Tipsheet

'Without Evidence:' Fact-Checking the AP's Dishonest Damage Control For the Biden Family

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  September 14, 2023 12:01 PM

Early Wednesday morning, the Biden White House published a memo to the news media, demanding negative coverage of the House Republicans' new impeachment inquiry into the president.  They claim the investigation is predicated on a series of "debunked" "lies."  The memo was superfluous, however, as many in the 'news' business had already dutifully rushed to their partisan battle stations on behalf of their political party's president, before they were formally urged to do so by their fellow partisans.  They were already, naturally on the same wavelength, as is so often the case.  Here's how the Associated Press -- the same outlet that recently launched a vile smear against the GOP, parroting a disgusting Democratic line -- framed this week's news:

"Claiming without evidence that they engaged in an influence peddling scheme."  It is plausible that the AP's journalists and editors are deliberately hiding such evidence from their readers.  It's also plausible that AP's journalists and editors are so deeply ensconced in their tribe's bubble that they aren't actually aware of the evidence that has already been gathered and presented.  I'm not sure which is worse.  Let's be clear about a few things: (1) I'm not rendering a judgment here on the wisdom or strategy of proceeding to an impeachment inquiry at this stage.  I see fair arguments on both sides of that question. (2) The most direct wrongdoing alleged against Joe Biden is not conclusively proven at this stage.  Part of the reason House Republicans are moving forward with this investigation is that they believe they've been stonewalled, and that witnesses and whistleblowers have been tampered with and pressured to stay silent.  

(3) Relatedly, a significant component of this broader scandal is the allegation that the Biden administration improperly interfered with and obstructed a federal probe into Hunter Biden.  The president, to whom the Justice Department answers, inappropriately declared that his son had done "nothing wrong" while the investigation was still active.  We've seen whistleblower testimony and evidence demonstrating how the US Attorney assigned to the case has done his utmost, on multiple occasions, to shield the president's son from serious legal repercussions for clear-cut criminal conduct.  Investigators have said under oath that they were forbidden to conduct interviews or pursue questions and evidence that could have led to Joe Biden.  Before even examining the undeniable influence peddling scheme, credible allegations regarding inappropriate meddling within the DOJ investigation into the president's son's myriad activities are significant. (4) This brings us to the Biden family influence peddling scheme itself, of which the AP claims there is no evidence.  It's hard to know where to begin.  Allow me to quote from a piece I wrote last month:

We have evidence that people connected to the Biden family enterprise were instructed not to mention Joe Biden's involvement in writing.  We have evidence that a portion of the proceeds of at least one deal with a Chinese company was held for Joe Biden ['ten percent for the big guy'], with millions of dollars from various dealings landing in multiple relatives' bank accounts.  We have evidence that Hunter Biden was paying bills for his father, presumably using proceeds from the "business" -- Joe's known contributions to which entailed repeatedly demonstrating the access to power that people could effectively purchase by hiring his blood relatives for large sums of money.  We have evidence that someone who paid a ludicrous amount of money for his the president's son's artwork magically wound up with a coveted seat on a federal board. [Biden business associate] Devon Archer testified that the whole Biden business model is centered around "the brand," and that "the brand" is Joe Biden. Short of hanging up a sign that reads, "Biden & Son Influence Peddling LLC, Inquire Within," how much more obvious could this be?

Click through to access links to, and screenshots of, the evidence described. "The brand" is the key point.  This extremely lucrative business model was almost explicitly about peddling influence and buying access to the Biden family's connections and power.  That's not Republicans saying so; it's Hunter Biden's longtime close friend and business partner saying so. Under oath. And there's more: Tens of millions of dollars have flowed from foreign entities into bank accounts associated with at least nine members of the Biden family, with multiple payments routed through shell corporations, raising red flags with banks.  We've seen text messages of Hunter Biden shaking down a Chinese business for millions of dollars in payments, specifically invoking his father to ramp up the pressure.  Joe Biden has lied about his knowledge and involvement in his son's business, forcing the White House to update its talking points.  The then-Vice President was placed on multiple phone calls with Hunter's foreign business associates (flexing the access), and even attended several meetings in person.  

Hunter flew on 'Air Force Two' to numerous foreign nations with his father, including to China, in pursuit of 'business' interests.  Joe Biden told the nation in 2020, during a presidential debate, that his son hadn't received money from China.  That was outright false (plus, again, the 'ten percent for the big guy' deal involved a Chinese company), as some media outlets are willing to acknowledge:  

Recommended

Matt Gaetz Withdraws Attorney General Nomination Matt Vespa
Why Again Do We Still Have a Special Relationship With the Tyrannical UK? Kurt Schlichter

Not just recent sworn testimony.  Financial records.  Joe Biden used alias email addresses while Vice President, sometimes looping in his son on messages pertaining to items relevant to Hunter's overseas dealings.  We've also discovered recently that Joe Biden's Vice Presidential office traded Burisma talking points with Hunter's partners, including written confirmation that Joe Biden had 'signed off' on some of them. Burisma, of course, was the Ukrainian company paying Hunter Biden $83,000 per month in exchange for protection from Hunter's father (per company executives, according to the FBI informant mentioned below), then the Vice President of the United States overseeing US Ukraine policy.  Burisma executives wanted an in-country prosecutor fired, and pressured their highly-paid associate for help.  That highly-paid associate's dad then pushed for precisely that outcome, using US foreign aid dollars as leverage.  He succeeded.  And boasted about it publicly.  

On that point, a paid, trusted FBI informant told the Bureau that Joe and Hunter Biden were paid $10 million to make the company's prosecutor problem go away.  That direct bribe hasn't been established, though other elements of the source's story have checked out. Those accusations and strands of evidence were basically fed into the wood-chipper by David Weiss' investigation -- the very investigation that whistleblowers say was stymied from within. As I said on Fox within hours of Speaker McCarthy's announcement, there are many Americans who know virtually none of the facts and serious allegations listed above because the media diet they typically consume is curated by journalists who don't want them to know:

If Americans are to fairly evaluate whether an impeachment inquiry is appropriate or not, they must consider the information contained in this post.  If they're unaware of all or most of it, they should reconsider their 'news' sources -- especially one that insists that claims regarding the Biden's in-plain-sight influence peddling scheme have been advanced "without evidence."  And if the White House really wants "scrutiny" of the GOP's impeachment inquiry case, they could begin by actually answering substantive questions about it, which they've steadfastly refused to do.  This is how they're handling the whole matter: 

I'll leave you with this, on the 'cover-up' side of the brewing scandal, via one of the few legacy media journalists doing real work on the issue:

Also, this is quite a read, especially given the context: