In the middle of the 2010s, President Joe Biden’s family and their colleagues received more than $21 million from foreign sources, according to Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.
The committee’s third memo on Mr. Hunter Biden’s earnings from his international business ventures was made public on August 9.
The panel found almost $10 million from Chinese and Romanian sources that benefited the Biden family in the earlier second report on Mr. Hunter Biden’s bank records (pdf). The family’s commercial ventures in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan are the subject of the third bank records report, which brings the total sum received to more than $21 million.
That is primarily sourced from countries in Eastern Europe and China. Republicans on the panel’s investigation found that Mr. Hunter Biden and his associates had a pattern of “courting wealthy oligarchs with political and financial influence but tainted backgrounds,” as several business contacts mentioned in the reports had previously been charged with corruption or engaging in illegal business practices.
In their investigation into the Biden family, the committee has so far sent subpoenas on six different banks, acquiring thousands of records, including the most recent ones. They haven’t yet demanded copies of the family members’ records. Although at least one account that received money was held by an anonymous Biden, none of the funds so far discovered have been specifically linked to Vice President Biden.
Republicans had to go through hundreds of pages of bank documents to build together a portrait of Mr. Hunter Biden’s alleged wide web of interests due to the use of nearly 20 different corporate organizations and even more bank accounts.
The panel has accused the Biden family of “using associates’ companies to receive foreign funds and attempting to conceal their payouts from those funds by incremental payments to various accounts over time.”
Republicans have started to piece together the story of Mr. Hunter Biden’s varied international business operations throughout the period of the 2010s following months of study into the bank data.
Here is a breakdown of the $21 million that was given to the Bidens and their business partners, as well as how it was acquired.
$3 Million From Romania
The committee first talks about how Mr. Hunter Biden and his business partners received more than $3.1 million from a source in Romania.
Gabriel Popoviciu, a businessman from Romania, is the owner of Bladon Enterprises, where the money first came from. According to reports, Mr. Popoviciu received legal counsel from Mr. Hunter Biden, a lawyer, when the businessman was being investigated for corruption. This behavior was common among Mr. Hunter Biden’s friends, the panel claimed.
Later, Mr. Popoviciu was charged with corruption.
The owners of Robinson Walker and the European Energy and Infrastructure Group (EEIG), Mr. Rob Walker and Mr. James Gilliar, were two of Mr. Hunter Biden’s partners who were involved in the Romanian business.
Ms. Hallie Biden, a school counselor and the daughter-in-law of President Biden, also earned $10,000 following a settlement with Mr. Popoviciu’s company for reasons the panel was unable to determine. After her husband’s passing, Ms. Biden, the late Beau Biden’s widow, started an openly known connection with Mr. Hunter Biden.
Money was also given to a second unnamed Biden family member by Mr. Popoviciu.
Republicans discovered that the Bidens, Mr. Gilliar, and Mr. Walker received more than $3.1 million in total. Of that sum, the Biden family received about $1.038 million in direct payment.
Robinson Walker received 17 payments totaling $172,000 to more than $186,000 between November 2015 and May 2017.
The money was never given to Mr. Hunter Biden and his family by Bladon Enterprises. Instead, each payment was made to Robinson Walker’s account and subsequently distributed in pieces to the Biden family.
According to Republican investigations, this was a deliberate attempt to conceal the connection between Mr. Hunter Biden and Mr. Popoviciu.
$8 Million From China
The subcommittee has also learned that the Bidens and Mr. Hunter Biden’s business colleagues received almost $8 million from Chinese sources.
Of that sum, $3 million was revealed in the committee’s initial report on bank records and came from State Energy HK Limited, a Chinese energy corporation with headquarters in Hong Kong (pdf).
State Energy HK Limited sent Robinson Walker a $3 million wire transfer on March 1st.
The following day, Mr. Walker gave EEIG, Mr. Gilliar’s business, a payment of $1.065 million.
The Bidens received the same sum, but it was dispersed in little increments over a number of months.
The beneficiaries found included the still-anonymous “Biden,” Ms. Hallie Biden, Mr. Hunter Biden’s Owasco PC and RSTP II, Mr. James Biden’s JBBSR Inc., the president’s brother Mr. Hunter Biden, and an unidentified account called First Clearing thought to be Mr. Hunter Biden.
The unnamed “Biden” was compensated with $70,00.Following the payment, Ms. Biden earned $25,000 in total. James Biden was awarded $360,000. Hunter Biden is said to have received the remaining $610,692.
In the second report on bank records, the panel examined new information on Chinese businessmen Ye Jianming and Dong Gongwen, both of whom had connections to the now-bankrupt energy company CEFC that was affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as well as more details about State Energy HK Limited.
As the deputy secretary-general of a Chinese organization linked to the CCP’s military, Mr. Ye reportedly had intimate contacts to the CCP administration.
Mr. Hunter Biden’s company, CEFC, had a close working relationship with the central communist government.
Mr. Dong, an associate who is said to have served as Mr. Ye’s “CEFC emissary” in the United States, founded a number of companies in the country, all of which had some variant of the name “Hudson West,” as well as other businesses like CEFC Infrastructure Investment. Each of these businesses gave Mr. Ye a tangible benefit.
The panel claimed that the creation of so many corporations was a sign that China was trying to smuggle money into the US.
A almost $25 million initial payment was sent by Mr. Ye to Hudson West V, a company that was created in Mr. Dong’s name, in June 2017. Mr. Ye wired an additional $110 million in August 2017.
In the same month, Mr. Hunter Biden and Mr. Dong founded Hudson West III, a new company in which both men held a 50% ownership stake.
Republicans discovered that Hudson West III sent $4 million to companies connected to Mr. Hunter Biden and $75,000 to companies connected to Mr. James Biden between its inception in 2017 and October 2018.
When Mr. Ye was detained by Chinese authorities in 2018, CEFC’s business started to crumble.
In an email that was apparently confirmed by The Washington Post, Mr. Hunter Biden attempted to remove himself from the company by stating, “I am not in a [venture] with CEFC. I am not a CEFC partner. The CEFC neither employs me nor finances me.
In its conclusion, the panel referred to this claim as “false,” noting that a wire transfer of $100,000 from a CEFC subsidiary to Mr. Hunter Biden’s company Owasco PC in August 2017—the same month the first son and Mr. Dong created Hudson West III—had been documented.
Shanghai Huaxin, a Chinese corporation, provided that funding.
Mr. Dong transferred a 100 percent ownership stake in the business to Shanghai Huaxin just one week after establishing CEFC Infrastructure in the United States, with Hudson West V holding the controlling interest.
Shanghai Huaxin wired $10 million into CEFC Infrastructure the following month. The following month, Mr. Hunter Biden received the $100,000 payment from CEFC Infrastructure.
The transfer of an additional $5 million from CEFC Infrastructure to Hudson West III brought Mr. Hunter Biden’s total payment from the CCP-affiliated company to $5.1 million.
The panel accused Mr. Dong of trying “to hide the foreign source of the money” by “layering LLCs formed in Delaware.”
Mr. Hunter Biden also received a diamond estimated to be worth $80,000 from Mr. Ye.
$3.5 Million From a Russian Oligarch
Yelena Baturina, a Russian oligarch, provided Mr. Hunter Biden and his associates with an additional $3.5 million in revenue.
Ms. Baturina, the richest woman in Russia, is wed to the former mayor of Moscow. A Senate investigation found that Ms. Baturina oversaw a “empire of corruption” in Russia, maintaining the pattern that Mr. Hunter Biden had frequently partnered with dishonest foreign dignitaries.
As part of a “consultancy agreement,” Ms. Baturina sent a payment of $3.5 million in March 2014 to Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company founded by Mr. James Bulger and registered in Delaware, of which Mr. Hunter Biden was a beneficiary. In the transactions the panel looked into, the company was one of numerous subsidiaries of Rosemont Seneca Partners, a business Mr. Biden founded in 2009.
Later, Rosemont Seneca Thornton transferred $2.75 million to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, another division of Rosemont Seneca Partners.
Longtime friend and business partner of Mr. Hunter Biden Mr. Devon Archer was a 50/50 partner in Rosemont Seneca Bohai with Mr. Hunter Biden, and he has since testified about his relationship with the first son.
The remaining $750,000 was given to Mr. Archer immediately.
Following the $3.5 million wire transfer in the spring, Mr. Biden, who was then the vice president, joined Ms. Baturina, Mr. Archer, Mr. Hunter Biden, and others for dinner at the Cafe Milano in Washington.
Several Russian oligarchs were put on a list of public sanctions after Russia seized Crimea in 2014, yet Ms. Baturina was noticeably absent from that list.
$142,000 Gift From a Kazakhstan Businessman
In addition, a Kazakhstani billionaire named Kenes Rakishev sent Mr. Hunter Biden $142,300.
Millionaire oligarch Mr. Rakishev was a director of KazMunayGas, the national oil corporation of Kazakhstan. Karim Massimov, who took office as Kazakhstan’s prime minister on April 2, 2014, and who was later given an 18-year prison term for treason, abuse of power, and coup attempt, was a close friend of Mr. Rakishev.
Mr. Rakishev and Mr. Hunter Biden met in Washington on February 5, 2014.
On April 16, 2014, Mr. Hunter Biden, Mr. Rakishev, Mr. Massimov, and then-Vice President Biden went to a dinner at the Cafe Milano in Washington.
Six days later, on April 22, 2014, Mr. Rakishev wired $142,300 to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, the company Mr. Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer jointly hold. He did this through a Singaporean company. The following day, Rosemont Seneca wired the exact same sum to a high-end New Jersey dealership in order to buy Mr. Hunter Biden a pricey sports automobile.
When the House Oversight Committee questioned Mr. Archer about the car purchase for Mr. Hunter Biden, they inquired as to why Mr. Rakishev made the transaction. Mr. Archer wasn’t sure, though.
$6.5 Million From a Ukrainian Energy Firm
Lastly, the panel discovered that Mr. Hunter Biden and his colleagues got $6.5 million from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma over the course of a years-long connection with the business.
According to the Oversight Committee, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler’s testimony was specifically where this number came from. They claimed that this number was in line with their own discoveries.
The association between Mr. Hunter Biden and Burisma started in the spring of 2014.
Mr. Hunter Biden was presently employed by the company as legal counsel. Based on Mr. Archer’s evidence, he was swiftly promoted to board member position during a meeting with Burisma corporate secretary Vadym Pozharsky and owner Mykola Zlochevsky.
According to Mr. Archer’s testimony before the Oversight panel, Mr. Hunter Biden received a compensation of about $83,000 per month ($1 million annually) in his capacity as director. The company that Mr. Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer jointly own, Rosemont Seneca Bohai, received these payments from Burisma’s account.
Both Mr. Hunter Biden’s personal expenses and collaborative investment activity with Mr. Archer were paid directly out of the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account. Later, tiny sums of money from Burisma were moved to Mr. Hunter Biden’s professional corporation, Owasco.
Mr. Archer was unable to explain why Mr. Hunter Biden chose to deposit the revenue from Burisma into Rosemont Seneca Bohai rather than a different account.
The panel discovered that Mr. Archer and Mr. Hunter Biden each earned $3.32 million from Burisma in just the years 2014 and 2015, which is more than half of the total $6.5 million the two individuals received from Burisma.
On April 16, 2015, the then-Vice President Biden joined Mr. Pozharsky and Mr. Zlochevsky for supper at the Cafe Milano, as was the case in several earlier instances.
Establishing the Link to Joe Biden
The panel made mention of Mr. Archer’s evidence in its third report.
In that testimony, Mr. Archer disproved President Biden’s claim that he was unaware of his son’s business transactions by revealing that over the course of ten years, the two of them had 20 “casual conversations” with each other.
The panel was also informed by Mr. Archer that his son used President Biden as “the brand” to connect with his important business contacts.
“No one in the Biden Administration or in the Minority has explained what services, if any, the Bidens and their associates provided in exchange for the over $20 million in foreign payments,” the panel wrote.
