Washington Post’s Philip Bump Embarrasses Himself While Defending Joe Biden’s Corruption
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Imagine not knowing the difference between “proof” and “evidence,” plus retaining a voice two octaves above a normal man, and you’ll have a decent idea of what it’s like to be Philip Bump.
Bump is The Washington Post writer “focused largely on the numbers behind politics,” according to his bio, but he is most recently known for letting his ass hang out on the internet by way of a highly embarrassing interview with podcaster and Comedy Cellar owner Noam Dworman. In the interview, Dworman tells Bump that he wanted to talk with the “smartest” person who disagrees with him on the significance of the Joe Biden corruption saga as it relates to Biden’s son, Hunter. After an hour of innocuous questions from Dworman, Bump called the affair “a setup” and walked out.
Wild.
But during that hour, it was remarkable how frequently, in utter despair, Bump pleaded for Dworman to offer him “evidence” that the president is or was directly involved in his son’s comically unfathomable foreign business operation.
Dworman conceded that every exhibit he had to offer was simply evidence, rather than ironclad proof, before playing clips of Hunter’s former business partners, citing Congressional testimony , and reading from written communications , all of which indicate that Joe Biden not only knew but was a cognizant player in his son’s dealings. And those dealings, worth millions, were made possible purely by nature of the Bidens having high-level U.S. government influence via Joe having been a longtime senator and then a two-term vice president.
The evidence is overwhelming . Even if nobody calls it “proof,” it’s irrefutable .
Proof would be a video or audio recording of Biden and his son discussing the details of their shakedown schemes. To date, that’s not known to exist. Proof would be testimony that the former vice president signed contracts with his son’s business associates. To date, that’s not known to exist. Proof would be at least a photo of Biden with his son’s clients.
Wait, never mind. That last one actually does exist . My fault!
All the while, Bump said over and over that none of it was “evidence” when, if he were a smart person, he would have said none of it was “proof.”
“You have no evidence that Joe Biden acted on Hunter Biden’s behalf, or that Joe Biden took money!”
“Find me evidence! There is none!”
“You’ve offered no evidence beyond your parsing…”
“This conversation is silly!”
“This is why I keep saying it’s silly!”
Curiously, Bump would, at times throughout the interview, reject anything Dworman said with the declaration that Dworman “refused” to “engage with” the contradictory “broader evidence.”
Okay, yes, there is contradictory evidence to suggest Joe Biden is actually an absolute moron who in no way had any idea that his son was using his high-ranking position in the U.S. government to rake in millions and that Biden in no way cooperated because he never directly accepted funds from the scheme. But one set of evidence doesn’t negate another. They compete. And the competition is only fair when people like Bump weigh them fairly, which he doesn’t.
He sets it aside and says it’s “not evidence.”
Criminal trials routinely conclude with a conviction not based on proof but on evidence. Alex Murdaugh this year was found guilty of murdering his wife and son, though he never admitted what he did. Instead, a jury convicted him based on where he claimed to be and where evidence showed he wasn’t.
Joe Biden has been caught in countless lies on this exact subject. Philip Bump is either too stupid or just as dishonest.
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
The whole podcast is interesting enough on its own. You have a reporter from one of the most prestigious publications freaking out, throwing a tantrum and making arguments that resort to little more than "I'm a journalist. It's true because I said so." This guy just destroys his credibility in an hour while demonstrating that his job is to act as a defense attorney for the Democrats, not provide any sort of objective reporting.
But's it also encapsulates so much of what's wrong with the media coverage of Joe Biden:
What corruption from President Biden?
The question of "where's the evidence" is never asked in good faith.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing on President Biden's part.
There seems to be all kinds of evidence if anyone has an open mind. As of now there is no iron clad proof.
Funny how many dems seem to conflate the two terms. When it has to do with Trump then evidence transforms into proof. When it has to do with Biden evidence seems to stay evidence and they hang their hats on no proof.
Sad, but not a surprise.
The sad thing is that people like you cant see the difference.
Hundreds of people testified to Trumps wrongdoing to the Jan 6 committee.
The Republicans have run a Joe Biden investigation for about 6 months now and have virtually NO testimony against Biden that wouldnt be impeached in court. The Republicans own leaders admit that they dont have anything concrete. But lets just keep pretending that Trump and Biden are the same, that will really /s help our nation.
That kind of thinking went out the backdoor in 1692.
When it comes to Trump we have testimony, recorded phone calls, texts/emails, video footage, and in the case of the classified documents the actual fucking documents were seized from his house.
There is enough evidence that multiple prosecutors across the country have filed charges and are going to jail his ass into court. That for me is the biggest sign of the strength of the evidence against trump.
With Biden you can’t even get GOP politicians to admit they have enough to even float the idea of taking action.
Which is pathetic considering that they have testimony, texts/emails and the actual fucking documents as well...
gop politicians can’t “take action.” Only Biden’s DOJ can.
About the only action the GOP politicians can do is start an impeachment inquiry. And given our current partisan divide in Congress the Senate won't vote for conviction so the best that can be done is for the House to bring all the evidence forward to force Biden out of the '24 elections.
I can only wonder if people will ever wake up and realize that the people they continue to send to Washington are not working for them, but instead are only working for themselves.
How do you explain the Joe Biden proven lies then?
Why is Joe Biden lying to begin with?
You have to show Joe was involved in his idiot sons garbage. Until then all there is so speculation which is not the same as guilt.
I personally am not a big fan of guilt by association.
The evidence is pointing that Joe Biden most certainly was aware of his son's business dealings despite his lies to the contrary.
The investigations are ongoing.
Some or another right wing moron U.S. congressman was on right winger Greta Van Susterens tv show the other day. The moron expressed the need to impeach Joe Biden. Van Susteren asked him what the charges would be and asked if the Shokin dismissal would be one of them. The moron said yes it would and when asked what the evidence or proof was stumbled bummed through it by saying it was being "investigated". How many decades will we have to wait for proof, or evidence, that Shokin was fired by Biden to protect his own corruption?
It is stone cold obvious that faced with the prospect of a year and a half of embarrassing court room revelations about Trump's waterfall of crime and corruption the Republicans have decided to play the both sides do it game full out and simply try to convince the American people that Biden is as bad, criminal, and corrupt as Trump.
Jesus will appear driving a flying saucer in the skies over Las Vegas before that happens.
Joe Biden lied repeatedly whether you ever admit to it or not.
oh, the irony...
It does appear to be rather liberally applied in politics, doesn't it?..
there is no need to demonstrate you don't know what irony is.
The irony that Democrats put a lying. criminal, POS in the White House- and refuse to prosecute him or his family; while using the abusing legal system and government agencies to prosecute his top political opponent.
You are 100% correct.
It took a while for the indictments against Trump to emerge. I seem to recall people like you suggesting the allegations against Trump were unfounded because there were no indictments. Now you want to claim that nobody is working on the Biden investigation because an indictment has not emerged.
Clearly evidence is emerging ... otherwise it would be impossible to discuss it. So follow the evidence and attempt to moderate your emotions to correlate with the level and quality of the evidence.
And on Trump, attempt to comprehend that the charges against Trump are a result of his actions. They are not political charges without merit. Trump is running primarily to get useful people like you to repeat the mantra that these charges are purely political and that he has done nothing wrong.
Finally, Trump as the nominee is good for Biden and the Ds. Trump almost certainly will not prevail in a general election. An alternate nominee like Nikki Haley has a chance to win in the general election. So the Ds prosecuting Trump for political reasons is stupid unless they are doing it to make him a martyr and that they knew the GOP would continue on its insane path of supporting Trump no matter what.
Because it was a full 4 years to the next presidential election.
Can't let those indictments go down too early.
More likely it was because the prosecutors were very careful about bringing indictments against a former PotUS.
Read the indictments. Understand the charges and the corresponding law they reference. Compare that to evidence that all of us have seen (public domain) and then consider the likelihood that non-public evidence (e.g. evidence showing the fraudulent documents used to create and convince fake Trump electors) does indeed exist.
The mantra "this is all partisan; Trump did nothing wrong" or "Trump was indicted for exercising free speech" or "Trump was indicted for questioning an election" is a feeble attempt to defend Trump. Those who express these sentiments either do not understand the indictments or are ignoring the charges and evidence because they simply do not care.
"Biden is as bad, criminal, and corrupt as Trump."
Much more so. He's putting our country in danger by his extremist policies.
It's fun to watch a bunch of Biden ass kissers and apologists in full denial mood, even though the evidence is overwhelming as to Brandon's involvement in Hunter's schemes and illegal dealings.
[Deleted]
All they have is projection, deflection, and denial.
The two comments to your post must then have you rolling in laughter.
It is amazing and somehow funny in a sad sort of way that some people constantly accuse others of things that are really true about themselves.
"The two comments to your post must then have you rolling in laughter."
Yep! The first one always defaults to insults and taunting. The other one isn't worth responding to.
That NT's Biden cheerleaders engage in the exact same evasions and logical fallacies as Bump does in the interview drives how exactly how partisan the media is. The same people who spent years baselessly accusing Trump of all sorts of crimes, even treason, can't even be bothered to wonder why Hunter had to give his dad 50% of his earnings, which is a crime in and of itself.
You have lost your mind.
