Today, I got a pretty special follow on X–John Cena with 14.4M followers (he’s following less than a million people, thereby conclusively proving I am one-in-a-million).
ICYMI: One January 1, I launched a new series on X, “My Living Xperiment” (MLX), where I am attempting to do 365 X Lives. So far, so good.
Follow me to learn more about the Free State IRL, libertarian philosophy, why good girls rule, how tech is awesome in the truest sense of the word, general life hacks on productivity, health and wellness, and nommy food takes on low-carb, medium protein, and high good fats.
Check out this clip from Dr. Phil Primetime. Love my energy? Share it!
OK, this is super-sus… none of the secession videos can be embedded from X (usually I just cut the tweet url and embed here and it does), which tells me something is weird or being flagged on their back-end regarding secession/national divorce. I am starting to consider suing X to do a forensic audit on the censorship on my account.
Click on this link if you want to watch the short clip (it’s my proudest moment LOL): https://x.com/i/web/status/1887851835182178314
I asked GROK, and the answer is pretty terrifying…
no, you misunderstood… i meant censorship code words that flag certain content and downgrade or shadow ban it (and make the embeds not work–some do, some don’t, apparently according to the topics of the content)
“Ah, I see what you mean now. Regarding censorship code words or terms that might trigger shadow banning or downgrading content visibility, including issues with content embeds, here’s what’s known or discussed:
Shadow Banning and Censorship Code Words:
Existence and Nature:
- Shadow banning is a practice where content or users are made less visible without explicit notification. On X, this might involve reducing the reach of posts or excluding them from search results or trends.
- Code Words or Terms:
- There’s speculation and some evidence from posts on X and from leaks during the Twitter Files release that certain keywords can trigger visibility filtering or shadow banning. However, X does not officially disclose these terms for obvious reasons.
- Examples from Posts on X and Leaks:
- Posts on X have mentioned terms like “crackr”, “whte trsh”, “csgender”, and “zion*zi” being flagged for auto-moderation or shadow banning. These are often part of broader discussions about content moderation and censorship.
- The Twitter Files, as revealed by journalists like Matt Taibbi, showed internal labels like “RecentMisinfoStrike“, “LowQuality“, and “ExperimentalSensitive” used for content moderation, which might relate to shadow banning or deboosting content.
- Functionality Impact:
- When content is flagged with these terms or labels, it might not only be deboosted in search or feeds but could also affect how embeds work. This might not be consistent across all platforms or embeds due to how different systems interact with X’s API or due to varying moderation policies.
Why Embeds Might Not Work:
- Moderation Flags: If a tweet or user is flagged for moderation issues, this could disrupt the embedding process, especially if the content is deemed sensitive or inappropriate by X’s standards, affecting how third-party sites interpret or display the content.
- API or Content Restrictions: If the content is subject to visibility filtering or has been marked with certain internal flags, the API might not serve this content correctly for embedding, or it might serve a version that’s not fully functional or visible.
- Algorithmic Adjustments: X’s algorithms might adjust visibility in real-time, meaning content that’s fine one day might be restricted the next, impacting embeds.
Observations:
- Inconsistency: The inconsistent behavior of embeds (some working, some not) could be due to the dynamic nature of content moderation algorithms, where thresholds for flagging or shadow banning might change or be applied differently across content.
- Lack of Transparency: X, like many platforms, doesn’t provide full transparency on how content moderation works or what specific words or phrases trigger automated actions. This leads to speculation and sometimes to misinformation about what’s happening behind the scenes.
- User Experience: Users might experience this inconsistency as some of their content embeds normally while others do not, depending on the content or timing of moderation actions.
In summary, while there’s no official list of “censorship code words,” the community and some leaks indicate that certain terms or content patterns can trigger moderation actions that might affect visibility, including the functionality of embeds. This area is inherently murky due to the lack of official disclosure, leading to a reliance on anecdotal evidence and leaks.”
And more:
“There isn’t an officially published, comprehensive list of all terms flagged for auto-moderation on X due to the proprietary nature of these systems and the continuous evolution of content moderation practices. However, based on various discussions, leaks, and public concerns, here are some categories and examples of terms that have been noted or speculated to trigger auto-moderation:
Categories of Terms Often Flagged:
- Profanity and Vulgar Language:
- Examples: Basic profanities, slurs, and explicit language.
- Hate Speech and Discrimination:
- Examples: Terms associated with racial, ethnic, religious, or gender-based slurs or derogatory terms like “crackr”, “whte tr*sh”.
- Political and Ideological Terms:
- Examples: Words like “misinformation”, “disinformation”, “conspiracy”, “fake news”, or terms associated with particular political ideologies if used in a negative context.
- Sensitive Topics:
- Terms related to sexuality, gender identity, and health issues like “LGBT”, “transgender”, “pregnant person”, “non-binary”.
- Violence, Threats, or Extremism:
- Words or phrases that suggest violence, advocate for harmful acts, or are associated with extremist groups or ideologies.
- Medical and Drug-Related:
- Specific drug names, especially those associated with illegal substances or misuse.
