The Washington Post risibly established itself as the Biden family’s primary public relations partner this weekend. article which purported to summarize its “review” of Hunter Biden’s career. However, the left-wing media’s “reporting” instead peddled Americans with a mythical story that not only shifted the goalposts in adjudicating malpractice, but whitewashed the entire field of the family’s influence-peddling scheme – the details of which now confirm that President Biden personally benefited. Corruption.
“I have never discussed anything related to their business with my son, my brother or anyone else. Period,” then-presidential candidate Joe Biden proclaimed in an August 2019 statement to journalists. Since then, overwhelming evidence has established that Biden, while vice president, not only spoke with Hunter and Jim Biden about their businesses, but also met or spoke with various investors, including foreign officials, and then received money from these same “business” partners. .
Yet on Saturday, the legacy outlet sidestepped the vast and still-accumulating evidence from Biden’s pay-to-play scandal that is now reaching the president. Instead, the weekend article titled “Hunter Biden’s career that benefited from his father’s name” stated that “a Washington Post review of Hunter Biden’s career found no sign that the family patriarch actively participated in his son’s business endeavors.”
In four short years, we went from Biden declaring that he had never discussed “anything having to do with (Hunter and Jim’s) businesses” with anyone, to a so-called door -flag of journalism reframing the issue as whether the current president had been “an active participant in his son’s business endeavors.”
The bait and switch executed by the Washington Post is proving critical to President Biden’s political survival, as we are long past the question whether he knew of Hunter and Jim’s business dealings, spoke to them about their activities, or met any of their investors – all of which the family patriarch once denied .
We are also well beyond question whether Hunter Biden received money from China or whether Joe Biden benefited financially from his family members’ sale of influence. The House Oversight Committees have established that the answer to both questions is yes – again, something Joe Biden denied at one point.
Although the House still has many lines of inquiry to follow, ample evidence supports that Joe Biden passively participated in Hunter’s “business” activities and also personally benefited from Hunter and Jim Biden’s influence peddling. On the most innocent reading of the evidence, Hunter and Jim were selling the “Biden brand” and access to the then-Vice President.
The evidence also supports a more damning reality: that in exchange for bribes to his son’s businesses, Joe Biden did favors for foreigners. Specifically, evidence indicates that Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid millions to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden in exchange for the then-vice president forcing Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general who was investigating Burisma. Evidence further suggests that the former Moscow mayor’s wife paid millions to Hunter Biden, and exchangecurrent President Biden excluded her from the list of Russians sanctioned by the United States.
But while the evidence is not yet conclusive as to whether Joe Biden took bribes in exchange for changing U.S. policy, it is clear that the current president passively helped his family sell the “Biden brand” when meeting or speaking with the president. investors who paid Hunter for the brand and access to the then-Vice President. For example, there was the April 16, 2015 dinner between Hunter Biden and his then-business partner, Devon Archer, hosted at Café Milano, in the presence of Burisma leader Vadym Pozharskyi and Joe Biden. Then, following the Burisma board meeting on December 4, 2015, Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky and Pozharskyi expressed concern to the son of the then vice president because of the pressure they faced from Ukrainian investigators. Hunter again came to Burisma’s aid, calling his father.
House investigators detailed numerous other meetings or communications between Joe Biden and the foreigners Hunter was courting, such as the February 2014 dinner the then-vice president had with Russian and Kazakh oligarchs who funneled millions of dollars to Hunter Biden and his business associates. Joe Biden, while vice president, also joined one of Hunter’s Chinese business associations for coffee and later wrote a college recommendation letter for the Chinese man’s daughter.
Additionally, the House revealed a reported February 2014 meeting between then-Vice President Biden and two of Hunter’s Mexican business associates at the White House. Hunter Biden also reportedly held a video call with his father and Mexican business partners in October 2015. The following month, Biden hosted Mexican business partners at the vice president’s official residence.
These meetings and calls, however, only involved “general niceties” and discussions “about the weather,” the Washington Post noted in its Saturday article. But that was all that was expected of Joe Biden: The then-vice president simply needed to show Hunter’s investors that his son could provide the promised access. And the evidence establishes that that’s exactly what Joe Biden did, which is why the Washington Post on Saturday raised the concerning question of whether the president had been “an active participant in his son’s business endeavors.”
Joe Biden, however, did not need to “actively” participate in Hunter’s extortions to allow the scheme to succeed. Rather, by simply showing up or responding to Hunter’s calls, Joe Biden gave Hunter the opportunity to represent to “investors” that his father was prepared to carry out his son’s orders.
This was the case when Hunter Biden texted executives linked to Chinese energy company CEFC saying, “I’m sitting here with my dad and we’d like to understand why the commitment made wasn’t kept,” the commitment” being an investment of millions in companies connected to Biden. Hunter further threatened that “the man sitting next to me and everyone he knows” would punish the Chinese businessmen if they failed to honor their agreement.
Although much has been said about whether Joe Biden was actually sitting next to Hunter when Hunter threatened individuals linked to CEFC, it really doesn’t matter because Joe Biden had already let the Chinese know that Hunter had access to him. Whether Joe Biden is sitting passively at Hunter’s side or resting quietly elsewhere doesn’t matter. Joe Biden had already given the Chinese every reason to believe Hunter’s claims – and apparently, they did: because within “10 days following this conversation, a CEFC subsidiary paid approximately $5 million in a bank account linked to Biden.
President Biden’s complicity, however, is not limited to passively helping his son to oust foreign investors. Rather recently, House investigators obtained Bank statements showing that of CEFC’s Chinese “investment”, some $40,000 was funneled to Joe Biden, which is exactly 10% of the $400,000 that Hunter Biden personally took from CEFC’s investment – one data point interesting considering the email. rating stating that Hunter would hold 10 percent of the money “earned” from CEFC for the “Big Guy”.
Beyond the Post’s pathetic efforts to extricate Joe Biden from the corruption scandal, reporter Matt Viser attempted to downplay Hunter Biden’s conduct in his Saturday article by describing the president’s son as extremely ethical until he is confused by a drug addiction. None of this is particularly surprising, since Aim has a history of gentle peddling lies for the Big Guy, while Branding Republicans with the “racist” insult.
Surprising or not, the Washington Post’s weekend apology to the Biden clan shows that the corporate press realizes precisely how damaging the evidence is.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as the Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion (forthcoming), National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business and Newsmax. Cleveland is an attorney and graduate of Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prive, the law school’s highest honor. She then served for nearly 25 years as a staff law clerk to a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time faculty member at the university and now teaches from time to time. Cleveland also serves as legal counsel to the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can learn more about her greatest accomplishments: her dear husband and her dear son. The opinions expressed herein are those of Cleveland in his private capacity.