Biden’s ‘Absolute’ Defense of Hunter Leaves Media and Justice Department in a Muddle

Below is my column in The Hill on President Joe Biden doubling down on his absolute defense of his son Hunter Biden. The comments only magnify the concerns over Attorney General Merrick Garland refusing to appoint a special counsel despite the clear basis for such an appointment.  It is clear that the President “absolutely” stands by his son and that the media absolutely stands by the President. The question is whether Garland will stand by justice and appoint a special counsel.

Here is the column:

“We absolutely stand by the president’s comment.” With those words, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield reaffirmed that President Biden maintains his son Hunter Biden did “nothing [that] was unethical” and never “made money” in China.

Those claims appear demonstrably false — and they make the positions of both the media and Attorney General Merrick Garland absolutely untenable.

For the media, the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden by U.S. Attorney David Weiss in Delaware has presented a growing danger of self-indictment over its prior coverage (or noncoverage). Weiss has called a long line of witnesses before a grand jury, and there is growing expectation of criminal charges against Hunter Biden.

Nothing concentrates the mind as much as a looming indictment.

Thus, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and other media faced the embarrassing prospect of an indictment based on a story they previously suggested was either a nonstory or Russian disinformation. Suddenly, in recent days, they all rushed to declare the story legitimate, 18 months after the New York Post reported it in October 2020.

What quickly emerged, though, was a new narrative: None of this implicates President Biden. On CNN, White House correspondent John Harwood declared, “There is zero evidence that Vice President Biden, or President Biden, has done anything wrong in connection with what Hunter Biden has done.” Anchor Brianna Keilar then added for emphasis that Harwood was making “an important distinction.”

It was important, but not because it was true. While many media figures now willingly admit the legitimacy of Hunter Biden’s abandoned-laptop story, they are avoiding what the emails found on that laptop actually contain. Hundreds of emails appear to detail a multimillion-dollar influence-peddling enterprise by the Biden family, including Hunter Biden and his uncle James Biden.

Influence peddling has long been the way Washington’s elite enriches itself. This common source of political corruption involves the relatives of powerful government figures who shake down corporations or countries for access and influence.

The Bidens would seem to be standouts in this common practice, engaging in a virtual family business. James Biden has been accused of marketing his connection to his brother. And in the emails discovered on his abandoned laptop, Hunter Biden practically sold timeshares of his father by dangling meetings and dinners for investors.

The key in any influence peddling scheme is to protect the principal. People apparently were told to avoid directly referring to President Biden. In one email, Tony Bobulinski, then a business partner of Hunter’s, was instructed by Biden associate James Gilliar not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions: “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.”

Instead, the emails apparently refer to President Biden with code names such as “Celtic” or “the big guy.” In one, “the big guy” is discussed as possibly receiving a 10 percent cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm; other emails reportedly refer to Hunter Biden paying portions of his father’s expenses and taxes.

Despite President Biden’s repeated claims he knew nothing about these dealings, Bobulinski has said he personally met with the senior Biden to discuss Hunter Biden’s business activities. Bobulinski had been selected by the family to handle these deals.

As vice president, Joe Biden flew to China on Air Force Two with Hunter Biden, who arranged for his father to meet some of his business interests. Hunter Biden’s financial interest in a Chinese-backed investment firm, BHR Partners, was registered within weeks of that 2013 trip. Yet, President Biden repeatedly insisted that he never discussed such dealings with his son, a claim Hunter Biden has contradicted.

There are emails of Ukrainian and other foreign clients thanking Hunter Biden for arranging meetings with his father. There are photos from dinners and meetings that tie President Biden to these figures, including a 2015 dinner with a group of Hunter Biden’s Russian and Kazakh clients.

It is important to note that when these foreign interests were clamoring to give Hunter Biden millions of dollars, he was, by his own admission, a hopeless addict. In his 2021 memoir, Hunter Biden admits he was “drinking a quart of vodka a day” and “smoking crack around the clock,” up until his father’s 2020 presidential campaign began. So why would Russian, Chinese and other foreign figures give Hunter Biden all of this money, if not to influence his father?

The new narrative suggests that, while Hunter Biden maintained one of the largest influence-peddling schemes in recent history, it did not involve the object of that scheme — his father.

Even if President Biden was not influenced by all of this, it’s hard to believe he didn’t know his son was selling access. In his book, Hunter Biden claims his father repeatedly intervened due to his addictions — and yet we are to believe that Joe Biden did not express curiosity about how his addicted son was raking in millions from foreign sources?

The point is that President Biden really did not have to ask: Hunter Biden had nothing to sell but influence. All President Biden had to do to facilitate such schemes was to be accessible — to allow his family to deliver face-to-face meetings and photo ops.

And that brings us to the untenable position of Garland.