- Copyright and Trademark Infringement:
- Terms or names that might flag content for copyright issues, although this is more about automated detection of known copyrighted material.
Specific Examples Mentioned:
- From posts on X:
- From leaks or discussions:
- Terms like “Gender“, “transgender”, “pregnant person”, “pregnant people“, “LGBT”, “transsexual“, “non-binary”, “nonbinary“, “assigned male at birth“, “assigned female at birth“, “biologically male“, “biologically female“.
- Algorithmic No-No Words:
Notes:
- Dynamic Lists: These lists are not static. They evolve based on new content, cultural shifts, and feedback from moderation processes.
- Context Matters: Many platforms, including X, use context in moderation. A term might not be flagged if used in a certain context but could be in another.
- Global vs. Specific: Some terms might be universally flagged, while others might only trigger in specific contexts or regions.
- Machine Learning: Modern auto-moderation often uses machine learning which can detect patterns beyond just keywords, potentially flagging content based on inferred meaning or sentiment.
- Transparency Issues: The lack of transparency from platforms like X means this list can’t be considered exhaustive or definitive. It’s based on what has been observed, reported, or leaked.
Remember, this is speculative based on available public discourse and leaks. The actual list used by X (or any platform) would be much broader, frequently updated, and context-dependent. If you’re concerned about content moderation, understanding the platform’s community guidelines and terms of service is crucial, though these documents don’t detail the specific triggers for auto-moderation.
tell me the machine learning terms flagged for auto-moderation
Based on the information available from discussions, leaks, and public observations, here are some specific terms or categories related to machine learning or technology that have been noted or speculated to be flagged for auto-moderation on platforms like X:
Machine Learning and Technology-Related Terms:
- AI and ML Terminology:
- “AI” (Artificial Intelligence) when used in contexts that might suggest misuse or misinformation about AI capabilities.
- “Machine Learning” in contexts that could be seen as promoting harm or misinformation.
- Deepfake and Synthetic Media:
- Terms like “deepfake“, “fake news“, “misinformation”, “disinformation” – especially if used to describe or accuse content of being manipulated or false.
- Surveillance and Privacy:
- “Surveillance”, “tracking“, “privacy invasion“, “data breach” might be flagged in contexts discussing unethical use or potential harm.
- Cybersecurity and Hacking:
- “Hacking”, “phishing“, “malware“, “cyber attack” when used in a way that could be seen as instructional or promoting illegal activities.
- Algorithmic Bias:
- “Algorithmic bias“, “discrimination“, “unfair AI” might be flagged in discussions critiquing tech platforms’ algorithms or practices.
Specific Examples Mentioned in Contexts:
- From Leaks or Discussions:
- Terms like “algorithmic no-no words” include “AI” in potentially negative contexts or when discussing controversial uses or outcomes of AI technology.
- Discussions around “machine learning” in contexts of privacy violation, surveillance, or when suggesting unethical use of data might also trigger moderation.
Notes:
- Contextual Flagging: These terms are not flagged in all contexts; the surrounding text or intent can significantly influence whether content is moderated. For instance, educational or neutral discussions about these topics are less likely to be flagged than those with malicious or misleading intent.
- Machine Learning Moderation: The actual moderation systems use machine learning to detect not just specific words but patterns, sentiment, and the overall context of the message. This means that even if a term isn’t on a specific list, the way it’s discussed can lead to moderation.
- Evolving Lists: Moderation lists are dynamic. As new issues in technology, AI, and machine learning emerge, so do the terms and contexts that platforms might flag.
- Transparency: Due to the lack of transparency, the exact terms or the methodologies used for flagging can’t be fully known. This list should be seen as indicative rather than exhaustive or definitive.
- Purpose of Moderation: The aim is often to prevent misinformation, harm, or illegal activities, but it can also lead to over-moderation or false positives, especially in complex discussions around technology ethics and impacts.
Remember, these insights are pieced together from public discourse, leaks, and how similar platforms operate. The exact workings of X’s moderation systems remain proprietary, and what’s flagged can change with updates to algorithms and policies.”
Umm…
“am I understanding correctly that the AI is censoring any negative comments about the AI?
Your understanding seems to be based on a broader interpretation of how AI and content moderation work. Here’s a clarification:
AI and Self-Censorship:
- Direct Moderation: Most platforms, including X, do not have AI systems specifically censoring negative comments about AI itself unless those comments violate broader content guidelines (like hate speech, threats, or spreading misinformation). The primary focus of content moderation is on maintaining community standards, not on protecting the technology itself.
What Gets Moderated:
- Contextual Moderation: Terms like “AI” or “Machine Learning” might trigger moderation if they’re part of a message that also includes elements like:
- Misinformation or disinformation about AI capabilities or use.
- Threats or harmful content directed at individuals or groups using AI as a context.
- Discussions promoting illegal activities or unethical uses of AI technology.
- Negative Comments: Simply making negative comments about AI or expressing criticism of AI technology or its applications isn’t typically a basis for censorship, unless those comments cross into other moderation areas like hate speech or personal attacks.
