Well. Let’s see…
1. I still think Jake Tapper is the CNN host most likely to slip into genuine journalism now and then, and he demonstrates it here. Sort of.
2. In all the post-debate factchecks, did the mainstream media’s vaunted “investigative reporters” check Biden’s denial’s? I wonder if Trump’s assertions about Hunter ended up in the Washington Post’s “Trump lies” database? Has any reporter on the MSM team had the guts to call Biden’s denial a lie?
3. Tapper, says that it isn’t a lie, using a standard that the New York Times, among others, consistently rejects when Donald Trump’s statements are the issue.
4. This is part of what Trump is referring to when he says the elections was “rigged” or “fixed.”
5. Remember how Candy Crowley rushed to challenge Mitt Romney in his debate with Barack Obama when he criticized President Obama’s misleading response to the September 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya? And he was correct on the facts. Did either debate moderator point out the Biden’s claims were significantly at odds with the facts? Of course not…after all, it was before the election.
6. NOW CNN is saying that Biden was “wrong” (he lied) and Trump was correct. Well, as Harry Reid would say, “Biden won didn’t he?”
7. The reactions of the two hacks would be hilarious if they weren’t so despicable. Soltis, a Republican pollster apparently chosen because she has the wit of a turnip, literally says that the #1 problem with Biden’s lie is that ‘Republicans will pounce!’ No, Kristin, the #1 problem is that Joe Biden lied to the American people and perpetrated a cover-up for the benefit of himself and his son. The Congressman then follows what is the official DNC talking point: “You know how dads are about their kids!” Democrats are really going to run with this. That is how little respect they have for the American public.
Ethics Alarms 
That disrespect has been metastasizing for quite some time, 15+ years. Before you pointed out Jake Tapper slipping “into genuine journalism” I’d have had to take your word for the notion he that he is actually ABLE TO be a journalist “now and then”. The ethics of all, bar none, CNN talking heads have been compromised for years. Yes, a rare moment of candor. I suspect Mr Tapper isn’t aware he may have loosened the bolt holding the Party line in place. Then it got funny: the hollow hefty-thinking lefty from Michigan, Jewish lawyer whose platform was stumping for a brand new Palestine, having bought into the magic of Rashida Tlaib a few Districts over, Levine, offers shallowly that despite the junk swirling around Hunter, none can be connected to Dad. (What else CAN he say? He can’t very well gainsay Tapper, especially since he’s no longer in congress and is really just looking for a job .. he certainly can’t practice law, maybe run for a judgeship. Moreover, you’re right on target, no one’s gonna say potus joe lied, he was just .. innocuously of course .. wrong.) What I hear is he’s all too ready to rid the Party of Hunter (These days, every morning poor Andy Levin fields grim news, putting him on the defensive. A weak man on the defensive is a pitiful sight.) and maybe, just maybe, salvage Joe. The zinger that may turn a few block party heads is the mention of millions on the sly. Can we say the feverish and juvenile game of anti-trump disingenuity is dying? No? Ok then can we say fewer and fewer are prepared to outwardly defend Joe Biden, anything he has to say, his policies, his family, his legislative history, his deteriorating mental health, his 2024 candidacy?
The first bit of grease is being applied to the wheels of “Michelle Obama 2024.”
I really hate the “Hunter Biden, the Prodigal Son” talking point. Hunter is not out of line, he’s the point man for the family business. It’s the most insulting talking point extant, perhaps ever. How can people really blather about how Joe loves his son and every family has a crackhead/international grifter.
#3. Tapper does not say that “it wasn’t a lie”; he says he “doesn’t know if [Biden] was lying about it.” That is a statement of fact. He doesn’t know. Nor do I. Not do you. Do I suspect that Biden knew the truth and denied it, anyway? Sure. Might plausible deniability be a factor here? You bet. Can I say with confidence that he was lying? No.
Of course, the outright denial looks bad in retrospect, but anything less would come off as a mealy-mouthed avoidance of a confession. “There’s not enough evidence to jump to that conclusion” may have been the most accurate description at the time, but it would have been political suicide to say it in those terms.
Many years ago, I heard a nasty rumor about my cousin. I remember saying rather emphatically that he “would never do that.” Turns out, he did. That doesn’t mean I was lying. And that was a cousin; the desire to see the best in one’s son and to protect him would be considerably stronger.
#7. Soltis is talking about political fallout, which is the context of the discussion. And the fact that the issue isn’t going to go away is indeed the most important element in those terms. She’s arguing pragmatics, not ethics. I don’t think she deserves criticism for not making an accusation she isn’t certain is true.
Levin, on the other hand, is living in Cloudcuckooland if he thinks there’s “no whiff of [Joe Biden] being involved.” The place is downright odoriferous, in fact. True, the evidence we’ve seen is overwhelmingly circumstantial. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Of course, it also doesn’t mean we’re necessarily drawing the correct conclusions.
