by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
Emily Jashinsky of the Federalist explains the negative impact of Democrats’ kid-gloves approach to nominating Joe Biden for president.
In a healthy Democratic Party, Joe Biden’s primary opponents would have cared about his family’s documented habit of trading on their powerful last name, almost certainly with the former vice president’s knowledge. People can disagree over the scale of the corruption, whether it reflects only on Hunter and James or on Joe as well, but it’s unequivocal that influence peddling has been a steady pursuit for the Bidens.
Even as the corporate media downplays recent revelations about Hunter, The New York Times reported new documents from Tony Bubulinski that “show that the countries that Hunter Biden, James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe Biden had previously been involved as vice president.”
“The records make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his ‘family’s brand’ as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture,” the Times noted. That name trading seems to have been explicit in some cases, as even Ben Smith of the Times tweeted on Tuesday. …
… Hunter Biden took Air Force Two to meet with a Chinese banker who also happened to be his business partner, and 10 days later their fund’s license was approved, but we’re supposed to believe it was a “social visit”? And we’re supposed to believe the veep had no clue his son was meeting with business partners on their trip to China?
Crucially, we know Joe Biden lied about his knowledge of Hunter’s overseas business. There is, unfortunately, even some evidence he received financial benefits from it. The lie alone is reason for suspicion.
The point is that Democrats were negligent not to press this issue during the primaries. The evidence had been clearly reported by The New York Times, NBC, and other major outlets.