It is hard to imagine a stronger case for a special counsel. Any effort to investigate Hunter Biden’s dealings will lead investigators to encounter repeated references to the president and how he may have benefited from those schemes. At the same time, the president is “absolutely” standing by his denial that his son did anything wrong or made any money from China.

The White House statement this week serves as a reminder to investigators that the president is heavily invested in this narrative and his denial of now-established facts.

This is not to say that Weiss, the U.S. Attorney investigating Hunter Biden, will not be independent in his efforts. However, the concern is the appearance of how a conflict might affect the investigation or limit the scope of any potential charges. Moreover, absent a special counsel, there is unlikely to be a report on these apparent influence peddling schemes.

Garland pledged to protect the Justice Department from such conflicts and to avoid even the appearance of political influence. He now has a president stating that alleged wrongdoing by his son is “absolutely” untrue, including dealings possibly impacting the president personally and financially. If Garland declines to appoint a special counsel, he will absolutely fail on his pledge.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

235 thoughts on “Biden’s ‘Absolute’ Defense of Hunter Leaves Media and Justice Department in a Muddle”

  1. Having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, the democrats still feel entitled to the contents of the cookie jar.

  2. It has been said recently that we need to beware of what the Russians are accusing the Ukrainians of doing, because they are the ones who are about to do the same thing. That is taken right out of the Democrats play book. Does anyone remember how the Clinton Foundation’s contributions dried up after she was no longer Secretary of State? The Bidens have been peddling their influence for years. All of that has nothing to do with an obsession many have with Trump. With respect to most things follow the money and who ordered the action to begin with.

  3. There is a great documentary featuring top Trump supporters and cabinet members titled “Boogie Man…The Lee Atwater Story”. A must see since most of the speakers are Republican insiders.

  4. Joe Biden. Full time politician for 50 years. Became a multi-million Aire. Anybody care to examine how that happened?

    F Joe Biden

  5. Garland has bigger fish to fry. Most war crime indictments – worldwide – happen 20 to 60 years after the war crimes were committed. “Waterboarding” adopted from the Spanish Inquisition was recognized by the world as “torture” for several centuries. America’s best government attorneys, graduating from Ivy League law schools, seemed to have intentionally committed legal malpractice.

    AG Garland is now in the 20 to 60 year window. The longer he waits, evidence and witness testimony is being destroyed. In 2022 we also know that about 90% of Guantanamo detainees have been released. Remember at the time when these detainees were defamed as the “worst-of-the-worst”, so dangerous we couldn’t even use a Supermax prison. In 2022 it’s the world’s most expensive taxpayer funded prison per inmate. If the DOJ can’t do this, we need a new independent agency that can.

    1. Dude, Our President has destroyed our country in 15 months and has committed treason and your concerned about Putin That’s call obfuscation.

  6. In the following are Hunter and Devon Archers emails. Also included are transfers of funds from the Russian oligarch Yelana Butirina to the Hunter owned Rosemont Senaca Corporation. The emails also revealed that Hunter set up a meeting with his dad and the President of Burisma Petroleum. https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hunter-biden-sought-cash-oligarchs-during-first-russian. This link leads to a long story about Joe and Hunters involvement but it is worth reading every word including the links used to substantiate the story. Keep in mind that Joe Biden said that he was never involved with his sons business affairs. A copy of the actual records of the deposits to the Rosemont Senaca bank account are displayed. The pieces of information that I present are a small part of the entire story. This is like reading a mystery novel. The difference is that a mystery novel is fiction and this conspiracy is not based on reality but actually is reality. It’s no wonder that the Democrats impeached Trump for trying to look into the Joe, Hunter and Russian affair. It has to be admitted that Pelosi and Schiff are masters of the art of distraction. Thankfully the coverup has not been successful.

  7. Re: HB’s Influence-Peddling for CEFC (the Chinese energy company)

    CEFC (the company HB shilled for) was a communist Chinese company with ties to the Chinese military and state police.

    It sought major inroads into the U.S., for economic opportunities and to spread communist propaganda. It sought to purchase American technology. (Gosh, what could go wrong?)

    Guess who had the power to grease the skids for CEFC?

    What some desire to evade is that China is a dictatorship that enslaves its own people. It detests American values and is our *enemy*.

    It is one thing to influence-peddle for a semi-free, semi-civilized country, such as France or Britain. But to do so for dictatorship, for a country that seeks to destroy us — that makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot.

  8. Anon @11:12

    Much like the Clinton Global Initiative several years ago, and likely for similar reasons.

  9. Remember when Democrats claimed Trump violated the Emoluments Clause because foreign nationals paid the going rate to stay in a hotel room at one of his properties? How droll.

      1. If that is what you are focused on, i would say you missed the point. Biden was involved in far more than a hotel or selling steaks or even running an academy. You are an idiot.

