“Four Pinocchios”: The Washington Post Admits Biden Lied About Hunter Not Accepting Money from China


President Joe Biden has been a regular recipient of “Pinocchios” by the Washington Post for his false statements on subjects ranging from election laws to abortion protections to deficit reduction. Biden is undeterred and regularly repeats false stories from his life that have ranged from an invented arrest with Nelson Mandela to a zombie-like train conductor. Undeterred, this week he continued with the false claim about the “Joey, Baby” conductor. Now, the President has a fresh set of “Four Pinocchios,” but the false claim is far more serious than inventing a conductor or rewriting the history of the Second Amendment.  The Post is admitting that Biden has been lying about how his son Hunter never made money from China. It is the latest indication that the protective media wall surrounding Biden is beginning to crumble under the weight of new evidence in the corruption scandal.

Glenn Kessler wrote yesterday that Biden has repeatedly and categorically maintained that his son did not receive money from China.

“But now, nearly three years later, Biden’s assertions have been directly rebutted by Hunter himself. In court testimony last week, the younger Biden acknowledged that he in fact had been paid substantial sums in China — the first official confirmation that this was the case.”

What is curious is that Kessler and the Post waited for Hunter to effectively confess rather than take notice of money transfers and records released by House committees investigating the corruption scandal. The Post and most of the media have taken little observable journalistic interest in independently confirming such payments or benefits. Instead, the media has adopted a largely passive stance and waited for confessions rather than find confirmation.

Nevertheless, as with the laptop, there is some credit to be given for eventually confirming what has long been known.

Kessler noted that these dealings overlapped with the President’s travels and meetings:

“Twelve days after he flew to Beijing, Hunter Biden joined the board of a just-formed investment advisory firm known as BHR (Bohai, Harvest and Rosemont), whose partners included Chinese entities, including the man he introduced to his father. Separately, after Joe Biden left public office, Hunter Biden in 2017 inked a deal with CEFC China Energy, a Chinese energy conglomerate. The Washington Post reported last year that documents, including emails found on a Hunter Biden laptop that emerged during the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign, showed that over the course of 14 months, the CEFC and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and President Biden’s brother, James.”

Nevertheless, the Post emphasized that it “did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or knew details about the transactions with CEFC.” Of course, the Post has not been know to be particularly active in independently trying to confirm such benefits . . . absent another Biden admission or confession.

As with the clearly false claims that he had no knowledge or involvement in these dealings, the question is now not whether Joe Biden has been lying but why he has been lying.


219 thoughts on ““Four Pinocchios”: The Washington Post Admits Biden Lied About Hunter Not Accepting Money from China”

  1. Jake Tapper’s segment should be called “Two Minutes of Hate”. The comments might as well have been typed by members of Red Guard.

  2. Here’s another little flash from the past from The Washington Post that explains Hunter’s dealings with the Chinese. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-china-laptop/. Hunter demanded that the Chinese give him a second payment of five million and that his father was sitting in the room listing to the conversation. To echo Joe Biden, well SOB they paid the five million. I would like to thank with all my heart the beloved Washington Post for bringing the story to the attention of the American people.

  3. Were Lavrentiy Beria, Mike Nifong and Andrew Weissmann struck down on appeal?

    Will Merrick Garland and Jack Smith be brought up on charges appropriate to the level of degradation America is being forced to endure?

    How are systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion, and wrongful, malevolent, fraudulent and malicious prosecution not criminal?

    Are these “capitol” crimes?

  4. Does everyone know that William “Mr. Deep Deep State – Pillar of the Swamp” Barr is nothing but a slavering Bush sycophant or not?

    What will it take to edify conservatives of this RINO General Secretary’s duplicity?

    1. He is likely on Grindr right now, considering he is an addict and live in LA. so get your crystal meth baggy and clean pipe ready. Without a doubt you will vote for him as long as he pays you any attention. Its not like you have anyone else!

    1. “Here Alan is thanking Darren for deleting the comments of liberals. Alan is a worthless debater who depends on Darren to bail him out.”

      Firstly, you are not a liberal. A real liberal thinks, something you do not. Secondly, I can debate with those of different ideologies because nothing is pure. One cannot debate with you because you say nothing while thinking yourself intelligent. (Dunning-Kruger)

      1. Waaaa!

        “Your posts were deleted because they were mis-, dis-, and mal- information.”

