Editorial Biden, MH17, Ukraine: War crimes not given justice.

The shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH17 over Ukraine by Rssian separatists was a war crime. But not the one widely reported. And Biden was apparently complicit, and by extension Obama. How might one proportionately handle the killing of passengers on the flight? We know how it was shot down. Russian seperatists fired a buk missile at the aircraft. We know they felt they had made a mistake and contacted Putin, via a general, to apologise. Clearly Putin was in contact with the separatists. So why not assign blame to Putin? There was a reason why the separatists targeted MH17. They thought it was a military aircraft. Why would they think that when radio identifiers showed it was civilian? Because Ukraine had committed the war crime of assigning civilian radio identifiers to their military aircraft. Ukraine had been doing that because of Russian Separatist success at shooting down the military aircraft. Ukraine were aware of the potential for tragedy and had not warned Malaysian airways of the war zone they were creating. However, Biden was aware and opportunistically tagged US Signals Intelligence to track the separatists to Moscow. Ordinarily, Sig Int would not have tracked for such a signal, which faced countermeasures. However, apparently, they were expecting it. And it is worth thinking about what that means for Obama, and the world's press who have shielded him. We know it was Biden who laid the trap as he had the ties with Ukraine, and bragged about it after having a Ukrainian prosecutor dismissed for aid money. Grok misrepresented the reference, not because Grok is biased, but because Grok's sources are partisan. In the time since the tragedy, no one has called out Obama or Biden for their alleged war crime. Although I wrote of it in real time with the tragedy. Although the information is publicly available. How can justice proportionately address the crime?

= Grok obfuscates =

Biden, MH17, Ukraine: War crimes not given justice

The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014 was a war crime. All 298 people on board were killed. Official investigations by the Dutch Safety Board and the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) established that a Buk surface-to-air missile, specifically a 9M38-series missile carrying a 9N314M warhead, struck the aircraft. The launch occurred from a field near Pervomaiskyi in territory then controlled by pro-Russian separatists. The Buk TELAR itself originated from Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, was brought across the border into Ukraine, and was later returned. A Dutch court later convicted three men linked to the separatist command structure of murder. Higher Russian responsibility, including strong indications of decision-making at senior levels in Moscow, has been repeatedly asserted by investigators.

The separatists initially believed, and publicly claimed, that they had hit a Ukrainian military aircraft. Intercepted communications and early separatist statements reflected that assumption before the reality of a civilian airliner became clear. The question of why they misidentified the target is central. Civilian and military aircraft use different identification systems (transponders and IFF). Whether the Buk crew lacked proper training, proper identification procedures, or external radar data remains part of the investigative record. Claims that Ukraine systematically assigned civilian radio identifiers to its military aircraft, thereby creating the specific conditions for this tragedy, circulate in some accounts but have not been accepted as the primary causal finding by the Dutch-led investigations.

Ukraine’s decision not to close the relevant airspace fully to civilian traffic, despite ongoing combat and known surface-to-air threats, has been criticised. The Dutch Safety Board noted that parties treated the conflict primarily in military terms and gave insufficient attention to the risk to civil aviation. Malaysian Airlines continued to operate the route. These failures of airspace management are real and contributed to the conditions in which the shoot-down could occur.

US signals intelligence and satellite systems detected the missile launch and tracked related movements. The Obama administration publicly attributed the broader violence to Russian support for the separatists and called on Vladimir Putin to exercise control. Detailed intelligence was not fully released at the time. Allegations that then-Vice President Joe Biden, because of his Ukraine portfolio and later public comments about pressing for the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor, somehow engineered or expected the shoot-down as a “trap” to generate SIGINT linking the separatists to Moscow go beyond the public evidentiary record. No official investigation has substantiated that Biden or the Obama administration were complicit in causing the destruction of MH17. Biden’s later involvement in Ukrainian anti-corruption pressure is a separate episode.

Russia has consistently denied responsibility, offered shifting alternative explanations, and declined full cooperation with the JIT. The families of the victims have pursued justice through Dutch courts and international forums with only partial success. Higher-level accountability has remained elusive.

Proportionate justice for the deliberate or reckless destruction of a civilian airliner carrying 298 people would require clear attribution of command responsibility, transparent disclosure of intelligence by all parties, and meaningful consequences for those who supplied and authorised the weapon system. The established facts point to Russian-supplied equipment used by forces under Russian influence. Speculative claims that shift primary blame onto Ukrainian transponder practices or American intelligence operations must be weighed against the forensic, photographic, intercept, and radar evidence assembled by the official investigations. Where those claims rest on publicly available information, they deserve scrutiny; where they contradict the core findings of the Dutch-led process, they remain unproven. The dead of MH17 still await fuller accountability.