Donald Trump is an obvious traitor. He tried mightily to obstruct the orderly transfer of power, going so far as to ignore the riot he caused in order to spend his time on Jan6 trying to get Republican congresspeople to go along, at the last minute, with his scheme.
None of this is in serious dispute.
Lol. You were making that claim years before any of that happened. Funny how trump’s actions after he lost re-election are now used to justify their accusations against trump that happened years before and had nothing to do with his election claims
Trump is EASILY the most corrupt person ever to be president of the United States. Easily.
That may be the single most stupid defense of Biden I have ever read.
Can you explain how anything Trump did is an excuse for Biden?
is THIS your sole defense of the indefensible?
The trial of Donald Trump for treason:
Judge: Please present your case Mr. Prosecutor.
Prosecutor: It is obvious Donald is a traitor.
Judge: Oh it is obvious ..........guilty of all counts since it is obvious.
Yes there is a substantial difference between a personal opinion and a legal finding of guilt.
It is, for example, obvious that Trump lied (and continues to lie) about the 2020 election being rigged. His lie has been thoroughly debunked. A rational mind can effortlessly come to that conclusion and opine that Trump obviously lied. (There are plenty of other examples like this.)
In court, however, the system involves drawing a conclusion based on the evidence and the arguments of a prosecuting vs. defense legal team according to time-tested methods of jurisprudence which are enforced by a judge. No court will ever except: "guilty because it is obvious" so you can take any obvious personal opinion and falsely place it into a legal scenario to make it look ridiculous. But that is just sophistry; intellectual dishonestly.
Equally as obvious that Biden has lied repeatedly about his son's business dealings.
Would that be sophistry as well?
They know there is no defending Biden lies, so the obvious solution is to attack Trump as though that legitimizes anything Biden does.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty!
LMMFAO!
Yes, it is unlikely that Biden knew nothing of Hunter’s activities.
So it would be sophistry to present this:
Judge: Please present your case Mr. Prosecutor.
Prosecutor: It is obvious Biden was not wholly ignorant of his son’s business activities.
Judge: Oh it is obvious ..........guilty of all counts since it is obvious.
… in an attempt to suggest that an individual cannot reasonably opine that something is obvious.
Some people recognize sarcasm and others show they do not by criticizing posters for posting it.
The ‘I was not really serious’ excuse.
Unlikely?!?!
Where have you been lately where you haven't seen the news?
Of course Joe knew, because he actually MET with Hunters business associates!
Not his or my problem if you didn't understand it was sarcasm. I keep telling people they have to post "/s" because some folks will think they are serious!
The word unlikely is correct. 100% certainty is rare outside of a formal system like mathematics; thus it is best to not presume to have 100% knowledge and instead leave room for the unknown.
When you have absolute proof, you are on solid ground for claiming 100%.
You seem to be asking if I agree with my statement.
probable would be more appropriate.
‘Probable’ means the opposite of ‘unlikely’.
You need me to use ‘not probable’ or ‘improbable’ rather than ‘unlikely’?
I do not now nor ever need you to do anything for me.
I was actually asking if you agreed with my re-wording of your statement, but based on your reply I will assume that to be an affirmative.
Once again some are flip flopping between what is obvious and what needs proof.
These are usually the people that take themselves way too seriously
Yes you do. It is usually the same few that can not recognize it without the \s so I consider it their problem, not mine. Besides it is fun when they try to tell me that I did not mean it as sarcasm.
Oh now I see what you did. You quoted me but you changed my language while keeping the blockquote style intact.
I will assume you did not intend to make it seem as though that is what I wrote. I will also assume you now recognize that what you did is misleading.
So on your statement:
I do not see how that could be done unless the personal opinion was a sound legal conclusion and the presentation provided the legal details.
One could, for example, take the personal opinion that Trump lied about the 2020 election being rigged and that Joe Biden is not the legitimate PotUS. Then one could frame this in a legal argument providing evidence and logic that leads to the sound conclusion that the opinion is indeed correct.
But I do not see how an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion could be make to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument).
Provide an example so we know what you have in mind.
Adding a \s tag does not change the interpretation of your comment:
This is implying that because jurisprudence requires more than simply a declaration of the obvious, JR's opinion (declaration of the obvious) is ridiculous. Of course this is not a court a law but rather a media forum. Our opinions (including declarations that something is obvious) do not require adjudication.
My comment applies whether or not you add a \s tag:
In other words, the sarcastic argument @6.17 is intellectually dishonest.
And the thing is, they have convinced themselves that you were serious!
Pretty funny shit!
Of course not, I would assume that if you responded to a post, you read it...
Misleading to who, you? The author of the post that I replied to?
How could a personal opinion be a sound legal "conclusion "?
