The media redefine corruption to defend the Biden family business
Hudson Crozier
Video Embed
The House Oversight Committee has shown that foreign businessmen and oligarchs paid President Joe Biden’s son so that they could get close to the father while he was vice president. Some became criminals at some point or were otherwise corrupt, or belonged to adversarial nations.
According to CNN, none of this is a big deal because we have not (yet) seen bank records showing a direct payment to Joe Biden.
US MILITARY CAN’T IGNORE CHINA AND RUSSIA’S ALASKA FLOTILLA
“House Oversight Republicans laid out their intention to accuse President Joe Biden of corruption even without direct evidence that he financially benefited from Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, a clear shift in their strategy that they said was launched to investigate the president,” the outlet said.
CNN’s article is so incoherent that it proceeds to quote the very part of the report establishing why this narrative is wrong.
“This is a hollow claim no other American would be afforded if their family members accepted foreign payments or bribes,” the lawmakers said. “Indeed, the law recognizes payments to family members to corruptly influence others can constitute a bribe.”
Taking words out of their mouths, CNN continues, “It appears the committee has not found any direct evidence that President Biden personally benefited from any of his son’s business dealings. Republicans are now insisting they don’t have to.”
No, they’re not. They’re saying that enriching the family is benefiting Joe Biden. They point out that this could be illegal bribery by quoting federal law verbatim. All that is left is to show that Biden’s leadership decisions were somehow affected.
The “direct payment” talking point is disingenuous and a denial of common sense. When it comes to potential conflicts of interest, the proximity of a government official to his family member’s money is a normal concern. This is why, for example, there is a bipartisan push to restrict stock trading among officials and their households. And even if the senior Biden did not pocket any of the money, could he not be biased in favor of someone lavishing multi-million-dollar gifts on his son?
With the years’ worth of context the media leave out, this defense becomes even more absurd. Hunter Biden once told his daughter in a text message that “Pop” made him give “half” of his salary to him. The proven list of sources of that salary range from criminals to people tied to the Chinese Communist Party.
They also include Yelena Baturiva, a Russian oligarch and Vladimir Putin ally who had dinner with Joe Biden after paying Hunter Biden and his associate, according to bank records and testimony. Her name is conveniently absent from the now-president’s sanctions against Russia.
That’s just one piece of evidence suggesting that the foreign cash had an influence. Another is a credible FBI tip that the committee uncovered. It alleges that a Ukrainian executive paid Joe Biden millions of dollars to become a shield against prosecution. A close colleague of that executive is named as a source of funding to Hunter Biden.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
To top it all off, evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the Biden administration protected the first son from punishment for criminal offenses stemming from all of this foreign activity.
Is any of this of concern to corporate liberal outlets? Seemingly not. The Biden family business will never look bad enough for them to stop defending it. If the president were to tell the world in a public address that he took bribes, the Washington Post would probably come out with a fact-check debunking “Biden’s false claims.”
Hudson Crozier is a summer 2023 Washington Examiner fellow.