Beau Biden Makes the NEWZ

Lionfish

Lionfish

Pocket lint
Contributor
That is the Beau Biden money laundering foundation. Lessons learned from the Clinton crime family.

Beau Biden Foundation raked in nearly $4M in 2020 but only used $550,000 on the charity's mission of preventing child abuse: Spent more money on six-figure salaries, tax filings show


"The Beau Biden Foundation brought in $3.9million in 2020, including a $1.8million infusion from The Biden Foundation
The foundation, which centers around protecting children from abuse, only spent $544,961 on their mission, tax filings show
However, it spent nearly $1million covering the cost of six-figure salaries held by those in executive positions
The foundation only spent about 58 percent of its budget on its mission in 2020, compared to other nonprofits that spent around 75 percent"
 
Lionfish said:
That is the Beau Biden money laundering foundation. Lessons learned from the Clinton crime family.

Beau Biden Foundation raked in nearly $4M in 2020 but only used $550,000 on the charity's mission of preventing child abuse: Spent more money on six-figure salaries, tax filings show


"The Beau Biden Foundation brought in $3.9million in 2020, including a $1.8million infusion from The Biden Foundation
The foundation, which centers around protecting children from abuse, only spent $544,961 on their mission, tax filings show
However, it spent nearly $1million covering the cost of six-figure salaries held by those in executive positions
The foundation only spent about 58 percent of its budget on its mission in 2020, compared to other nonprofits that spent around 75 percent"
Click to expand...

On Saturday, bungling Biden called on the people to stand up against against a president and throw him out of power.

Bungling Biden said, “The American people will stand with you,” adding, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” and emphasizing the need to “fight the corruption.”

It sounds like he wants to be removed from office, doesn't it?
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail




Successful lawsuits against the Mail
2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196]
2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197]
2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198]
2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199]
2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200]
2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201]
2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202]
2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206]
2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207]
2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208]
2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209]
2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a rape case against film director Luc Besson.[210]
2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[211]
2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[212]
Unsuccessful lawsuits
1981, April: The Daily Mail won £750,000 from the Unification Church, which had sued for libel due to articles about the Church's recruitment methods. Margaret Singer, professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Berkeley, testified that the Mail's accounts of these methods were accurate. The trial lasted over five months, one of Britain's longest-ever civil trials.[213]
2012, February: Nathaniel Philip Rothschild lost his libel case against the Daily Mail, after the High Court agreed that he was indeed the "Puppet Master" for Peter Mandelson, that his conduct had been "inappropriate in a number of respects" and that the words used by the Daily Mail were "substantially true".[214][215]
2012, May: Carina Trimingham, the partner of former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne, was ordered to pay more than £400,000 after she lost her High Court claims for damages for alleged breach of privacy and harassment against the Daily Mail.[216] Huhne, whilst married, had an affair with Trimingham – who herself was in a lesbian civil partnership – and then later left his wife Vicky Pryce for Trimingham. This and a series of other events involving Pryce and Huhne led to his resignation from the Cabinet, and to both of them being arrested for perverting the course of justice and the criminal prosecution R v Huhne and Pryce.[217]
2021: Former US congress representative Katie Hill was judicially ordered to reimburse the Daily Mail and others $220,000 for legal fees incurred defending themselves against baseless revenge porn claims raised by Hill.[218][219]
Legal action by the Daily Mail
In March 2021, Associated Newspapers issued a letter to ViacomCBS to remove an image of a purported Daily Mail headline from Oprah with Meghan and Harry. The headline seen was "Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family", which had been edited to remove the context that it was a quotation by an unrelated politician.[220]

Criticism
 
Criticism

This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. (August 2020)
Racism accusations
There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail.[221] In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]".[18]

In August 2020 a group of Palm Islanders in Queensland, Australia, lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 against the Daily Mail and 9News, alleging that they had broadcast and published reports that were inaccurate and racist about the Indigenous Australian recipients of compensation after the Palm Island Class Action.[222][223][224][225]

In 2021, IPSO ruled that it dishonestly published a headline falsely claiming to report on "British towns that are no-go areas for white people".[226] The town showcased was the wealthy Manchester suburb of Didsbury, which it had described the previous month as "posh and leafy" and a "property hotspot".[227]

Homophobia accusations
After High Court judges ruled in 2016 that parliamentary approval must be sought for activation of Article 50, the leading headline on the Mail's front page read "Enemies of the People".[228] The paper's front page and other coverage drew much criticism from the legal world, as well as from high-ranking politicians.[229] On its website, the Mail described one of the judges as "openly gay." Critics[who?] accused the Mail of unnecessarily highlighting the judge's sexual orientation due to anti-gay motives. The Mail later removed the description.[230] One law professor commented: "I have never seen this kind of invective against judges, either here or abroad, in the national media."[231]

Sexism accusations
In 2014, after Emma Watson spoke at the launch of the United Nations HeForShe campaign, the Mail was criticised for focusing its coverage on Watson's dress and appearance, rather than the content of her speech, in which Watson complained how media had sexualised her in their coverage from when she was 14.[232] The Mail was much criticised for running the front-page headline "Never mind Brexit, who won legs-it", accompanying a photograph of Theresa May meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in March 2017, running more than a page of coverage on the two leaders' appearance.[233] Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Labour Party, tweeted "It's 2017. This sexism must be consigned to history. Shame on the Daily Mail."[234][233] The International Business Times quoted an unnamed Daily Mail staff member describing the headline as "moronic", and out of touch with the Daily Mail's largely female readership.[235]