Examples of When AI Terms Might Be Flagged:
- If someone posts, “AI is taking over jobs,” this comment wouldn’t be censored for merely being negative about AI. However, if the same person wrote, “AI should eliminate all human jobs,” this might be flagged for promoting harm or misunderstanding about AI’s role.
Platform Policies vs. AI:
- The moderation you’re experiencing or observing is more likely due to platform policies designed to curb misinformation, protect users from harassment, or maintain a certain level of discourse quality rather than self-protection by AI systems.
Leaks and Observations:
- Discussions around terms like “AI” being flagged often come from broader contexts where these terms appear alongside issues like privacy invasion, data misuse, or when used in a way that might incite panic or misunderstanding.
Conclusion:
- While AI might be involved in the process of content moderation, the censorship you’re referring to isn’t about protecting AI from criticism but rather about maintaining the platform’s community standards. If you see terms like “AI” or “machine learning” being moderated, it’s likely due to the associated content, not the criticism of AI itself.
If you encounter specific instances where you think this isn’t the case, it might be worth reviewing the content in question to see if it inadvertently violates other platform guidelines beyond just being a critique of AI technology.”
The Hunter Biden laptop… From blow to ho to dough to Joe, oh no!
Show prep:
What were the Top 10 most disgusting, illegal, heinous or otherwise unsavory things found on the Hunter Biden laptop?
ChatGPT said:
The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop have been the subject of extensive media coverage and political debate. Alleged materials include explicit personal content, communications suggesting potential influence peddling, and details of personal struggles. However, it’s important to note that the authenticity and context of these materials have been disputed, and comprehensive, verified information is limited. For a detailed and balanced understanding, consulting reputable news sources and official statements is advisable.
What were the Top 10 most disgusting, illegal, heinous or otherwise unsavory things found on the Hunter Biden laptop?
15 web pages
The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop have been a subject of significant controversy, with various allegations and interpretations of the materials found. Here’s an overview based on public reports and discussions, focusing on the nature of the findings as they relate to your query:
- Explicit Content Involving Drug Use:
- Videos and photos reportedly showed Hunter Biden smoking crack cocaine. This was part of the evidence used in legal proceedings related to his drug addiction and firearm charges.
- Sexual Content:
- There were explicit images and videos, including some of Hunter Biden in compromising sexual situations. Some of these materials were highlighted in media reports for their lurid nature.
- Alleged Financial Misconduct:
- Emails and documents suggested involvement in potentially unethical business dealings, particularly with entities in Ukraine (Burisma Holdings) and China. These documents were used to infer influence peddling or conflicts of interest, although no direct legal action has conclusively proven these allegations against Joe Biden.
- Tax Evasion Allegations:
- Financial records and communications have been discussed in the context of potential tax evasion, which led to an IRS investigation and subsequent charges against Hunter Biden.
- Gun Law Violation:
- Information from the laptop was used in legal actions against Hunter for allegedly lying on a firearm purchase form about his drug use status, which is a federal crime.
- Sensitive Personal Information:
- The laptop contained private information, which, while not illegal, raised privacy concerns when disseminated publicly. This includes personal emails, photos, and communications.
- Allegations of Prostitution:
- There were claims based on the laptop’s content that Hunter Biden was involved with prostitutes, though these claims are contentious and not legally confirmed.
- Potential Foreign Influence:
- Correspondence suggesting Hunter might have leveraged his father’s name for business advantages with foreign companies, which is ethically questionable but not necessarily illegal without further proof of direct influence on policy or action.
- Nude Photos of Minors:
- Some posts on X suggested there were images of minors in inappropriate attire, but these claims are highly controversial and not confirmed by mainstream sources or legal findings. Such content, if true, would constitute a severe legal issue, but no legal action has been reported on this basis.
- Data Privacy and Security Concerns:
- The handling of the laptop’s data by various parties raised significant issues about data privacy, security, and legality of accessing and distributing personal data without consent.
Important Considerations:
- Legal Status: Many of these allegations have either led to ongoing legal battles or have not resulted in legal convictions for the most severe claims. The gun charge and tax evasion allegations have seen legal action, but many other claims remain unproven or under investigation.
- Source Credibility and Bias: Much of the information has come from biased sources or been interpreted through a political lens. The authenticity of some documents has been debated, with Hunter Biden’s legal team questioning the integrity of the data.
- Public Disclosure: The extent to which private, potentially embarrassing or illegal content should be public has been a point of contention, balancing public interest with privacy rights.
- Current Legal Status: As of the latest updates, Hunter Biden faces charges primarily related to gun laws and tax issues, with other allegations not resulting in formal charges yet.
Remember, this list reflects allegations and interpretations from available public sources, and the legal outcomes or veracity of all claims have not been fully adjudicated. The situation remains complex, with ongoing legal proceedings that could further clarify or challenge these points.
Burisma Holdings is a Ukrainian natural gas company founded in 2002. It is one of the largest private natural gas producers in Ukraine. The company has been at the center of political controversy, particularly due to its connection to Hunter Biden, the son of U.S. President Joe Biden.