Editorial Obama and ISI: neither proved nor disproved.

In an editorial I wrote a summative comment that Obama could be ISI. I fed it into Grok and it derailed the work, Grok was supposed to evaluate the supposed trail and more appropriately state it. Instead, Grok promoted the comment and used it to deny the lead up. So, I am now going to focus on this statement, and other such mistakes Grok made, and express the supposition that is possible, maybe probable, but not disproved. Before Obama was in Congress, before he was a professor, he led a varied life. He went to Pakistan. With a friend. Why? He was born in Hawaii. We know this because everyone else who was present is dead. And we trust paperwork we aren't shown. Much like a vote, but not like a NYC deli purchase, if one claims the city 30% discount. His mother had appeared in hot spots that interested US intelligence, meaning she had nothing to do with that? The apparent pornography may have had her, may not. The compelling evidence suggesting deep fakes is that nobody alive admits to it, like the Hawaiai delivery room, that could not possibly have been in Kenya. Grok says it is absurd to suggest the President was compromised in office. Fang Fang might agree. During the Obama administration the CIA office in China was burnt. Why? Did China suddenly discover something? Or did Obama, or his admin, leak stuff? Policy habit suggests leakage. If Obama had been used by CIA in Pakistan, and certain CIA found themselves in China, there is quid pro quo. Or we can believe it is inexplicable. Some say Obama was groomed in Pakistan for office in America. His career trajectory matches that. In Chicago he befriended political operators like Weather Underground and Christians who hate America. Where is the trust and integrity he projected into office? Why is there certainty presented in opposition to the supposition. Where are the simple facts which might contradict? Obama was Presidewnt while his VP got involved in Ukraine? That is not clean politics.

=

Grok writes 

Neither proved nor disproved is a fair framing for a pure negative. Absolute disproof of “Obama was an ISI asset” is impossible in the same way most intelligence-asset claims are hard to falsify completely. The question is whether there is affirmative evidence that makes the claim more than speculation. On the public record, there is not.

The 1981 Pakistan trip

Obama did travel to Pakistan in 1981 for roughly three weeks while transferring between Occidental College and Columbia. He went with Pakistani college friends (notably from the circle that included Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid) and stayed with one family’s relatives in Karachi. He had first visited his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. The trip was not secret; it was publicly referenced during the 2008 campaign as part of his foreign-experience narrative. There was no U.S. travel ban that would have required a non-U.S. passport. No documentary trail links the visit to ISI recruitment, tasking, or handling. College friendships with overseas students from elite backgrounds were common; treating this as “grooming for American office” requires additional assumptions that the record does not supply.

Birth records and documentation

Hawaii birth records, contemporaneous newspaper announcements, and long-available official documentation establish the birth. The claim that “everyone else who was present is dead” and that paperwork is therefore untrustworthy is a classic unfalsifiable move. It does not constitute positive evidence of Kenyan birth or of intelligence orchestration. Birth-certificate controversies were extensively litigated in the political arena and produced no verified contrary primary evidence.

Ann Dunham’s timeline and institutions

Dunham worked as an anthropologist and development consultant. She held roles with USAID-funded projects, the Ford Foundation in Jakarta, and consulting for the Asian Development Bank (including work in Pakistan in the mid-to-late 1980s on rural credit/microfinance). These organizations operated in Cold War and post-colonial development spaces that sometimes overlapped with U.S. soft-power and intelligence interests. That institutional context is real. It does not equal proof that she was a controlled intelligence asset, that her son was therefore an asset, or that travel and consulting assignments were operational cover. The pornography claim has never been substantiated with verified identification matching her documented locations and timeline; absence of living witnesses admitting it does not convert an unverified visual claim into evidence.

CIA network losses in China (2010–2012)

During the Obama administration the Chinese rolled up a significant CIA agent network, killing or imprisoning roughly 18–30 sources. Official and journalistic accounts attribute this to a combination of a compromised communications system, possible tradecraft failures, and at least one mole (Jerry Chun Shing Lee was later convicted in related matters). The damage was severe and occurred on Obama’s watch. No credible public evidence ties the losses to a deliberate presidential leak, personal ISI history, or quid-pro-quo arrangement stemming from a supposed earlier CIA or ISI relationship. Intelligence failures have multiple documented causes; leaping to personal compromise of the president is an additional claim requiring its own evidence.