Paying for footage under investigation
In 2015, following the November 2015 Paris attacks, the French police viewed the footage of the attacks from the CCTV system of La Casa Nostra. After making a copy on a USB flash drive, the police ordered a technician from the CCTV company that installed the system to encrypt the footage, saying 'this now falls under the confidentiality of the investigation, it must remain here'. Freelance journalist Djaffer Ait Aoudia told The Guardian that he secretly filmed a Daily Mail representative negotiating with the owner to sell the CCTV footage of the attacks. The café owner agreed to supply the footage for €50,000 and asked an IT technician to make the footage accessible again. The Daily Mail responded: "There is nothing controversial about the Mail's acquisition of this video, a copy of which the police already had in their possession." The Guardian also, briefly, embedded the footage on their own website before removing it.[236]

Byline removal
In 2017 evoke.ie, the Daily Mail's showbiz site, was reported to the internship program of Dublin City University after the bylines of hundreds of articles written by students were changed.[237]

Sensationalism
The Daily Mail is said to have an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer".[19] It has also been criticised for their extent of coverage of celebrities,[238] the children of celebrities,[239] property prices,[240] and the depiction of asylum seekers,[241] the latter of which was discussed in the Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2007.[242][243]

Reliability
The Daily Mail's medical and science journalism has been criticised by some doctors and scientists, accusing it of using minor studies to generate scare stories or being misleading.[20][19][244] In 2011, the Daily Mail published an article titled "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory".[245] Dr. Matt Jones, the lead author of the study that is cited in the article was quoted by Cannabis Law Reform as saying: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia".[246]

Carbon Brief complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article published in the Daily Mail titled "Hidden green tax in fuel bills: How a £200 stealth charge is slipped on to your gas and electricity bills" because the £200 figure was unexplained, unreferenced and, according to Ofgem, incorrect. The Daily Mail quietly removed the article from their website.[247][248][249]

In 2013, the Met Office criticised an article about climate change in the Daily Mail by James Delingpole for containing "a series of factual inaccuracies".[250] The Daily Mail in response published a letter from the Met Office chairman on its letters page, as well as offering to append the letter to Delingpole's article.[251]

In February 2017, the Daily Mail became the first source to be deprecated as an "unreliable source" for use as a reference on the English Wikipedia.[25][26] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist".[17][252] Support for the ban centred on "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".[17][26] Wikipedia's deprecation of the Daily Mail generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.[253] Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales backed the community's choice, stating: "I think what [the Daily Mail has] done brilliantly in this ad funded world (is) they've mastered the art of click bait, they've mastered the art of hyped up headlines, they've also mastered the art of, I'm sad to say, of running stories that simply aren't true. And that's why Wikipedia decided not to accept them as a source anymore. It's very problematic, they get very upset when we say this, but it's just fact."[254] A February 2017 editorial in The Times commenting on the decision stated that "Newspapers make errors and have the responsibility to correct them. Wikipedia editors' fastidiousness, however, appears to reflect less a concern for accuracy than dislike of the Daily Mail's opinions."[255] In 2018, the Wikipedia community upheld the Daily Mail's deprecation as a source.[253]

In August 2018, the Mail Online deleted a lengthy news article titled "Powder Keg Paris" by journalist Andrew Malone which focused on "illegal migrants" living in the Paris suburb of Saint Denis, after a string of apparent inaccuracies were highlighted on social media by French activist Marwan Muhammad, including mistaking Saint-Denis, the city, for Seine-Saint-Denis, the department northeast of Paris. Local councillor Majid Messaoudene said that the article had set out to "stigmatise" and "harm" the area and its people. The journalist, Andrew Malone, subsequently deleted his Twitter account.[256][257] In 2019, the IPSO ruled against the Daily Mail and confirmed in its ruling that the article was inaccurate.[258][259]

In early 2019, the mobile version of the Microsoft Edge Internet browser started warning visitors to the MailOnline site, via its NewsGuard plugin, that "this website generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability" and "has been forced to pay damages in numerous high-profile cases".[260] In late January 2019, the status of the MailOnline was changed by the Newsguard Plugin from Red to Green, updating its verdict to "this website generally maintains basic standards of accuracy and accountability". An Editors Note from Newsguard stated that "This label now has the benefit of the dailymail.co.uk's input and our view is that in some important respects their objections are right and we were wrong".[261]
 
Lionfish said:
That is the Beau Biden money laundering foundation. Lessons learned from the Clinton crime family.

Beau Biden Foundation raked in nearly $4M in 2020 but only used $550,000 on the charity's mission of preventing child abuse: Spent more money on six-figure salaries, tax filings show


"The Beau Biden Foundation brought in $3.9million in 2020, including a $1.8million infusion from The Biden Foundation
The foundation, which centers around protecting children from abuse, only spent $544,961 on their mission, tax filings show
However, it spent nearly $1million covering the cost of six-figure salaries held by those in executive positions
The foundation only spent about 58 percent of its budget on its mission in 2020, compared to other nonprofits that spent around 75 percent"
Click to expand...



Fake news
 
I have never trusted tabloids to tell the truth, most certainly the Extreme Right Wing one's- like the Daily Mail.

They, particularly and most specifically, are well known liars! I don't know how they stay in business.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I have never trusted tabloids to tell the truth, most certainly the Extreme Right Wing one's- like the Daily Mail.

They, particularly and most specifically, are well known liars! I don't know how they stay in business.
Click to expand...

Rupert Murdoch owns a lot of them and a lot of trump rubes as customers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top