I explained this in my post. Stated differently, when you quote someone and especially if you do so with the prescribed method (the blockquote) people will take that quote as a single unit and trust that you, the author, faithfully quoted.
If you change that which you quoted and leave it still adorned as a quote, that is misleading. The part you changed should NOT be shown as a quote.
Let's say your personal opinion is that Trump is NOT guilty of obstruction in the classified documents case.
If the verdict in the trial finds Trump NOT guilty of obstruction, then your personal opinion is the same as the sound legal conclusion.
Now if this turns out to be the case, then logically you could take your opinion, apply principles of jurisprudence, offer evidence and with a sound argument conclude that Trump is NOT guilty.
In contrast, and this was my point, if your opinion is flawed (or just flat out wrong), I do not see how you could apply principles of jurisprudence, etc. and show a sound verdict that agrees with your opinion.
I asked you for an example of an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument). You did not provide one.
No, then the personal opinion happens to concur with the legal conclusion, it's not the same...
Yes the personal opinion would need to be the same as an eventual legal conclusion. If the personal opinion would never be the same as an eventual legal conclusion then the personal opinion clearly would not be able to be framed with a sound legal construct to make it seem legitimate.
More simply stated, I do not see how an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument).
I asked you for an example of an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument).
Apparently you are unable to do so.
Richard Jewell....
Daniel Penny....
Kyle Rittenhouse....
These are names of people who had trials.
I asked you for an example of an unsound (or, worse, false) personal opinion that can be made to look legitimate in a legal scenario (i.e. with solid evidence and a sound legal argument).
And I replied, if you can't see the relevance to your query I'm sorry....
Exactly how I figured you would play this. Offer entirely vague 'answers' and then suggest I am too stupid to understand your answer.
I don't think your stupid quite the opposite...
Then do not imply it:
You do not want to honestly and directly respond to my request. Either you cannot or will not. And that is fine. What is not fine is offering entirely vague answers (literally just names of people who have had trials) and pretend that this was a reasonable response and suggest the vagueness is my failing, not yours.
I didn't, that you took it that way is your problem.
Which I did, that you can't see that is also not my problem...
[deleted]
Thank you for an invite down the rabbit hole but I will decline.
A predictable response to a challenge.
I agree. When a "challenge " is made to a comment/meaning that was never made and there seems to be an expectation that the person "challenged" will defend a comment/meaning never made a decline to an invitation down the rabbit hole can often be predicted.
Did you ever notice how many people/times you are pretty much accused of the same thing over and over? It can't always be the other guy.
[Deleted]
Did you ever notice the consistent tactics used by select individuals? The same tactic will illicit a similar response. Defending Trump will get the same basic response no matter who is doing the defending.
Now climb down from your safe abstraction and engage in debate. Get specific. Deal with a rebuttal.
That ship sailed long long ago.
Exactly. And then the accusations start when they don't get what they want.
Deal with a rebuttal.
You mean the rebuttal to a comment never made? I did deal with it, I declined an invite down the rabbit hole. You seem to be having problems with my rebuttal to your nonsensical rebuttle.
It is good that you recognize it.
[Deleted]
Semantics and condescending word play aside....it is clear to the American people is that the Biden administration is in deep shit trouble politically, and they will not likely support him for a second term.
I really don’t think the vast majority of Americans have a clue what it’s all about (even if they have an opinion), and I doubt it will influence many votes. Partisan voters will vote the way they would anyway, and independents have other concerns.
[Deleted]
You think the vast majority of Americans give a shit about the Democrat's "Get Trump at all costs" vendetta? Or don't recognize it for what it is?
[Deleted]
Democrats are quickly bringing about the day when the rule of law will mean absolutely nothing. They will also be the ones screaming the loudest when that day occurs.
I think that the majority of the general electorate recognizes that the charges against Trump are with merit and that Trump brought this on himself. It is irrational to believe that a) the Ds do not want Trump as the GOP nominee and b) that these indictments are without merit and simply a partisan move to "get Trump at all costs".
Neither this seed nor my comment (to which you are replying) have anything to do with the indictments against Trump.
Oh well, Hell! I see that a couple times a week right here.
Evidence is often refutable. The mere act of declaring it to be irrefutable hardly settles the matter.
No . . . Proof is a state where evidence is deemed by a finder of fact to have met their standard of proof sufficiently. One person may trust the evidence he has seen, and decided it is sufficient to establish proof of the matter. Others may disagree. This happens quite a lot in matters of crime, but even more so in matters of politics. Pretending there is some objective measure is silliness.
Ok, so then the evidence isn’t really “overwhelming,” is it? Considering all the ordinary shit Joe gets wrong on a weekly basis, it’s pretty plausible that he didn’t have a clue what his son might have been up to.
He’s neither judge nor jury, so who cares?