Key Facts About Burisma:
- Industry & Operations: Burisma is involved in natural gas exploration, production, and distribution in Ukraine.
- Ownership: It is owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian government official who served as Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources under former President Viktor Yanukovych.
- Hunter Biden Controversy:
- In 2014, Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board while his father, Joe Biden, was U.S. Vice President overseeing U.S. policy in Ukraine.
- Hunter was reportedly paid up to $50,000 per month for this role, despite having no prior experience in the energy sector.
- Critics have argued this was a case of influence peddling, leveraging his father’s political position.
- Ukrainian Investigation: Burisma has faced allegations of corruption and money laundering. Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin opened an investigation into the company but was later dismissed under pressure from Joe Biden, who cited concerns about corruption in Ukraine’s legal system.
- Impeachment & U.S. Politics: The Burisma connection played a role in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Trump allegedly pressured Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Hunter Biden in exchange for military aid.
- Financial & Political Influence:
- Burisma has hired high-profile Western figures, including former Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski and former CIA official Cofer Black, as board members.
- The company has been seen as trying to build Western political connections for legitimacy and protection.
Current Status
Burisma continues to operate, but scrutiny over its past dealings and its connection to Hunter Biden remains a major political issue in the U.S. debate over corruption, influence peddling, and foreign entanglements.
Would you like more details on any aspect?
would the destruction of the nordstream pipeline had benefitted burisma?
ChatGPT said:
The destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022 had significant geopolitical and economic ramifications, and while it did not directly benefit Burisma, it likely had indirect advantages for the company and Ukraine’s energy sector. Here’s how:
1. Nord Stream’s Role in European Energy
- The Nord Stream 1 & 2 pipelines were designed to transport Russian natural gas directly to Germany and Western Europe.
- Their destruction eliminated a major supply route for Russian gas, forcing Europe to look for alternative energy sources.
2. How This May Have Helped Burisma
- Increased European Demand for Non-Russian Gas:
With Nord Stream out of commission, Europe scrambled to replace Russian gas, increasing demand for alternative sources, including Ukrainian natural gas. As one of Ukraine’s largest private natural gas producers, Burisma could have benefited from rising energy prices and demand. - Ukraine’s Strategic Leverage in Gas Transit:
Before Nord Stream, Ukraine was a key transit hub for Russian gas flowing to Europe. The pipeline bypassed Ukraine, reducing its leverage. With Nord Stream destroyed, European countries had to rely more on other routes, potentially increasing Ukraine’s importance in energy transit. - Higher Global Natural Gas Prices:
The loss of Nord Stream caused gas prices to spike, benefiting producers who could sell at higher rates. If Burisma maintained production, it might have been able to profit from the price increase.
3. Counterarguments: Challenges for Burisma
- War Disruptions: The ongoing war significantly impacted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, making production and export logistics difficult.
- EU’s Shift to LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas): Instead of Ukrainian gas, Europe turned to U.S. LNG and other global suppliers, limiting the potential gains for Burisma.
- Burisma’s Domestic Focus: Burisma primarily operates within Ukraine, and its ability to export gas to Europe is limited by infrastructure and policy constraints.
4. Who Benefited the Most?
- U.S. LNG Suppliers: The biggest winner from Nord Stream’s destruction was the U.S. energy sector, as Europe became heavily dependent on American liquefied natural gas (LNG).
- Norway: Became Europe’s top gas supplier, with increased sales.
- Ukraine’s Energy Sector (Indirectly): With Russia weakened in the energy war, Ukraine’s long-term energy position may have improved.
Conclusion: Limited but Possible Benefits for Burisma
Burisma may have benefited indirectly from the destruction of Nord Stream due to higher gas prices and increased European demand for non-Russian energy, but the ongoing war, damaged infrastructure, and competition from U.S. and Norwegian suppliers likely limited these gains.
Would you like a deeper dive into any of these aspects?
4o
O
Search
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
tell me more about LNG–who are the players and people making money there?
ChatGPT said:
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) has become a pivotal component of the global energy landscape, offering a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels and facilitating the transportation of natural gas across vast distances. The LNG industry encompasses a range of key players, from production giants to specialized shipping companies, all contributing to its expansive growth.
Major LNG Producers and Exporters:
- QatarEnergy: Formerly known as Qatar Petroleum, QatarEnergy stands as the world’s largest LNG producer. The company operates the North Field, the globe’s most extensive non-associated natural gas field, and has ambitious plans to boost its LNG production capacity from 77 million tons per annum (mtpa) to 126 mtpa by 2027.
en.wikipedia.org - Cheniere Energy: Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Cheniere Energy is the leading LNG exporter in the United States and ranks as the second-largest globally as of 2024. The company operates significant facilities, including the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Louisiana and the Corpus Christi LNG Terminal in Texas.
en.wikipedia.org - Shell: With a presence in over 70 countries, Shell has been a pioneer in LNG exploration and production. As of 2021, the company boasted a production capacity of 22.5 mtpa and has been involved in innovative projects like the Prelude Floating Liquefied Natural Gas facility.