        “I reserve the right to act like and imbecile and to become apoplectic when someone else does the same.” —-The Left

  5. Was it an illegal conspiracy for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats to claim that the 2016 election had been stolen through Russiagate (something they surely knew was false)?

  6. “A good discussion” posted by Bug and from the empty wheel, which is pretty much empty. Right at the start it says.

    “The Defendant widely disseminated his false claims of election fraud for months, despite the fact that he knew, and in many cases had been informed directly, that they were not true. ?”

    Documents were released on Jan 4, two days before Jan 6 showing Trump believed he was right and that belief is crucial to the charge above.

    So much for Bug’s copy and paste since he doesn’t bother reading what he links to. The statement is erroneous.

    1. No, the statement was not erroneous. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. It’s the biggest source of your ignorance. You just don’t know how to read comprehensively.

      1. Poor Anon
        “No, the statement was not erroneous. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. It’s the biggest source of your ignorance. You just don’t know how to read comprehensively.”

        You clearly missed the point.
        While the statement was cut-n-pasted. Its the shallow and incorrect argument Smith is making.

        S Meyer is pointing out Trump’s state of mind on Jan 4th. That its impossible for Smith to make his case.
        Not to mention the ‘co-conspirators’ Smith mentions were lawyers and advisors who also believed Trump had won that there was massive fraud in the election. Which BTW there is ample evidence of inconsistencies and claims that were never heard by the courts.

        Regardless to the actual veracity of the claim, they point to the fact that many, including Trump questioned the outcome of the election.

        So Smith picking and choosing facts that support his argument while ignoring those which are exculpatory or claim that there was a conspiracy to promote the idea that Trump lost and its a known fact that they knew for a fact that he lost… is prosecutorial misconduct.

        You can’t charge a man for murder because there’s evidence he was present all the while ignoring a video of another man committing the crime.


    2. Bug writes: “No, the statement was not erroneous. “

      This is the statement: “despite the fact that he knew,”

      Documents have been released showing on Jan 4 Trump didn’t know and had credible evidence in his favor.

      I can’t help you Bug. Your reading skills are atrocious. That is why you copy and paste instead of going right to the meat of the problem.

    3. Bug writes: “I didn’t post what you’re referring to. bug”

      No you linked to the portion I quoted which was the first false argument telling me that reading further was a waste of time.

      You don’t even know what was said despite linking to it and despite what I responded to being on top page. Two things occurred. You didn’t understand your link and you didn’t completely read it.

      That is what I have been telling you all along. You are ignorant and incompetent.

    4. Bug writes: “Alan, post these alleged ‘documents’. Are we to believe that on January 4th Trump signed some legal document affirming he was serious about his claims even though 60 courts had already rejected his claims??”

      I posted this a day or two ago. Your memory is very short, you don’t read well and are incompetent.

      The documents weren’t legal documents that were designated for the court. It was merely proof that 2 days earlier they were working on the question and Trump showed he believed something different and was not lying about what he believed.

      ” though 60 courts had already rejected his claims??””

      At least a dozen times it has been brought to everyone’s attention that what you are saying her is more ignorance. Last I read, those cases based on merit, 18 of 25 were won by Trump and the GOP.

      With such a poor memory you should take up another hobby. By the way we can play a game. You post a case decided on the merits that show Trump and the GOP lost. For each one I will provide a case where Trump and the GOP won. When you run out of cases I will have plenty left.

      Face it you call yourself Bug, but you have the brain of a mouse.

      1. Bug since all your comments disappear its impossible to converse or know what you are talking about especially when you deny writing something that was quoted and in everyone’s emails. You lie too much for people to make sense out of what you say, though maybe you make no sense at all.

        You wanted something repeated. It could be the court cases. So you provide your first case and I will provide mine. You will run out of cases because Trump and the GOP won the vast majority of those judged on the merits.

        1. To your link to Forbes.

          I guess you don’t know what “cases based on merit,’ means. Use a dictionary and ask a six year old for help. You are incompetent.

  7. I think you’re wrong that the wall is crumbling because of new evidence. All this has long been available. What has changed is the resolve for Biden specifically. The left media protected Biden when he was the only Dem who could win. Now that the media would like Dems to move their support to a more extreme Dem their interest no longer signs with predating Biden’s corruption.

  8. Well, the big guy has aomething going for him. The older you get the less a life sentence matters.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks