Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


The Brief: As Impeachment Inquiry Begins, There is Ample Evidence of Biden Corruption

Gregg is joined by Roger Severino, Vice President of Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation, who served previously as a civil rights attorney under both Presidents Trump and Obama.

A new Washington Post/ ABC News poll shows Joe Biden losing to Donald Trump by ten percentage points.  In every category, voters give the current president the failing grades he’s earned on the economy, inflation, wages, the border, you name it.  “Bidenomics” has been a bust, Americans are suffering because of it, and few people want him to run again.  His age and obvious mental infirmity are frequently cited —74% say he’s too old to serve another term.

But the corruption scandal enveloping Biden is also a major factor.  A CNN poll finds that 61% are convinced that he was directly involved in his son’s prolific influence peddling schemes.  That sentiment will only grow more negative as the House impeachment inquiry opens this week with its first hearing on Thursday.  Members plan to dig deep into those schemes that netted tens of millions of dollars from America’s foreign adversaries.

We already know that the elder Biden attended meetings, dined with oligarchs, and spoke on the phone with his son’s overseas partners some 20 times.  He also exerted his power.  Whether Biden personally profited is legally irrelevant.  Exploiting a public office to enrich others is still the crime of bribery (18 USC 201), although the leftist dominated media seems completely unaware of this.

The same clueless press also insists there is “no evidence” that Joe Biden did anything wrong or illegal.  But a review of the established facts and the applicable criminal statutes suggests otherwise.  Witnesses, emails, texts, White House logs, photographs, and other evidentiary material produced thus far show that Biden helped further his son’s profiteering scams by selling access to the vice presidency and promises of future influence.

Biden was the “brand,” Hunter’s partner Devon Archer told congress.  Without Joe’s willingness, there was no brand to hawk.  The Biden family got rich by auctioning it off to the highest overseas bidders —Russia, China, Ukraine, Romania, Kazakhstan, and other countries over which the elder Biden dictated foreign policy.  A promise alone in exchange for money constitutes bribery under the criminal codes.  However, there is compelling evidence that Joe went beyond mere promises and actually conferred benefits in return for cash funneled into a myriad of mysterious companies controlled by his son.

What benefits?  Joe bragged on camera that he forced the firing of the Prosecutor General in Ukraine by threatening to withhold a billion dollars in U.S. taxpayer aid.  That prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was investigating the energy giant Burisma, which was paying Hunter Biden a million dollars a year.  Shokin had already seized assets and was aiming to shut down the company.  When Joe intervened the prosecutor was promptly sacked, and the probe vanished overnight.  Thereafter, the payola continued to flow into the Hunter-controlled accounts.

Is that a criminal quid pro quo?  It sure looks like it.  Among the documented proof is an email from a Burisma executive urging Hunter to use his influence in government to halt the investigation.  That’s when he flew to Dubai to meet personally with the CEO, Mykola Zlochevsky, who demanded that he get his father on the phone, which he did.  Days later, Joe flew to Kyiv to engineer Shokin’s firing.  A trusted and credible informant told the FBI that Zlochevsky bribed both Joe and Hunter Biden to make the Burisma scandal disappear.  Corroborating or discounting that claim is one of the legitimate purposes of an impeachment inquiry.

The mainstream media audaciously claims that these events have been “debunked” because Vice President Biden was simply carrying out approved U.S. policy.  But that’s not remotely true.  Documents have emerged that the Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice, as well as the Interagency Policy Committee, had complimented Shokin’s progress in fighting corruption.  As a result, Biden was instructed to deliver the American aid.  Instead, he defied the Obama administration’s approved policy and extorted Shokin’s firing to neutralize the Burisma investigation, which kept the Biden gravy train of cash chugging along.  It seems that Joe wasn’t fighting corruption, he was actively engaged in it.

By itself, the Burisma evidence is sufficient for the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment inquiry to establish whether there are grounds for removal from office.  Beyond Ukraine, there is persuasive evidence that Joe was also involved in generating millions of dollars for his son in China.  The two flew together to Beijing aboard Air Force Two where Hunter met with potential business partners who immediately began funneling money into the son’s accounts.

When Hunter wanted more, he sent a WhatsApp message discovered by IRS whistleblowers that said, “I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.”  That was followed by a thinly veiled threat, “I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.”  The shakedown worked perfectly.  Shortly thereafter, $5 million was wired to Hunter’s company.

The media wants to fool you into believing that none of this amounts to “evidence” involving Joe Biden.  It most certainly does.  Equally incriminating is the email that outlines a split of Chinese profits with “10 held by H for the Big Guy.”  Two of Hunter’s former partners explained that this was shorthand for 10% held by the son for his father.  Other messages warned never to speak directly about Joe’s involvement, which is why code names like “Celtic” and “Big Guy” were invented.  Regardless, it is immaterial whether Biden ever received his share.  Attempted bribery and conspiracy charges could be brought without money transfers into his account.

“I have not taken a penny from any foreign source, ever, in my life,” said Joe Biden in a 2020 presidential debate.  Whether that is true is an open question.  But his boast came at the same time that Joe falsely claimed that “my son has not made money from China.”  It was a lie exposed by Hunter himself in court in July when he confessed to the federal judge that, indeed, he has made massive sums of money from China.  Financial documents confirm it.

One of the primary goals of the impeachment committee is to follow the money.  There are more than 150 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARS) that U.S. banks flagged to the financial crimes division at the Justice Department showing illicit, if not illegal, overseas money transfers amounting to some $20 million dollars flowing into a complex web of 20 shell companies that seem to have no other purpose than to disguise the original source of funds.  If true, this would rise to the crime of money laundering.

It is baffling how Hunter Biden has never been criminally indicted for illegal lobbying under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) since it is clear that he was doing just that.  But the IRS whistleblowers answered that question when they testified that the Justice Department ran interference throughout their probe, corrupting the case with preferential treatment and preventing investigators from asking questions about Joe’s involvement in his son’s schemes.  U.S. Attorney David Weiss —now special counsel— deliberately allowed the statutes of limitations to expire on Hunter’s most egregious tax crimes covering a full three years.  The fix was in to protect the president’s son and his father’s complicity.

The committee intends to subpoena the personal and business records of the president’s son and brother.  They must also get their hands on Joe Biden’s banking records, as well as the 5,400 alias emails he surreptitiously sent.  If the president has nothing to hide, as he claims, why continue to hide them?

There is more than ample evidence to justify the opening of this week’s impeachment inquiry.  If Joe Biden is innocent, as both Democrats and media apologists insist, they should welcome the opportunity to publicly clear him.  If they can make their case effectively, there will be no need for Articles of Impeachment to be drawn.

But I suspect that the opposite will come to pass.  The more we dig into the Biden family corruption racket, the more damning evidence surfaces that implicates Joe Biden in what amounts to the biggest set of bribery and influence peddling schemes in American political history.

It is exactly what our Founders feared the most —a greedy president willing to sell out his country for profit.