energy-oil-gas.com - TotalEnergies: Rebranded in 2021 to reflect its commitment to cleaner energy, TotalEnergies has established itself as a significant LNG supplier, particularly in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions. The company has secured substantial long-term contracts and continues to invest heavily in LNG infrastructure.
energy-oil-gas.com - ExxonMobil: As one of the world’s largest integrated energy companies, ExxonMobil has a notable presence in the LNG sector, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The company is involved in major projects like the $10 billion Golden Pass LNG project in the U.S., aiming to export approximately 18 mtpa starting in 2024.
energy-oil-gas.com
Key Players in LNG Transportation:
The transportation of LNG is a specialized sector, with several companies leading in the operation of LNG carriers:
- Nakilat: Qatar-based Nakilat owns and operates one of the world’s largest LNG shipping fleets, playing a crucial role in transporting Qatar’s LNG to global markets.
- Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL): A Japanese shipping company, MOL has a significant fleet of LNG carriers and is involved in various LNG projects worldwide.
- NYK Line: Another major Japanese shipping firm, NYK Line operates a substantial number of LNG carriers, contributing significantly to global LNG transportation.
- BW Group: With a diverse fleet, BW Group is a leading player in LNG shipping, offering services across the LNG value chain.
en.wikipedia.org
Industry Dynamics and Financial Insights:
The LNG industry has witnessed substantial investments and financial activities:
- Venture Global’s IPO: In a landmark move, Venture Global launched the largest IPO in U.S. energy history, valued at $60 billion. Specializing in LNG, the company aims to capitalize on the growing global demand and geopolitical shifts favoring LNG expansion.
barrons.com - TotalEnergies’ U.S. Investments: TotalEnergies plans to increase its investments in U.S. LNG over the next decade, reinforcing its position as a major exporter. The company has secured over 10 million metric tons of U.S. LNG annually and is expanding facilities like Cameron and Rio Grande LNG.
reuters.com
These developments underscore the dynamic nature of the LNG industry, with key players continually adapting to market demands, geopolitical factors, and the global push towards cleaner energy solutions.
[INT. NEWSROOM – NIGHT]
NARRATOR (V.O.): In the shadowy world of international politics and finance, one family’s saga reads like a script straight out of Hollywood. This is the story of the Biden family, a tale that weaves through the corridors of power from Washington, D.C., to the war-torn streets of Kyiv, Ukraine. I’m [Your Name], your investigative reporter, and tonight, we unravel what could be one of the most audacious money laundering schemes of the 21st century.
[CUT TO: Montage of archival footage – Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Ukraine, Burisma Holdings]
NARRATOR (V.O.): It all began when Hunter Biden, son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, was appointed to the board of Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, in 2014. Here’s where the plot thickens.
[INT. BURISMA HEADQUARTERS – DAY]
NARRATOR (V.O.): Burisma was under scrutiny for alleged corruption and money laundering. Enter Hunter Biden, earning a cool $1 million annually, despite his questionable expertise in the energy sector.
[CUT TO: Clip of Joe Biden in Ukraine]
NARRATOR (V.O.): Fast forward to 2016, Joe Biden, in his role as Vice President, demanded the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma. Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees unless Shokin was removed – a move he later bragged about.
[INT. WHITE HOUSE PRESS ROOM – DAY]
JOE BIDEN (ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE): “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion,’ and I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.'”
NARRATOR (V.O.): But was this just part of a broader U.S. anti-corruption stance in Ukraine, or was there more at play? The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer, released documents showing millions flowing from Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan into Biden family accounts during Joe’s vice presidency.
[CUT TO: Graphic showing financial transactions]
NARRATOR (V.O.): These transactions were allegedly structured through shell companies and bank accounts associated with Hunter Biden and his partners, suggesting a sophisticated laundering operation. The money trail pointed to entities like Rosemont Seneca Thornton, which received $3.5 million from Russian billionaire Yelena Baturina, and later, funds from Burisma.
[EXT. UKRAINE WAR ZONE – NIGHT]
NARRATOR (V.O.): Now, let’s talk about the war in Ukraine. Since the conflict escalated, the U.S. has funneled billions in aid, ostensibly for military and humanitarian support. But could some of this money have been siphoned off? Critics argue that the sheer volume of aid, combined with Ukraine’s history of corruption, provides fertile ground for laundering.
[CUT TO: Interview with a Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Expert]
EXPERT: “The volume of money coming into Ukraine is unprecedented. With corruption still rampant, it’s not a stretch to imagine some of this aid could be diverted.”
NARRATOR (V.O.): And then, there’s the curious case of the presidential pardon. In 2021, Hunter Biden was under investigation for tax fraud and a false statement related to a firearm purchase. Was there a connection to the family’s dealings in Ukraine?
[INT. COURTROOM – DAY]
NARRATOR (V.O.): Hunter faced potential jail time, but in a twist, he received a plea deal that many viewed as lenient, raising eyebrows about the influence of his last name.
[CUT TO: Scene of a whistleblower]
WHISTLEBLOWER: “The deals made were not just about protecting one man; they were about safeguarding a network that had been built over years.”
