Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


The Brief: Only Indictments Can Bring Down Biden’s Corrupt House of Cards

Jason Chaffetz, former five-term Congressman from Utah, joins Gregg

Joe Biden

The hit series “House of Cards” resonated with viewers by its portrayal of Washington politicians as ruthless, dishonest, and amoral.

One can debate whether life imitates art or vice versa.  But Americans have come to view their political leaders with the kind of cynicism that is richly deserved.  Perception meets reality.

Our current president and his influence-peddling son have managed to reinforce the image of politicians as greedy and corrupt.  “Biden’s House of Cards” features the same kind of wretched characters as the Hollywood original.  The same sleazy self-dealing.  The same morally bankrupt lies.

Whether the Bidens meet the same fate as the fictionalized version depends on whether a Delaware grand jury decides to issue indictments.  If Hunter Biden is charged with money laundering, fraud, and/or foreign lobbying crimes —as he should be— his father Joe Biden will be implicated in some manner.

Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop contains a trove of incriminating documents and emails that constitute compelling evidence of multiple enrichment schemes with foreign entities that forked over millions of dollars for access to Joe Biden and his potential influence.  Interested parties in Russia, Ukraine, and China stood to benefit.

To ensure that the current criminal investigation is not as compromised as the Bidens, a special counsel must be named to guard the legal process from wanton presidential interference.  As a political appointee, Attorney General Merrick Garland cannot be trusted to keep his foot off the scales of justice.

On Friday, nearly 100 House Republicans penned a letter to Garland urging him to name a special counsel.  They reminded him that such an appointment (Robert Mueller) was made during the Trump administration —quote— “because the Justice Department could not be seen to impartially investigate the sitting president.”  The lawmakers added, “A special counsel would also ensure there is no bias or undue influence from the White House.”

The same standard that Democrats cited five years ago should be applied now.  The conflict of interest is obvious.  Garland works for, and is answerable to, the president who has authority over the Department of Justice.  The DOJ ultimately presides over the Delaware case and has the ability to dictate its course.  The department could shut it down or issue orders not to prosecute.

Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest necessitates a special counsel to preserve the integrity of the process.  This is mandatory and not optional under the Code of Federal Regulations that govern the attorney general (28 C.F.R. 600.1).  If trust in our government is to be preserved, fidelity to the law must be followed.

Sen. Ron Johnson has expressed some reluctance in naming a special counsel, fearing that it might further delay the current probe.  However, this legitimate concern could be allayed by simply elevating Delaware U.S. Attorney David C. Weiss to the position of special counsel.

Weiss, who was appointed by Trump, has been investigating the illicit schemes of Hunter Biden since 2018.  It was Weiss who convened the grand jury.  Granting him the autonomy of special counsel status would insulate his office from political obstruction or tampering by Biden or Garland without prolonging any charges he may be prepared to bring.

There is recent precedent for naming Weiss as special counsel.  In October of 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr elevated U.S. attorney John Durham to special counsel as he continued his review of why the FBI launched its misbegotten “collusion” investigation of Trump.

The move formalized Durham’s authority.  But more importantly, it gave him the latitude to act independently and free from political intervention.  It effectively prevented Biden from scuttling the ongoing probe or otherwise removing Durham without incurring severe political costs.

I argued back then that Barr should have conferred the same special counsel protection to Weiss.  The attorney general’s refusal to do so was an egregious mistake made even more conspicuous by Barr’s recent remark that he was “shocked” when Biden “lied to the American people” about Hunter’s abandoned laptop during the 2020 presidential debate.

Back then, knowing full well that Biden was employing lies to conceal damning evidence of his son’s foreign shakedown scams and Joe’s own suspected collaboration, Barr should have taken appropriate measures to shield Weiss.  His decision not to now leaves the U.S. attorney vulnerable to political meddling by Biden and Garland.

You can be sure that Hunter Biden is counting on that.  He boasted about it in his book when he recounted how relieved he was that his father won.  A Biden loss “seemed a threat to my personal freedom,” wrote Hunter.  “If dad hadn’t won, I’m certain Trump would have continued to pursue me in the criminal fashion he’s adopted,” he added.

In other words, Hunter would have been held accountable under the law if Trump had been re-elected.  So, apparently, the president’s son thinks the fix is now firmly in and his father will ensure that he can weasel out of any criminal wrongdoing.  Perhaps he knows something we don’t.

This is all the more reason why Garland must appoint Weiss as special counsel.  Not only is there overwhelming evidence that may merit a criminal indictment of Hunter Biden, but there is compelling evidence that Joe Biden was deeply involved in his son’s foreign deal-making.

