Former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has given quick responses to questions about his son Hunter’s business deals with China and Ukraine in recent weeks after months of ignoring an obvious story of family members going after very lucrative business deals using the influence of his office as vice president.
“Not one single solitary thing was out of line,” Biden said at last Thursday’s debate when questions about his son’s business dealings came up. “Not a single thing.” He’s right. There were multiple things that came up.
“My son has not made money in terms of this thing, about what are you talking about, China,” Biden said. “I have not had, the only guy that’s made money from China is this guy,” he said while pointing at President Donald Trump. It was so amateurish, I almost felt sorry for the former vice president. Almost.
He and his sycophantic defenders have fended off questions about the Biden crime family business as being nothing more than a “smear job” or “Russian disinformation,” as many members of the mainstream media reported it. The thing that no one in the media is pointing out is that the Biden campaign hasn’t challenged most of the evidence that is now public for all to see. Their strategy is to claim it’s not worth talking about because no crimes can be proven. And NPR and the entire mainstream news media have followed their lead. It’s Orwellian.
“Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as ‘not legitimate’ and political by a GOP colleague, have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official US policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing,” a Biden campaign spokesman recently said. Well, Mitt Romney is barely a Republican.
I think the way the Bidens and the campaign have responded to all of the evidence and allegations speaks volumes. Joe Biden said numerous former intelligence officials looked at the evidence and concluded that there was nothing there. Really? When did they do that? And who are these “former” intelligence officials who no longer have clearances to be able to see the recently revealed incriminating documents long enough to make such claims? Biden made that claim even though Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe definitively said that the evidence that has come forth about the Biden crime family is not a part of Russian disinformation and that no intelligence officials in the federal government have said so.
The American people judge presidential candidates by their judgement, the transparency they employ when dealing with accusations of this nature, and they’re not easily fooled by pointing at your opponent, when you’re the only one in the room who has hard evidence against you.
Top investigative reporter John Solomon on his website justthenews.com, has brought to light 7 realities that the Biden campaign has yet to confront and explain that came not from Russian disinformation, but from former associates of Hunter Biden and people who used to serve under Joe Biden when he was vice president. These would be some of the problems that his imaginary former intelligence officials must have innocently missed.
1. Appearance of a conflict of interest
Joe Biden’s claim that “not one single solitary thing was out of line” is contradicted by the facts. Multiple State Department officials, including Biden’s former ambassador and deputy chief of mission in Kiev, have testified they believed the vice president created the appearance of a conflict of interest by continuing to oversee anti-corruption policy in Ukraine while his son served on the board of a company called Burisma Holdings that was under corruption investigation. The officials also said the Biden family behavior in Ukraine undercut U.S. efforts to fight endemic corruption in Ukraine.
The concerns were captured in one email written by U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission George Kent in September 2016. “The presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine,” he wrote.
In separate testimony, Kent revealed he raised his concerns directly with Joe Biden’s office but got rebuffed. “I said that I had learned that Hunter Biden had been appointed to a board of this company, that I had just raised U.S. concerns about the owner of the company, who we believed had been engaged in money-laundering,” Kent told senators earlier this year
“The bottom line,” he added, “was I said I believe that this creates the perception of a potential conflict of interest, given Vice President Biden’s role and his very strong advocacy for anticorruption action, and that I thought that someone needed to talk to Hunter Biden, and he should step down from the board of Burisma.File 2020-07-24-Kent Interview with Exhibits (1).pdf
2. U.S. concerns about bribery on Hunter Biden’s watch at Burisma
Documents released under FOIA show U.S. officials twice raised concerns that Burisma made bribery payments to Ukrainian officials in 2015 and 2016 in an effort to get criminal investigations against the firm and its owner shut down. Both allegedly occurred while Hunter Biden served on the board, and at least one instance, involving a $7 million bribe payment, was reported to the FBI.File BurismaYovanovitchBribe1.pdfFile BurismaYovanovitchBribe2.pdf
3. Joe Biden’s claim he did not discuss his son’s business contradicted by public evidence
There are at least three instances where there is now public evidence that Joe Biden met with foreigners his son was courting for business.
The first occurred in 2011 when Obama White House entry logs show several Chinese businessmen involved with Hunter Biden checked in to meet the vice president.
The second occurred in 2013, when Hunter Biden rode aboard Air Force II with his father and then introduced the vice president in Beijing to a Chinese businessman that was helping him start an investment fund.
The third, alleged in an email purportedly recovered from Hunter Biden’s old laptop, indicates Hunter Biden arranged for an official from Burisma to meet his father in April 2015. After some initial denials and efforts to discredit that laptop, the Biden campaign now acknowledges the encounter may have happened though insists it was fleeting.