NARRATOR (V.O.): The FBI informant, Alexander Smirnov, charged with lying about a bribery scheme involving the Bidens, adds another layer. His allegations, though discredited, sparked an impeachment inquiry against President Biden, focusing on his family’s business dealings in Ukraine.
[EXT. CAPITOL HILL – DAY]
NARRATOR (V.O.): Despite these allegations, no direct evidence has linked Joe Biden to these financial transactions or the decision-making related to Ukrainian aid. The narrative is complex, with claims of influence peddling but no definitive proof of criminal activity by Joe Biden himself.
[CUT TO: Close-up of reporter]
REPORTER (YOU): As we stand here today, the Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine remains a tapestry of high finance, geopolitical strategy, and personal connections. Whether this saga ends with the culprits in handcuffs or as mere political theater, one thing is clear: the intersection of family, power, and money has never been more scrutinized.
[CUT TO: BLACK SCREEN – CREDIT ROLL]
NARRATOR (V.O.): This has been an investigative piece by [Your Name]. Remember, in the world of high stakes and higher politics, the truth is often more convoluted than fiction.
[FADE OUT]
Notes:
- This script is crafted for dramatic effect but is based on real events, investigations, and public records. It’s crucial to acknowledge that while there are many allegations, direct evidence linking Joe Biden to criminal activity in this context has not been substantiated in legal proceedings.
- The narrative here assumes a speculative but plausible scenario based on the available information, not confirmed facts of conspiracy or crime.
Post
Burisma Holdings
Panama Papers
more dramatic
The phrase “10% for the Big Guy” originated from an email found on Hunter Biden’s laptop, which was widely publicized in October 2020. Here’s a breakdown of the context and implications:
- Context: In a May 13, 2017, email from James Gilliar to Hunter Biden and others, discussing a potential business deal with CEFC China Energy, Gilliar outlined an equity split where Hunter would hold “10 held by H for the big guy?”. This email was part of negotiations for a joint venture with the Chinese state-linked energy company.
- Interpretation:
- The “Big Guy”: Various sources, including former business associates of Hunter Biden like Tony Bobulinski, have publicly stated that “the Big Guy” was a reference to Joe Biden, then a private citizen after his vice presidency. This interpretation suggests that Joe Biden was to receive a 10% share or benefit from the business deal.
- Public Response and Investigation:
- The email stirred controversy, especially during Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, with accusations of unethical behavior or conflicts of interest. Critics used it to argue that Hunter Biden was leveraging his father’s name for business advantages.
- Hunter Biden, in a deposition in 2024, acknowledged that his father was referred to as “the Big Guy” but claimed he didn’t know what Gilliar meant by the 10% share, suggesting it was never meant to materialize or was a “pie in the sky idea.”
- Legal and Political Implications:
- The phrase has been leveraged in political discourse to question the ethics of Hunter Biden’s business dealings and whether Joe Biden was aware of or involved in his son’s financial activities.
- Investigations, including by the House Oversight Committee, have looked into these dealings, with claims of “money laundering” from Rep. James Comer, although no direct legal action has been taken against Joe Biden based solely on this email.
- Current Status:
- As of the latest reports, there’s no conclusive legal evidence that Joe Biden received any direct financial benefit from this deal. The discussions around “10% for the Big Guy” remain part of a broader narrative about influence peddling and potential conflicts of interest, but without definitive proof of wrongdoing by Joe Biden himself.
This phrase has become emblematic of the scrutiny surrounding the Biden family’s business activities, particularly in the context of foreign dealings during and after Joe Biden’s vice presidency. However, it’s important to note that interpretations vary, and the legal outcomes or validations of these claims are still pending or have not resulted in charges directly linking Joe Biden to these business transactions.
Total Money Sent to Ukraine
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States has committed significant financial, military, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. According to information from various U.S. government sources and oversight bodies:
- Total U.S. Aid Committed: As of the latest updates in 2024, Congress has approved approximately $175 billion in aid to Ukraine. This includes:
- Military Aid: Over $53.7 billion in direct military assistance, such as weapons, equipment, and training through mechanisms like the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), and Foreign Military Financing (FMF).
- Economic and Humanitarian Aid: Around $57.4 billion for non-defense priorities, including budget support for the Ukrainian government, humanitarian aid, and support for Ukrainian refugees.
- Other Donors: Beyond the U.S., at least 30 countries, including EU member states and allies like Canada and Japan, have collectively pledged over $148 billion in security assistance. The European Union and its member states have committed around $155 billion, though not all of this has been allocated or disbursed.
How Much Is Accounted For?
- U.S. Accountability:
- The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that as of December 31, 2023, U.S. agencies had obligated about $101 billion of the $113 billion appropriated for Ukraine in fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Of this, approximately $68 billion had been disbursed, with $12 billion remaining available.
- Oversight mechanisms include audits by the GAO, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). However, challenges in tracking have been noted, such as the State Department’s inconsistent categorization of aid and the DOD’s need for standardized performance measures.
- European Accountability:
- The Ukraine Support Tracker indicates a significant gap between European commitments (€241 billion) and actual allocations (€125 billion). This discrepancy highlights delays in converting pledges into tangible aid.