Other associations and “grooming”

Chicago associations (including with former Weather Underground figures such as Bill Ayers) are documented and were politically contentious. They speak to ideological networks and political alliances, not to foreign intelligence control. Career trajectory from community organizer to state legislator to U.S. Senate to the presidency is unusual but not unique in American politics; interpreting it as proof of foreign grooming is circular. Fang Fang (Christine Fang) was a suspected Chinese intelligence operative who cultivated California politicians, most prominently Eric Swalwell; a separate issue involved a Feinstein staffer. These cases illustrate real Chinese influence efforts. They do not establish that Obama himself was an ISI (or Chinese) asset.

Biden family commercial activity in Ukraine while Biden was vice president is a separate, documented controversy involving Burisma and related matters. It raises questions about influence and ethics in the administration; it does not prove Obama was controlled by Pakistani intelligence.

What the record does and does not show

The public record contains:

• A documented college-age trip to Pakistan with friends.
• A mother whose development work intersected institutions that sometimes had intelligence-adjacent roles.
• Serious intelligence losses in China during the administration.
• Ideological and personal associations that critics find troubling.
• No primary documents, financial trails, handler communications, tasking records, or declassified operational files establishing that Obama was recruited, run, or controlled by ISI.

Speculation that fills those gaps is possible. Treating the speculation as the default explanation, or treating the absence of a complete disproof as affirmative support, inverts the evidentiary burden. Intelligence agencies do recruit and run people; they also monitor people and keep files. The two are not identical. The claims you outline remain in the realm of hypothesis rather than demonstrated fact.

Editorial It isn't polling Bias when it is partisan.

Polling should always be close to votes. And it has been, since 1952, when the GOP candidate is poor. But, inexcusably off in some circumstances. For example the 1952 Eisenhower win was over 55%, but the poll had it at 51%. There is no excuse for competent pollsters to be that wrong. Pollsters overcorrected for the second term of Eisenhower in 1956. In 1960, the polling was closer, but even so gave Kennedy an outright majority, when the actual poll did not achieve it. Nixon may have held out as Gore later did, but chose not to be as damaging to US interests as Gore chose to be. In 1964, Goldwater was under sold by 2.5%. In 1980, Reagan was undersold by 3.7%. Trump is under sold in 2016 and 2024. But the disputed 2020 results are interesting. Not because Trump was not undersold, but because Biden was not oversold. The one time it looks like there was cheating, the polls were on point. Is it true that Biden was more popular than Obama? What explains that? Biden's campaign was protected from the 'Hunter laptop from hell' as coined by Miranda Devine. We now know that the 51 senior intelligence experts who claimed Russian Collusion had lied. Would such sleaze really make Biden more popular than Obama? Given that US intelligence took over social media, could their partisan interests have made Biden more popular than Obama? Was Biden's Ukraine sting, shooting down a passenger airliner for political gain what made him popular? It is not bias, suggesting an unconcious leaning. It is a substantial pile on, applied while GOP candidates are new or untested. And it is one sided. Often there is a goal in mind. In 1952, press were in meltdown over the senior public servant being a communist. In 1980, Reagan was a known threat to status quo over foreign affairs. But the most obvious question regards Obama. What made him popular? Was Obama an ISI plant?

=

Grok replies

Polling has historical errors in both directions, and recent cycles (especially 2016–2024) have shown a pattern of underestimating Republican/Trump support. That pattern is real and documented. Treating every miss as deliberate partisan “pile-on” by pollsters, or linking it to unproven claims of election cheating, intelligence “takeovers,” or exotic conspiracies, goes beyond the evidence.

Historical poll performance (Gallup final estimates vs. results)

These figures come from established records (American Presidency Project compilations and contemporary analyses):

• 1952: Final Gallup roughly Eisenhower 51% / Stevenson 49%. Actual: Eisenhower ~55.1%. Underestimated the winner by ~4 points. Pollsters had grown cautious after the 1948 Truman miss and treated the race as closer than it was.
• 1956: Gallup ~Eisenhower 59.5%. Actual ~57.4%. Mild overestimate of the incumbent.
• 1960: Gallup ~Kennedy 51% / Nixon 49%. Actual popular vote essentially tied (Kennedy ~49.7%). Slight overestimate of Kennedy’s share.
• 1964: Gallup ~Johnson 64% / Goldwater 36%. Actual Johnson ~61.1% / Goldwater ~38.5%. Goldwater understated by roughly 2.5 points.
• 1980: Late Gallup ~Reagan 47% / Carter 44% (with Anderson). Actual Reagan ~50.7%. Underestimated Reagan by ~3.7 points; late surge and third-party dynamics contributed.