And on Tuesday night, former Biden family business associate Tony Bobulinski revealed he met with Biden on two separate occasions to discuss prospective ventures into Chinese markets. “They knew exactly what they were doing,” he said. They were dealing with a Chinese owned enterprise … that had strong financial support and political support from the Chinese Communist Party. That’s how it was presented to me. That’s not my own words. That’s how they presented it to me and read me in on it,” he told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
4. Evidence suggesting Joe Biden had a secret stake in Hunter Biden’s business world
At least two pieces of evidence have emerged in the last two weeks that suggest Hunter Biden believed his father was getting a cut of his business. The first, which remains uncorroborated by Just the News, is an email found on the purported Hunter Biden laptop in which the vice president’s son suggests he shared half of his income with his father.
The second piece of evidence, now authenticated by Just the News, is a proposal in May 2017 for a joint venture between a Chinese energy firm and a Hunter Biden-tied company called Sinohawk Holdings that stated that 10% of the venture’s equity was being reserved for the “big guy.” Sinohawk’s CEO Tony Bobulinski has confirmed the reference to the “big guy” is Joe Biden, and that the then-former vice president was supposed to be a silent investor in the venture.
5. The videotaped confession Joe Biden made about strong-arming Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor
The debate over Joe Biden’s decision to force the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in March 2016 was at the heart of last year’s impeachment inquiry. But a year later, while President Trump has been acquitted, the questions about Joe Biden’s conduct remain unanswered.
It is not in doubt that Biden, as vice president and chief U.S. policymaker for Ukraine, used the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kiev in early 2016 to force the country to fire Shokin. It also is not in doubt that Biden was aware that Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma at the time he took the action. And evidence that has emerged since impeachment makes clear that Shokin’s probe into Burisma was active and expanding with court orders, referrals and a plan to summon Hunter Biden for questioning.
Biden says other U.S. officials and European allies wanted Shokin fired, but during recent testimonies State Department officials couldn’t give specific examples of corruption or ineptitude that warranted ousting Shokin after he had been on the job just a year. State officials also could not produce any evidence that Shokin was told he was doing a bad job before he was ousted.
Joe Biden deserves the benefit of doubt until otherwise proven wrong, but the State Department should at least provide evidence showing the specific wrongdoing, concerns or performance failures that warranted Shokin’s dramatic ouster and why the vice president had to be involved. Barring such evidence, the questions of a conflict of interest involving the Bidens will forever linger over the episode.
6. A Democratic firm’s relentless pressure on behalf of Hunter Biden’s Ukraine gas firm
The portrait of Joe Biden’s ouster of the Ukrainian prosecutor is further complicated by a growing body of evidence that Burisma Holdings and its American lobbying shop, the Democrat firm known as Blue Star Strategies, relentlessly pressured senior Obama-Biden State Department officials in Washington and at the Kiev embassy to help end the corruption investigations plaguing the gas firm. Hunter Biden’s role on the company was repeatedly cited by State officials as the pressure campaign persisted throughout the 2016 election.
Blue Star and an American criminal defense lawyer successfully settled the Ukrainian corruption probe just days before Donald Trump took office, eliminating the threat of prosecution against Burisma. The question that remains is what, if anything, did Obama administration officials do to facilitate the final outcome.
7. The National Security Question: Did flagged suspicious financial transactions compromise a political family?
While much of the attention in Burisma has been on the ethics issues around Hunter Biden making money in the vapor trail of his father’s foreign policy jet-setting, a bigger question has emerged: Did foreign adversaries or frenemies in China, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan try to compromise the Biden family with financial deals and suspicious money?
A Senate report last month contained a bombshell revelation that the U.S. Treasury Department flagged many transactions flowing through the accounts of Hunter Biden-connected firms as “suspicious” — including transactions involving a Russian oligarch, a Ukrainian oligarch, and Chinese officials tied to the communist government and military.File Ukraine Report_FINAL.pdf
On top of all of that, we reported last week that Hunter Biden helped to get a Chinese military contractor to purchase a Michigan manufacturing company that had dual-use capability for military parts, specifically fighter jets. Because of who his father was Hunter was able to pull it off. There’s got to be some kind of treason there.
VIDEO OF THE DAYIdiots Twerk On Ambulance After Shooting In Oakland, CA
We have never experienced censorship the way we have during this presidential election where the mainstream news has completely ignored this explosive story and the tech giants are openly and blatantly censoring anyone who wants to post about it. Yet, a story came out from The Hill recently saying that tax records show 200 entities funneled money to Trump properties while getting benefits from the White House. This came from the New York Times’ illegal obtaining of Trump tax records and their biased anti-Trump “analysis.” This story was not censored by social media and every news outlet is reporting it.
Rich is a conservative syndicated opinion writer and owner of Maga-Chat.com. He writes about politics, culture, liberty, and faith.
MAGA-Chat.com, where free speech is still free. JOIN the revolution!