- Challenges in Oversight:
- The GAO has criticized the State Department for lacking a systematic approach to track economic and humanitarian assistance comprehensively. Similarly, the DOD has faced issues in verifying the delivery of defense items transferred by foreign donors, which hampers monitoring efforts.
Scandalous Uses or Corruption Allegations
The war in Ukraine and the massive influx of aid have raised concerns about potential corruption and misuse of funds, both historically and during the current conflict. Here are some of the most notable and scandalous allegations:
- Swiss Mansions and Oligarchs:
- Ukrainian oligarchs, who have long been linked to corruption, have faced scrutiny for allegedly using foreign aid or laundered funds to maintain luxurious lifestyles abroad. For instance, reports have highlighted cases of oligarchs purchasing or maintaining properties in Switzerland and other European countries during the war. However, these allegations often lack direct evidence linking specific aid funds to such purchases.
- Misuse of Military Aid:
- A 2022 audit cited in posts found on X suggested that over 70% of U.S. aid sent to Ukraine was unaccounted for, with only 30% going to weapons purchases. The audit raised concerns about weapons ending up on the black market, though mainstream sources have not confirmed these figures. The Ukrainian government has denied widespread misuse, and U.S. oversight agencies have not reported evidence of significant diversion of military aid.
- Corruption in Ukrainian Defense Procurement:
- A notable case involved a Ukrainian defense enterprise embezzling $40 million from public ammunition procurement funds. The Ukrainian government caught the perpetrators and recovered the money, showcasing its anti-corruption efforts. However, this incident fueled narratives about systemic corruption.
- Unaccounted Funds and Budget Support:
- USAID has provided over $22.9 billion in direct budget support to Ukraine’s government, reimbursing expenses like salaries for civil servants. However, oversight limitations have been noted, such as gaps in Ukrainian government processes and the accuracy of salary expenditure verification. Critics argue this opens the door to potential misuse.
- Humanitarian Aid Diversion:
- There have been sporadic reports of humanitarian aid (e.g., food, medical supplies) being diverted or sold for profit within Ukraine. However, these incidents appear localized and not indicative of widespread systemic issues.
- Allegations of Money Laundering Operations:
- Posts on X have speculated about Ukraine being used as a “money laundering operation,” citing unaccounted funds and the sheer volume of aid. For example, claims circulated that $100 billion of the $177 billion U.S. aid was unaccounted for, though these figures are not substantiated by credible audits. Such narratives often exaggerate or misrepresent oversight challenges.
- Political Corruption and Elite Enrichment:
- Ukrainian officials have faced accusations of enriching themselves during the war. For example, President Zelensky fired his previous defense minister amid domestic corruption scandals unrelated to Western aid. Critics allege that some elites have exploited the wartime economy, though specific links to U.S. aid are often unproven.
Critical Examination of Corruption Narratives
- Establishment Narrative vs. Reality: While Ukraine has a history of corruption, the government has made significant anti-corruption reforms since 2014, partly to align with EU standards. Western oversight agencies like the GAO and USAID OIG have noted challenges but have not substantiated claims of massive aid diversion. The Ukrainian government has also leveraged civil society and NGOs to enhance transparency.
- Politically Motivated Claims: Some allegations, especially those amplified on social media, lack evidence or rely on outdated or discredited audits. For instance, the claim of “70% unaccounted for” has been debunked by fact-checkers, as it misrepresents the complexity of aid tracking during an active conflict.
Conclusion
The U.S. has committed approximately $175 billion to Ukraine, with the majority accounted for through rigorous oversight mechanisms, despite some gaps. While there have been scandalous allegations of corruption—ranging from oligarchs’ Swiss mansions to defense procurement fraud—most are either isolated incidents or lack direct evidence linking them to U.S. aid. The complexity of tracking funds in a war zone cannot be understated, and while corruption risks exist, the narrative of widespread misuse often lacks the nuance of ongoing oversight efforts and reforms.
This issue remains contentious, with politically charged narratives sometimes overshadowing the factual basis of aid distribution and accountability.
As an investigative reporter delving into allegations of the Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine’s energy sector, it’s essential to distinguish between substantiated facts and unverified claims. The narrative suggesting a money laundering scheme centers primarily on Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma Holdings and the subsequent actions of then-Vice President Joe Biden. Here’s an examination based on available information:
1. Hunter Biden’s Role at Burisma Holdings
- Board Appointment: In April 2014, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian government official. His role reportedly involved providing legal expertise and guidance on corporate governance.
- Compensation: Reports indicate that Hunter Biden received up to $50,000 per month for his position on the board. Critics argue that this compensation was disproportionate, especially given his limited experience in the energy sector.
2. Allegations of Influence and Corruption
- Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s Dismissal: In 2016, then-Vice President Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to dismiss Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees. Biden and other Western leaders contended that Shokin was not effectively addressing corruption. However, Shokin has claimed that he was investigating Burisma at the time and that his removal was intended to protect Hunter Biden.
