I recently wrote about the effort of the Biden campaign to get networks to bar Trump allies from the air who wanted to talk about the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s business dealings in the Ukraine. Now, Kate Bedingfield, the deputy manager of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, has denounced the New York Times for publishing an opinion editorial by author Peter Schweizer on the matter. The hubris of the Biden campaign to demand that the media silence its critics would be laughable if it were not for the failure of many outlets to cover the story. I have previously written that, while I do not see the evidence that Biden sought to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor to protect his son, the Hunter Biden dealings seem a flagrant example of profiteering on his father’s work as the lead official on Ukraine as vice president.
Bedingfield wrote to Dean Baquet to chastize the paper for “giving top billing” to “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer in an op-ed titled, “What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal – That’s the Problem.” The Biden campaign expects media to fall into line and just dismiss the story as a “conspiracy theory.” The problem is that it is not.
As I have previously discussed, Hunter was asked to be a director of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, owned by a government minister and close associate of bloodsoaked former president and Russian stooge Viktor Yanukovych. Biden later forced the government to fire the Ukrainian chief prosecutor fired after he threatened to investigate Burisma Holdings. Biden bragged that he held up more than $1 billion in loan guarantees and gave the Ukrainians just hours to fire the prosecutor.
There are two concerns with Hunter Biden. One is the concern of whether Joe Biden knew that his actions may benefit his son. I am willing to believe that Biden was not aware of the potential investigation of his son’s company in the Ukraine. Yet, there is the other question of whether the Biden family cashed in on Biden’s positions in these convenient and ample contracts. Children and spouses of politicians are often given positions and contracts to influence them. These payments are more difficult to track and to address under anti-corruption laws. Now, there is the incredible suggestion that Hunter Biden has never (even to this day) discussed his business dealings with his father. Never.
What has long been difficult for many of us to square is how China and the Ukraine searched the world over for the best possible person to handle almost $2 billion and they just happened to come up with the son of the Vice President of the United States, a world leader who happened to be coming to their countries with massive trade and aid plans. Hunter Biden was that much of an intellectual and finance genius from Asia to Europe and beyond?
None of this is to state conclusively that Hunter Biden engaged in an effort of influence peddling or self-dealing. However, it is clearly worthy of scrutiny by the media. The most disturbing aspect of this story is that the Biden campaign expects media to ignore such a legitimate story to protect it from bad press, including opinion editorials. That would be presumptuous except for the fact that some networks have done precisely what the Biden campaign is asking for in this letter.
What does this say about the view of the free press by the Biden campaign? It is the Biden version of the “fake news” mantra and it is no more acceptable when coming from the left rather than the right.