With so much swirling in the aftermath of the Biden debate debacle, the press industry in this country is in a state of dysphoria. The exposure of the breadth of their collusion with the administration has many outlets flailing. Excuses are fabricated and deflections attempted -- all in an effort to dispel the culpability. 

What is striking about this is the lack of effort made to rectify things and even reestablish a footing with the public trust. Outlets seem content to resort to the old playbook, insisting on things and expecting the public to simply absorb what they are told. Repairing their image with sound reporting appears secondary. At CNN, this may be even farther down the list as we have seen them continue pushing their agendas while grappling with the fallout. 

What has been especially galling as it involves Joe Biden is the continued falsehoods in reporting, the flawed nature of fact-checking, and the overall journalistic willingness to play patsy to this administration – all the elements that placed the media in a complete downslide right now.

On Sunday, hostess Dana Bash, fresh off of her moderating stint, interviewed Marco Rubio. They covered a variety of topics, with Bash often challenging positions forwarded by the Florida senator and getting placed off balance as he responded with sound comments. One item in particular needs to be countered with accuracy. There was this exchange early in the discussion:

RUBIO: Well, first of all, I'm uncomfortable with the fact now that we have a president who has targeted political opponents. It's funny to me to read these people and hear these people out there warning about all the horrible things they ridiculously claim Donald Trump is going to do if he becomes president again. They're the ones that have been going after their political opponents. Donald Trump has been the one that's been very clear that his vengeance is going to be by winning and making America great again, not going after his political opponents. He said that in your debate that you hosted.

BASH: Senator, there's no evidence…

RUBIO: And they're the ones that have gone after political opponents.

BASH: There's no evidence that Joe Biden has gone after political appointments -- opponents. His Justice Department has.

Mrs. Bash - married to one of the 51 signers of the fraudulent Hunter-laptop-Russian-misinformation letter - was possibly resting on the claim made by CNN’s resident fact-checker Daniel Dale. He has long held the position that there is no supporting proof of Biden being involved in the four indictments, something he repeated as a debunked item in his post-debate analysis.

Trump repeats his false claim Biden indicted him. Grand juries of citizens approved the indictments; two of the prosecutions are led by local DAs who do not even report to the feds; Trump has shown no evidence Biden had a personal role in orchestrating any of the cases.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) June 28, 2024

This is the man who positions himself as the voice of factual authority and whose network holds up as a paragon of truth regarding news items. Yet he is completely fraudulent on this matter. This is not a case of massaging details or lending shading to a story; Dale declares there is no proof of Biden’s involvement. This calls for doing something that will likely upset CNN’s vaunted fact-checker – I’ll present him with the facts.

Georgia Vote Indictment

While Fani Willis has made a mockery out of this trial with the revelation of her relationship with the underskilled Nathan Wade, there are other components to this trial that have been underreported. While building the case, Willis wanted to rely upon evidence gathered in the January 6 Committee investigation. 

Then a filing made by Trump’s counsel during the trial petitioned for the details of Wade having met with White House officials on at least two occasions in the course of building the case. During the trial, it was also revealed that the White House counsel sent two letters to the District Attorney

NEW: During a hearing today for Jeff Clark in Fani Willis’ RICO case, DA office admitted it received 2 letters from Biden White House counsel.

Judge wants both letters filed under seal for en camera review in his chambers. pic.twitter.com/blm1hZM374

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) January 25, 2024

Also raising eyebrows was Willis and Fulton County Deputy DA Dexter Bond attending an event held at the residence of Vice President Kamala Harris just prior to the case. 

New York Campaign Finance Indictment

The Alvin Bragg zombie case has Biden's fingerprints all over it. The original case, involving alleged financial improprieties regarding the payoff to Stormy Daniels, brought charges that normally would rise no further than misdemeanors and which had already been waived off by federal campaign officials. 

The first case had been drawn up by the previous NYDA Cyrus Vance, with the help of lawyer Mark Pomerantz, lent by the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. (This firm’s members are major donors to Biden and staged opulent fundraisers for his campaign.) Once Alvin Bragg rose to the DA’s office, he ended that case against Trump, which led to Pomerantz stepping away. But as he exited, Pomerantz wrote in a new book that Trump could become charged with various felonies, and Bragg elected to rejuvenate his dead case. 

For his felony indictment Bragg employed as his chief prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, who came directly from Biden’s Department of Justice. 

Florida Classified Documents Indictment

This is seemingly ignored by more than just Daniel Dale, but what is tougher to overlook, as Nick Arama covered in 2023, were a pair of New York Times pieces declaring Biden was uttering his desire for charges to be made. It is apparent Biden was leaning on Attorney General Merrick Garland to bring up a case against Trump, and conveniently two emerged.

Garland complied by appointing Jack Smith to two cases - one regarding the classified documents, and one for actions on January 6. A Smith assistant has conducted witness interviews at the White House to build the case about the docs. There also are questions swirling about Smith’s handling of the documents and whether agents manufactured evidence by placing cover sheets on files at the scene. 

D.C. January 6 Indictment

Biden has been quoted on camera pledging he would do whatever was necessary to prevent Trump from becoming president again. When Biden was commiserating with his inner circle, according to the New York Times, he had a primary goal in mind: Focus on January 6 prosecutions with a focus on Donald Trump. “Mr. Biden…believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments.”

The political nature of this case is exposed in two ways. Smith’s case was already regarded as a stretch of the law and possibly violating First Amendment rights, but the recent Supreme Court ruling on immunity parameters has possibly rendered this case completely impotent. Then there was the classic moment on The Hill when Merrick Garland was challenged by Rep. Thomas Massie on his zeal in appointing Jack Smith as Special Counsel to the cases. This is a position needing presidential submission and Senate approval, meaning Smith’s appointment was quite possibly unconstitutional, but it reveals that the DOJ - at Biden’s behest - was intent on going after Trump with a Jack Smith appointment.

These are all verifiable facts that the Biden administration is involved in some fashion with all four of the prominent indictments of Donald Trump. Either through assisting with cases or by the president outright calling for action to be taken by his DOJ, the Joe Biden administration is proven to have involvement. For Daniel Dale and CNN to come forward and declare that there is no evidence of this is the lowest form of prevarication: It is a result of sloth, not being disproved through investigation.

If those at his network say there is no evidence of Biden’s involvement, it would only mean they have none because they have not looked for evidence. That is not proof, but the absence of evidence—and the absence of journalism. 

Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication to correct transposed numbers regarding the date of the New York Times pieces.