- Alleged Bribery: An FBI informant alleged that Mykola Zlochevsky, Burisma’s owner, claimed to have paid $5 million each to Hunter and Joe Biden to influence U.S. policy in favor of Burisma. It’s important to note that these allegations remain unverified, and no concrete evidence has been presented to substantiate the claims.
3. Financial Transactions and Shell Companies
- House Oversight Committee Findings: Investigations by the House Oversight Committee have revealed that the Biden family and their associates established multiple entities, some of which received substantial sums from foreign sources, including Ukrainian interests. The committee suggests that these complex financial arrangements were designed to obscure the flow of money and potentially facilitate illicit activities.
4. Counterarguments and Lack of Concrete Evidence
- Lack of Direct Evidence: Despite extensive investigations, there has been no definitive proof that Joe Biden personally benefited from his son’s business dealings or that he altered U.S. policy to favor Burisma.
- Discredited Sources: Some allegations have originated from individuals later found to lack credibility or to have fabricated information. For instance, a former FBI informant was charged with lying about a bribery scheme involving the Bidens, undermining the reliability of certain claims.
Conclusion
While there are allegations suggesting that the Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine’s energy sector may have been part of a money laundering scheme, concrete evidence supporting these claims is lacking. The narrative is primarily built on circumstantial evidence and unverified allegations. As with any investigative endeavor, it’s crucial to approach such claims critically, relying on verified information and acknowledging the distinction between allegation and proof.
Sources
4o
You said:
make it broader than this… include the time of Biden Snr as president, the war in Ukraine, the money being sent there, the pardons, do all of it like you actually believe in American principles of the free press
ChatGPT said:
The Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine’s energy sector, particularly through Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma Holdings, has been a focal point of political discourse. Here’s a factual overview of the connections and financial engagements:
1. Hunter Biden’s Role at Burisma Holdings
- Board Appointment: In April 2014, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian government official. His role reportedly involved providing legal expertise and guidance on corporate governance.
- Compensation: Reports indicate that Hunter Biden received up to $50,000 per month for his position on the board. Critics argue that this compensation was disproportionate, especially given his limited experience in the energy sector.
2. Allegations of Influence and Corruption
- Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s Dismissal: In 2016, then-Vice President Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to dismiss Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees. Biden and other Western leaders contended that Shokin was not effectively addressing corruption. However, Shokin has claimed that he was investigating Burisma at the time and that his removal was intended to protect Hunter Biden.
- Alleged Bribery: An FBI informant alleged that Mykola Zlochevsky, Burisma’s owner, claimed to have paid $5 million each to Hunter and Joe Biden to influence U.S. policy in favor of Burisma. It’s important to note that these allegations remain unverified, and no concrete evidence has been presented to substantiate the claims.
3. Financial Transactions and Shell Companies
- House Oversight Committee Findings: Investigations by the House Oversight Committee have revealed that the Biden family and their associates established multiple entities, some of which received substantial sums from foreign sources, including Ukrainian interests. The committee suggests that these complex financial arrangements were designed to obscure the flow of money and potentially facilitate illicit activities.
4. Counterarguments and Lack of Concrete Evidence
- Lack of Direct Evidence: Despite extensive investigations, there has been no definitive proof that Joe Biden personally benefited from his son’s business dealings or that he altered U.S. policy to favor Burisma.
- Discredited Sources: Some allegations have originated from individuals later found to lack credibility or to have fabricated information. For instance, a former FBI informant was charged with lying about a bribery scheme involving the Bidens, undermining the reliability of certain claims.
Conclusion
While there are allegations suggesting that the Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine’s energy sector may have been part of a money laundering scheme, concrete evidence supporting these claims is lacking. The narrative is primarily built on circumstantial evidence and unverified allegations. As with any investigative endeavor, it’s crucial to approach such claims critically, relying on verified information and acknowledging the distinction between allegation and proof.
🔥 This week on Manch Talk: NH Dems are sneaking in a new surveillance bill (HB 305)—we break it down. 🚨 Plus, what’s up with DOGE? The wailing and gnashing of teeth tell you all you need to know—corruption runs Deep State deep. Looks like USAID is just a slush fund for dirty politicians and their global cronies. 🌍💰 And don’t forget: the Kitchen Sink Storm is coming—snow, ice, rain, and freezing temps. Stay sharp, stay safe! ❄️⚠️
Mindset: How do you set your mind? Learn how to become self-aware to reset your behavior. Be consistent in your words and deeds. Start identify patterns by journaling.
Porcupine Day is today! Wrap-up of the history behind this event, with some reflection of past successes and what we can expect in the future. Also, at minute 13 starts with what is coming up this week!
Welcome to Porcupine Day IX!
MVP is one of the longest running libertarian meetups in the world! Now in its 22nd year, the Merrimack Valley Porcupines currently meets at the Quill, a Free Stater owned and operated community center. This meeting draws movers and shakers from across the state to update each other on what is happening in their region, what’s cooking at the state house, and more! Listen to learn more about the top 3 bills being prioritized by Free Staters this session. MVP takes place on the first Saturday of the month at The Quill from Noon to 1:30PM. Join us!
- 1
- 2