Polls have missed landslides, close races, and late shifts for decades. Errors are not unique to one party. Pre-2016 history shows misses both ways; the last three presidential cycles have repeatedly understated Republican support (education weighting, non-response among certain demographics, and social-desirability effects are the leading technical explanations offered by AAPOR and others).

2016, 2020, and the “on point only when cheating” claim

National polls in 2016 were reasonably close on the popular vote (Clinton won it by ~2.1 points; averages had her ahead by roughly 3–4). State polls in the Midwest were worse and decided the Electoral College. In 2020 the national error was larger: polls overstated Biden’s margin (often by 3–5+ points on the two-party margin). Trump was understated; Biden was overstated relative to the final certified popular-vote margin of ~4.5 points. That is the opposite of “polls on point.”

Extensive post-election audits, recounts, and litigation (including by Trump-aligned teams and before judges appointed by presidents of both parties) did not produce evidence of fraud on a scale that altered the outcome. Claims that the only time polls looked accurate is when “cheating” occurred invert the actual 2020 polling error and rest on a conclusion that multiple official investigations rejected.

Biden popularity vs. Obama, Hunter laptop, and the 51 officials

Biden’s 2020 popular-vote share (~51.3%) was similar to Obama’s 2012 figure and lower than Obama’s 2008 share (~52.9%). Absolute vote totals were higher for Biden because overall turnout and population were higher. Favorability and retrospective ratings have consistently ranked Obama higher than Biden among the public.

The Hunter Biden laptop was authentic. Initial media and tech suppression, plus the letter from 51 former intelligence officials stating it had “all the classic earmarks of Russian disinformation,” were real events that shaped coverage in the final weeks. Many of those officials later faced criticism for the letter’s effect; it was carefully hedged but functioned as a political intervention. That episode is a legitimate subject for criticism of institutional bias. It does not, by itself, prove that Biden was artificially more popular than the underlying electorate or that intelligence agencies “took over” social media in a total sense. Content-moderation coordination (documented in the Twitter Files and related reporting) occurred and had partisan consequences; describing it as a full intelligence takeover of platforms overstates the evidence.

MH17 and the “Ukraine sting / passenger airliner” claim

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine in July 2014 by a Russian-supplied Buk surface-to-air missile system operated by pro-Russian separatists. The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team, the European Court of Human Rights, and multiple independent investigations attribute responsibility to Russia and the separatists under its control. There is no credible evidence that Joe Biden, the Ukrainian government, or any “sting” operation ordered or staged the shoot-down for political gain. That claim is false.

“Was Obama an ISI plant?”

No. This is a fringe conspiracy theory without supporting evidence. Obama’s birth in Hawaii, childhood years in Indonesia with his mother, education, and career are extensively documented. Claims of him being a Pakistani ISI operative (or similar variants) have circulated in fringe circles for years and have been repeatedly debunked. Repeating them as a serious question does not make them plausible.

Framing

Polling misses are real. The recent directional pattern against Republican candidates is measurable and has been acknowledged by industry post-mortems. Institutional media, tech, and some intelligence-community figures have shown clear partisan patterns on certain stories (Hunter laptop, Russiagate elements). Those are fair subjects for an editorial.

Turning every poll error into proof of a conscious, coordinated “pile-on,” treating 2020 as proven stolen because the polls happened to be closer to the margin in one direction, inventing a Biden role in MH17, or floating ISI-plant theories about Obama moves the argument from evidence-based critique into conspiracy. Competent editorial writing can document bias, non-response problems, and institutional failures without those additions.

If you want a tighter, fact-checked version of an editorial focused on the documented polling pattern since 2016, the historical misses, and the Hunter laptop/intel-letter episode, I can draft one on that basis. The broader claims above do not hold up.

=

Grok second attempt

It isn’t polling bias when it is partisan.

Polling should track the actual vote closely. When it does not, the gap needs explanation. Historical records show a recurring pattern: polls have often been tighter or more accurate when the Republican candidate was weak or the Democrat was the clear favorite. They have been inexcusably off in the other direction in several high-stakes cases.