      2. Anonymous, so Covid had nothing to do with the business of Trumps hotel falling off? What mental process brings you to your conclusions. I’ve figured it out. Conclusion first then rap it around your preconceived notions. What is most amazing is you think that no one can see how your mental process works. I don’t mind. You do more to hurt the cause than to help it. For your contribution I am eternally grateful.

        1. READERS BEWARE:

          James and Thinkthrough are both the Blog Stooge. He loves to attack with multiple puppets.

          1. From Anonymous, same answer different day. She calls a name but she never answers a post. The more that she responds the same way the more I am convinced that she’s fourteen years old. No offense to fourteen year olds.

  10. Mespo hasn’t posted in a while. He must have received his invitation from the Kremlin to lick Putin’s butthole.

    1. I am jealous. I haven’t had someone do that to me in years and I really don’t know why I am having a hard time finding someone who will. Got any tips?

  11. OT, it seems the FEC fine against Clinton and the DNC for the Steele dossier is mostly due to a clerical issue. Trump is likewise supposed to be fined for doing the same thing except it’s much worse.

    “ By coincidence, the same day the Clinton news broke, a watchdog group sued the FEC for taking no action on its complaint alleging that Trump’s 2020 campaign committed the exact same clerical violation. In both cases, the campaigns allegedly reported payments to a pass-through that actually went to another entity, concealing the money’s true recipient and purpose from the public.

    But there’s a big difference. The alleged Clinton and DNC shell payments totaled less than a million dollars, combined. The Trump campaign’s arrangement allegedly concealed nearly $800 million.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/first-the-feds-fined-clinton-now-it-might-be-trumps-turn/ar-AAVRTyd

    Looks like Turley will conveniently overlook this as usual. Republican FEC commission members are very averse to anything Trump-related.

    1. “OT, it seems the FEC fine against Clinton and the DNC for the Steele dossier is mostly due to a clerical issue.”

      This interpretation of events demonstrates an individual who cannot pay attention to the facts. It is fit only for those with no knowledge of the subject matter. Perhaps what he says would be believed by those in third-world nations without access to information.

    2. Svelaz,

      It is bad enough that you quote the tabloid “The Daily Beast” but it is even worse that you mischaracterize what your own source wrote.

      You said; “ Republican FEC commission members are very averse to anything Trump-related.”

      TDB said; “ While it’s inescapable that the three Republican commissioners are far more averse to action than the Democrats, there’s debate over whether the rift is political or purely ideological. The conservatives may not specifically be in the bag for their own party, some observers argue—just less inclined to enforcement generally.

      However, the votes in the Clinton case were 4-2, with one Republican joining the FEC’s two Democrats and one independent in ruling against the campaign and DNC. (In a previous case, all three Republican commissioners voted not to take action against Clinton.)”

    3. Hhaha… did you read any of the complaints!

      One was becasue a Trump ad appered when a KAREN searched for Former VP Biden!

      A Crime of the highest order??? NOT

      another one was about a $50…thats correct $ Five-Zero …REALLY!!!!

      Yea, Real Big differnce between the 2 complaints! Oh, another was hiring pratctices!

      But yea, lets go with that and not, that a campaign used foreign actors to take out a potential Prrsident and then carried it forward to take out the Actual President, which in its simplest form is Treason!

  12. I know this is off topic, but most of the last 100 comments are off topic.

    Democrats are poised to vote for a Supreme Court Justice, with no vacant seat. I blame Republicans for not pointing out this fact.

    IF KJB is affirmed by Senate vote, does it all have to happen again, when/if a seat becomes vacant?

    1. Iowan2, justice Breyer retires at the end of the Supreme Court’s current term. Voting for Jackson before Breyer leaves don’t make it an issue. Jackson officially goes to work when Breyer leaves.

      Essentially a replacement is readily available when Breyer leaves. There’s no legal or procedural issue here.

      1. So so if a Republican President with a Majority Senate voted on a SCOTUS justice, that Justice just takes the first available vacancy. Good to know

    2. If she is confirmed, Breyer will step down at the end of the current Congressional term so she can serve. His retirement is contingent upon a replacement being named. If she isn’t confirmed, then he may not retire right away. It’s lunacy that he can hold the seat hostage like that, but he’s a leftist. That kind of thing is what they do.

    3. Merrick’s problem should be that since JOE’s “promise that the decision to investigate Hunter is totally
      up to the D.O.J.” Because, when he doesn’t, in light of the evidence, he, Merrick Garland, will be
      guilty of obstruction of justice

  13. In short, the real scandal is that academics, lawyers, journalists, pundits, politicians, foreign leaders, and others who have power and influence pretend that Biden is okay when he is so clearly is not . . . .

Leave a Reply