Levin may be right, though, that it’s “not something the voters care a lot about.” If the opponent were someone other than Donald Trump, maybe. Bur the apparent standard-bearers of both parties are serial prevaricators; they’re both credibly accused of sexual misconduct; they both have kids who have profited directly to the tune of millions of dollars from their father’s position; we can legitimately wonder about the mental and emotional stability of both. Neither party seems to have much to say other than that the other guys are worse. So… uh… choose one?
La la how the life goes on.
#3. OK, I should have said, “Tapper didn’t call the statement a lie” but my point was, as I wrote, that he was “using a standard that the New York Times, among others, consistently rejects when Donald Trump’s statements are the issue.” All I’m asking for is a consistent standard, consistently applied. If Trump says something that is sebsequently proven false, that’s a lie, according to the news media. Biden says something false that everyone accepts as true at the time, he benefits from that, and he gets the benefit of the doubt.
#7 The inside baseball technique used to ignore and shrug off what is really important is a scourge, and she gets no pass from me. The first observation should always be, “Well, the problem is that the it looks like the President lied to the American people.” Obama’s “You can keep your plan” lie was handled the same way: “Republicans are making a big deal over this.” I detest that. This is why Clinton had Dick Morris poll on whether the public would care if he lied. The media’s priorities are corrupting.
I was going to make many of the points Curmie did, particularly his first, but he most of them and they stand.
The one thing I want to point out though, is this:
“Levin, on the other hand, is living in Cloudcuckooland if he thinks there’s “no whiff of [Joe Biden] being involved.” The place is downright odoriferous, in fact. True, the evidence we’ve seen is overwhelmingly circumstantial. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Of course, it also doesn’t mean we’re necessarily drawing the correct conclusions.”
I’ve said this maybe a dozen different times:
“circumstantial” is a spectrum.
When you wash your car and it rains, that’s a circumstance, but it’s not really related. When you park in a baseball stadium, and there’s a single foul ball that flew out of the stadium, and then you find a baseball lodged in your windshield after the game, you don’t *know* it was that foul ball, but it’s more likely than not. What’s the alternative?
The alternatives here, for Burisma, are that either a multinational energy corporation hired an uneducated, inexperienced, unqualified, washed out coke addict who couldn’t even speak the languages the company used to operate for a $600,000/year board appointment because he was the best candidate for the job, or there was corruption involved. Democrats have shifted away, kicking and screaming, from the idea that there was no corruption to the position that there probably was, but Joe wasn’t involved, he just really loves his family (at least he ones he’ll admit exists). That’s standing against all the phone calls he made, all the material on Hunter’s laptop, and the reality that Joe, Joe’s brother, all their kids, and other relatives seem to have net worths that have ballooned in recent years, far in excess of what they would have even if every dollar they ever made from their day jobs weren’t taxed and they didn’t have a single expense for the last 40 years.
Democrats might not care, because of partisanship. But I feel like this beggars belief. This isn’t raindacing via carwash, this is the foul ball, if the ball was signed.
The political left’s lapdog main stream media complex, aka Pravda-USA, has a singular focused mission since 2008 and that’s to support the political left in any way they can.
Knowing that…
I don’t believe for a second that Jake Tapper slipped into genuine journalism. This was preplanned and presented for the sole purpose of giving the panel the time to briefly show how to deflect from a valid Republican argument and again present the chosen narrative that Joe Biden knew nothing about Hunter Biden’s business dealings. This is just more of the same from Pravda-USA, present a Republican argument and then show progressive attack dogs how to deflect and shift to the chosen narrative and they know that it will be swallowed whole by their supporters. It had absolutely nothing to do with presenting the truth, it was about how to counter the truth.
That’s my confirmation biased opinion that’s based on established tactical patterns that I have observed over the last 15 years.
Candor? Nonsense. This is a standard “trickle truth”, the technique beloved of narcissists and liars throughout history.
“Trump’s lying through his teeth! That computer wasn’t Hunter Biden’s: it was probably a Russian disinformation plant!”
“OK, so it was Hunter’s, but we have no way of knowing if those files and emails are genuine. They could have been tampered with our be fake added later!”
“OK, so Hunter was dealing with these foreign oligarchs. His dad had nothing to do with that!”
“OK, so we know Hunter was selling access to his father. We have no proof that Joe Biden was even aware that his son had done so!”
“OK, so Joe used several pseudonyms when dealing with those oligarchs. That doesn’t mean he did anything wrong!”
They have to be backed into a corner before acknowledging anything, and they then fall back to the next set of defenses, no matter how ludicrous. I’ve interviewed career criminals who had more candor.