We have previously discussed the growing evidence that President Joe Biden has repeatedly lied about his knowledge of his son Hunter Biden’s foreign dealings. Now an audiotape of the President highlights those contradictions. In the call from late 2018, Joe Biden calls to discuss a New York Times article detailing Hunter’s dealings with a Chinese oil tycoon accused of economic crimes — telling him, “I think you’re clear.” Once again, the refusal of Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel in this matter is itself becoming a scandal in the face of these contradictions.
The Biden voicemail concerned a Times report on Dec. 12, 2018, detailing Hunter’s dealings with Ye Jianming, the head of CEFC China Energy Company. Ye was later arrested amid allegations of economic crimes.
The plan with the Bidens (which included Joe Biden’s brother) specified a proposed 10 percent share for Hunter for “the big guy.” According to Biden associate Tony Bobulinksi, that was a reference to Joe Biden.
The voicemail, discovered on Hunter’s discarded laptop, reveals that Joe Biden was following the stories of his son’s alleged influencing peddling and specifically his Chinese dealings. In his message, Biden tells Hunter,
“Hey pal, it’s Dad. It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you get a chance, just give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you. I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear. And anyway if you get a chance, give me a call, I love you.”
Some of us have written for two years that Biden’s denial of knowledge is patently false. Indeed, it is baffling how Attorney General Garland can ignore the myriad of references to Joe Biden in refusing to appoint a special counsel.
People apparently were told to avoid directly referring to President Biden. In one email, 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 refer to President Biden with code names such as “Celtic” or “the big guy.” In one, “the big guy” is discussed as possibly receiving the 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 Joe 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.
Yet, the media has consistently moved to bury or belittle the story. Indeed, the most impressive aspect of this scandal is how the Biden family got the media to invest into this narrative.
These emails also involve Ye’s top lieutenant, Patrick Ho, was convicted in New York of bribing African officials to help Iran evade oil sanctions.
Ho later paid Hunter a $1 million retainer to represent him as his attorney, even though there is no indication of what Hunter did as counsel. Ho was viewed by American intelligence as a high-level Chinese intelligence operative.
I previously wrote a column on the one year anniversary of the Hunter Biden laptop story that marveled at the success of the Biden family in making the scandal vanish before that 2020 election. It was analogized to Houdini making his 10,000-pound elephant Jennie disappear in his act. The Biden trick however occurred live before an audience of millions.
None of these new facts can force the media to see the elephant. The key to the trick was involving the media in the original illusion, investing reporters in the narrative. It is like calling audience members to the stage to assist in the performance. Reporters have to insist that there was nothing to see or they have to admit to being part of the original deception. The media cannot see the elephant without the public seeing something about the media in its past efforts to conceal it.