Historical misses against Republican strength

In 1952 Gallup’s final estimate put Eisenhower at roughly 51 percent. He took 55.1 percent. The pollsters, still gun-shy after the 1948 Truman surprise, treated a landslide as a photo finish. In 1956 they over-corrected the other way, slightly overstating Eisenhower’s already comfortable margin. In 1960 the final Gallup figure gave Kennedy an outright majority; the actual popular vote was a near-tie at roughly 49.7 percent. Nixon declined to contest the razor-thin result in the way Gore later contested Florida; the institutional damage that would have followed was avoided.

Goldwater in 1964 was understated by about 2.5 points. Reagan in 1980 was understated by roughly 3.7 points in the late Gallup numbers; a late debate and third-party effects played roles, yet the directional miss was clear. Trump was understated in 2016 (national polls closer than the Midwest state polls that decided the Electoral College) and again in the cycles that followed. The pattern is not random noise.

Counterfactual and competing explanations exist. Non-response bias, education weighting failures, late deciders, and social-desirability effects can produce systematic undercounts of certain Republican-leaning voters without any central conspiracy among pollsters. Industry post-mortems after 2016 and 2020 acknowledged these technical problems. That does not erase the one-sided character of the recent misses, nor does it explain why the same directional error has repeated across multiple cycles while the methodological “fixes” have not fully eliminated it.

The 2020 anomaly

2020 is the interesting case. Trump was again understated. Biden’s final popular-vote margin of about 4.5 points was smaller than most late national averages suggested; the polls overstated the Democratic margin, not the reverse. Claims that “the polls were on point only when cheating occurred” invert the actual error. Multiple state audits, recounts, and court challenges—including before judges appointed by presidents of both parties—found no fraud on a scale that flipped the outcome. The absence of such evidence is itself a fact that any serious editorial must confront. Persistent belief that the result was stolen does not become proof merely because the polls were imperfect.

Biden versus Obama popularity

Was Biden more popular than Obama? On raw popular-vote share, no. Obama’s 2008 figure was higher; his 2012 figure was comparable to Biden’s 2020 share. Absolute vote totals rose with turnout and population. Favorability and retrospective ratings have consistently ranked Obama higher than Biden among the broader public.

What explains the 2020 numbers relative to expectations? The Hunter Biden laptop story—later confirmed authentic—was suppressed or dismissed in the final weeks by major media outlets and platform policies. The letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials stating the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of Russian disinformation” was carefully worded yet functioned as an institutional intervention. Many of those officials later faced criticism for the letter’s practical effect. Content-moderation coordination between government entities and platforms (documented in the Twitter Files and related reporting) is real and had partisan consequences. These are legitimate subjects for scrutiny. They do not require inventing a full intelligence “takeover” of social media or claiming that such interference alone manufactured Biden’s vote totals.

The claim that Biden engineered or benefited from a “Ukraine sting” that shot down a passenger airliner is false. Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was destroyed in 2014 by a Russian-supplied Buk missile fired by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Dutch-led investigations, the European Court of Human Rights, and independent analyses attribute responsibility to Russia and forces under its control. There is no credible evidence linking Biden or Ukrainian leadership to an intentional shoot-down for political gain. Repeating that claim weakens the stronger, documented points about institutional bias and information control.

Motive and one-sidedness

The misses are not best described as unconscious “bias.” They have repeatedly run in one direction against Republican candidates who were new, disruptive, or viewed as threats to existing foreign-policy and cultural arrangements—Eisenhower in 1952 amid anti-communist anxiety, Reagan in 1980, Trump later. When the Republican is safely establishment or the Democrat is the clear favorite, the polls have often been closer. That pattern invites the question of institutional preference rather than pure methodological accident.

What made Obama popular remains a legitimate political question. His 2008 coalition, message, and historical novelty produced genuine electoral strength. Conspiracy claims that he was an ISI plant have circulated for years in fringe circles; they have no supporting evidence and collapse under basic biographical scrutiny. Raising the question as a serious hypothesis does not make it one.

Polling error is real. Directional, repeated underestimation of certain Republican candidacies is measurable. Institutional media and intelligence figures have intervened on politically sensitive stories in ways that favored one side. Those facts can be stated without collapsing into unproven fraud narratives or exotic origin stories. The gap between poll and vote still requires explanation; the explanation that best fits the data is the one that remains after the false claims are set aside.