Congressman Jim Jordan, top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, has examined text messages found on the notorious laptop.  He says they tie Joe Biden and his brother James Biden to Hunter’s corrupt foreign deals.

Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has also been investigating Biden corruption.  He discovered that more than 150 financial transactions had been flagged by U.S. banks as suspicious or concerning.  Some involved large wire transfers from foreign sources to Hunter Biden and his uncle, Jim Biden —particularly from China.  Grassley told CBS’s Catherine Herridge, “We have people with the Biden name, dealing with Chinese business people that have a relationship to the Communist Party.  I think it’s very concerning.”

Documents show that the Chinese promised Hunter and James Biden retainer fees worth $165,000 per month.  What about Joe Biden’s involvement?

Authenticated emails confirm that the father attended meetings and dinners with Hunter’s foreign investors and business partners.  Photographs corroborate it.  The two flew to China together aboard Air Force Two where the elder Biden met with his son’s business cohorts.  Just days later Hunter cemented a lucrative venture with a Chinese investment firm.

The grand jury has reportedly asked a witness to identify “the big guy” who was slated to get a 10 percent cut of a deal the son struck with an energy company connected to the Chinese Communist Party.  Hunter’s former partner Tony Bobulinski is on record stating that it was Joe Biden.  The two men met twice to talk about the business, according to Bobulinski.

Another Hunter associate, James Gilliar, cautioned, “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u (sic) are face to face, I know u (sic) know that but they are paranoid.”  Fear of getting caught is why cryptic names such as “Celtic” and “the big guy” were used whenever Joe was mentioned.  Jim Biden, the president’s brother, referred to it as “plausible deniability.”

Other emails connect both Bidens to multi-million dollar schemes with the Russians and the Ukrainians.  Hunter bagged millions as a director of the Ukraine gas giant known as Burisma while his father bragged about his pivotal role in firing a prosecutor who was poised to launch a corruption investigation of the beleaguered company.  The senior Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars in U.S. aid unless Ukraine capitulated.  The prosecutor was sacked, and the probe vanished.

Despite all this evidence, Joe Biden has repeatedly insisted he knew nothing about his son’s foreign dealings and never spoke with him about it.  It’s a ludicrous statement that even Hunter Biden has disputed.  He admitted to The New Yorker that he did, indeed, discuss with his father his business in Ukraine.

Did Joe Biden ever profit from his son’s foreign dealings?  Documents show that Hunter used proceeds to pay for his father’s taxes and expenses in a shared bank account.  But there may have been much more.  Emails indicate that Hunter raked in millions of dollars while some of that cash also lined Joe’s pockets.

It’s something that Hunter has publicly denied, insisting that his dad “never made a nickel” from the foreign transactions.  Yet, he privately wrote in emails that he was funneling money to his dad.  Which is the truth…and which is a lie?  With the Bidens, you never know.

It is no coincidence that as vice president, Joe Biden oversaw American policy in China, Ukraine, and Russia at the same time his son was landing big paydays from those same countries.  Hunter monetized his father’s power and influence.  His only marketable skill was being the scion of a powerful U.S. government official.  So, he exploited his genetics for financial gain.

Did the Bidens sellout their country?  Have they compromised America’s national security and jeopardized U.S. interests?  Is our president susceptible to counterintelligence blackmail?  These are serious and legitimate questions.

They should have been explored and addressed before the 2020 presidential election.  But, as Bill Barr pointed out, Biden lied.  So did 51 former members of our intelligence community that called the evidence “Russian disinformation” when they knew it was not.
These intel officials were willing to lie to the American people to elect Joe Biden.  It was shameful.

Members of the mainstream media were equally disgraceful.  They ran a candidate protection racket, covering up for Biden and suppressing the incriminating evidence.  Big Tech joined in and censored the story.  It was one of the greatest deceits in American electoral history.  A significant number of Biden voters now say they would have cast their ballots differently had the media told the truth instead of concealing it.

To give you a sense of how biased journalists are, Anne Applebaum, who is a writer for Atlantic Magazine and a Pulitzer Prize winner, said the Hunter Biden story is not interesting and “totally irrelevant” to her.  Really?  The president’s family selling access (and probably influence) to foreign interests doesn’t matter?  Nothing to see here, says Applebaum.  Move along.

It remains to be seen whether “Biden’s House of Cards” will come tumbling down amid persuasive evidence of corruption and influence peddling.  But if it’s anything like the finale of “House of Cards,” it will not end well for Hunter and Joe.