Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


The Brief: The Media’s Favorite Lies to Protect Joe BIden in his Son’s Influence Peddling Schemes

Gregg is joined by former Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee and is now a Fox News contributor.

Joe Biden
Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images

The media’s favorite lie is that there is “no evidence” that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s overseas influence peddling schemes.

Reporters, anchors, and pundits kicked that lie into overdrive the moment House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced an impeachment inquiry last week.  They immediately bowed to the White House demands issued in a “Letter to the Press” to publicly exonerate the president of any wrongdoing.  Forget objective reporting of the known facts.  Protect your shared liberal agenda by ignoring the evidence and contorting the law.

It won’t work.  People are smarter than that.  Polling data shows that 61% believe the “Big Guy” (aka Joe) was actively aiding and abetting Hunter’s scams to sell out America to the highest foreign bidders —China, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania and an assortment of other countries over which Joe Biden exerted influence when he was vice president.  As evidenced in at least 170 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARS) flagged by banks to the Treasury Department’s Criminal Division, more than $20 million was funneled into a complex web of shell companies and LLCs before some of it was parsed into the greedy hands of Biden family members.

I watched in amusement as a CNN “fact checker” misinformed his audience that Joe committed no crimes because it hasn’t been shown that he personally received a cut.  Apparently, “fact checkers” never bother to check the law.  Biden doesn’t need to receive a penny to have committed felonies.  Under law, if cash went to some “other person or entity” instead of the office holder it is still the crime of bribery in any influence peddling schemes.

Devon Archer, Hunter’s former business partner, confirmed that they were selling Joe Biden as a “brand,” which meant both access and promises of influence.  A promise alone in exchange for cash, is criminal.  To prove the value of the brand, the then-vice president spoke by phone to Hunter’s overseas “clients” at least 20 times.  He met and dined with them.  In at least one instance, Joe admittedly engineered the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, an energy giant that was paying his son a million dollars a year.  An illegal quid pro quo?  It sure looks like it.

The media keeps declaring that President Biden’s role in that scheme was long ago “debunked” because he was carrying out approved U.S. policy.  There’s one problem with that argument.  Contradictory evidence has emerged that the vice president actually defied Obama Administration policy.  Newly uncovered documents show that the State Department and other federal agencies approved of the prosecutor’s progress in cracking down on corruption and wanted him to remain.

Instead of granting the planned $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine as a reward, Biden traveled to Kyiv and threatened to withhold it unless the prosecutor was summarily canned.  When he was, the Burisma probe magically vanished overnight and the payola continued to flow to Hunter.  Again, whether Joe got a percentage of the money is irrelevant under bribery laws.  Documents also show that the elder Biden signed off on “talking points” written by his son’s partners to help conceal the Burisma scandal.

Speaking of cover ups, the FBI did its level best to bury an FD-1023 informant report that a trusted source said the CEO of Burisma paid $5 million each in bribes to Joe and Hunter Biden.  The No. 2 supervisor in the FBI’s Washington field office (now retired) recently told congressional investigators that he was attempting to corroborate the informant’s story by speaking with a second source, but was instructed to shut it down.

And then there is the notorious China gravy train.  In the second presidential debate in October of 2020, Joe Biden proclaimed that “my son has not made money” from China.  He repeated it multiple times.  We now know that assertion was spectacularly untrue.  Emails and receipts on Hunter’s infamous laptop show he received substantial sums of money.  He even admitted it in court when questioned by a federal judge during the recent plea deal that imploded.  One email in particular stated that 10% was to go to the “Big Guy” who was identified as Joe Biden by Tony Bobulinski, Hunter’s ex-business partner.

And who can forget the brazen Hunter shakedown in a WhatsApp message discovered by the IRS whistleblowers.  “I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” the message reads to the Chinese businessman with direct links to the Community Party.  Hunter then added the following odious 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.”  Shortly thereafter, $5 million was wired to a company of Hunter Biden’s.

The media would have you believe that none of this amounts to “evidence.”  Seriously?  You’d have to be monumentally dense not to recognize the obvious.  But allow me to simplify for the mentally challenged members of the press.  Facts and information constitute evidence.  Period.  They are often documentary and testimonial —direct and/or circumstantial.  Whether those facts eventually rise to the level of criminality is a matter of proof.  But they are still “evidence.”  For the media to deny that volumes of evidence exist in the ongoing Biden investigation is to engage in willful blindness.  Or blatant lies.

The purpose of an impeachment inquiry is to collect, scrutinize, and interpret the very kind of evidence that I’ve just described.  Then, compare it to the law and Constitution.  The ultimate objective is to determine whether crimes or impeachable offense have been committed.  This is elementary, but the media seems fundamentally oblivious.

At this stage it is premature to conclude that there is enough evidence to impeach Joe Biden for “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as described in the U.S. Constitution.  However, the credible evidence is mounting that Biden appears to have played a pivotal role in selling political favors to foreign oligarchs, overseas businesses, and America’s adversaries.  This would make him an accessory and a co-conspirator in a potential bribery case.

Since mainstream journalists clearly know nothing about the law, they should stop pretending to be defense attorneys for the Bidens.  Recall that this is the same biased media that treated every false rumor and phony innuendo as proven fact in the Russia collusion hoax.  They happily convicted Donald Trump in the court of public opinion, only to discover that they were snookered as the fools they are.