supporters are rock solid in their support for the President.  The House impeachment inquiry hearings have only added iron to the Trump base.  Likewise, those that do not like, hate, or rabidly despise this President have renewed energy and a determined agenda to rid the White House of this abomination.

 The independent or unaffiliated voter will, in all likelihood, decide the 2020 presidential election. Emerson College, in its latest national poll found that 45 percent of independent voters opposed impeachment.  Those voters in favor of impeachment came in at 43 percent. 

 The liberal bias in the liberal media is, and will continue to be inescapable.  With powerful platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, conservatives will find their content buried or censored.  Actors from other countries will attempt to join the social media influencers crowd.  Talk of other countries meddling in our elections will continue ad infinitum.  For as long as there is worldwide social media, there will be evidence of meddling.  Investigations will be ongoing for decades if not centuries. 

President Trump asked another county to investigate Hunter Biden; the son of a former Vice-President and current candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. Trump asked this of another county to possibly expose corruption and hurt Joe Biden.  The story of Hunter Biden sitting on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019 is suspect.  To deny this peculiarity, the bazaar peculiarity of Hunter Biden being asked to be on the board of Burisma Holdings, is willful ignorance.  When the news media, when the New York Times, when Peter Baker turns a blind eye towards any information or evidence that might harm democrats and their liberal agenda, that’s an unacceptable breach of the public’s trust based on the dishonorable intent to deceive.

Whenever a republican mentions the Biden / Hunter Biden conflict, democrats and the liberal media are quick to say that this conspiracy has been debunked.  Yet information on the so-called investigation that supposedly debunked the theory that the Biden family was enriched because Joe Biden was Vice-President and held sway over foreign aid coming to the Ukraine is sparse.  Has Joe Biden ever been asked if he thought it odd or peculiar that Burisma Holdings put Hunter on its board?   Seriously, how are the American people to believe that Joe Biden was completely in the dark when his son, Hunter joined the Burisma Holdings board?  Now we could call the Biden / Burisma story a split decision.  Peter Baker should look into it free from pride, prejudice, and political liberal bias.