“Joe Biden, ‘the brand,’ was the only product the Bidens sold,” they wrote.
Although it has not been demonstrated that Mr. Hunter Biden’s foreign earnings directly benefited President Biden, critics of the probe have claimed that these discoveries do not clearly link him to the president.
In a statement after the release of the bank records memo, White House spokesperson Ian Sams said, “Today House Republicans on the Oversight Committee released another memo full of years-old ‘news,’ innuendo, and misdirection—but notably missing, yet again, is any connection to President Biden.”
In the report, committee Republicans replied to this contention.
“President Biden’s defenders purport a weak defense by asserting the Committee must show payments directly to the President to show corruption,” they wrote. “This is a hollow claim no other American would be afforded if their family members accepted foreign payments or bribes. Indeed, the law recognizes payments to family members to corruptly influence others can constitute a bribe.”
As additional information has emerged, they charged President Biden with “moving the goalposts” in terms of his level of involvement.
The White House has since changed the president’s first denial that he knew anything about his son’s business transactions to one that states that “the president was not in business with his son.”
Former colleagues of Mr. Hunter Biden have disputed this assertion as well.
The then-vice president was involved, according to Mr. Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Mr. Hunter Biden, but there was an unwritten agreement “[not to] mention Joe.”
President Joe Biden, according to Mr. Bobulinski, allegedly did receive money from his son’s business transactions. He bases this claim on an email that was found on Mr. Hunter Biden’s laptop and mentions a 10 percent share for “the big guy.”
“The ‘big guy’ is Joe Biden,” Mr. Bobulinski told reporters.
In a separate finding, IRS informants claimed to have verified a WhatsApp communication in which Mr. Hunter Biden claimed to be waiting with his father for payment from a Chinese businessman.
Washington, D.C. — The United States is poised to deliver an additional $725 million in military aid to Ukraine, signaling continued support for Kyiv’s efforts to defend against Russian aggression. The latest package, confirmed by two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity, includes counter-drone systems and munitions for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).
Notably, the package raises questions about whether it includes the coveted Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a longer-range missile that Ukraine has repeatedly requested to target deeper into Russian-controlled territory. However, the officials declined to confirm whether ATACMS would be included.
In addition to munitions, the aid package features anti-personnel landmines, which Ukraine is using to counter Russian and North Korean ground forces, particularly in contested areas like Russia’s Kursk region.
President Joe Biden remains resolute in using all funds allocated by Congress for Ukraine’s military support before the end of his administration in January. Before Monday’s announcement, approximately $7.1 billion in military assistance had been provided, drawn from Pentagon stockpiles.
While the Biden administration continues to bolster Ukraine, questions loom about the incoming Trump administration’s approach to the conflict. President-elect Trump h as promised to “end the conflict,” potentially signaling a shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
In a noteworthy development, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested last week that NATO membership for Ukrainian-controlled territories could help end the “hot stage of the war.” This remark signals a potential softening in Ukraine’s stance as it seeks to balance territorial integrity with international support.
HIMARS munitions have been a linchpin in Ukraine’s defense strategy, enabling precision strikes on Russian targets. The possible inclusion of ATACMS in this package could extend Ukraine’s reach, putting more strategic Russian positions at risk. Meanwhile, the addition of counter-drone systems underscores the escalating drone warfare in the region, as both sides employ drones for surveillance and strikes.
The use of anti-personnel landmines reflects Ukraine’s tactical efforts to slow Russian advancements, particularly in areas where conventional defense lines have proven difficult to maintain.
The aid announcement comes amid heightened speculation about U.S. foreign policy under the incoming Trump administration. While President Biden has championed robust support for Ukraine, critics argue the ongoing assistance risks overextending U.S. resources. Trump’s pledge to “end the conflict” could signify a more isolationist approach, raising concerns among Ukraine’s allies about the continuity of U.S. support.
As the war grinds on, Ukraine remains reliant on Western military aid to sustain its defenses and reclaim lost territory. The latest U.S. package underscores Washington’s strategic commitment, even as domestic and international pressures mount.
Whether the new administration will maintain this trajectory remains uncertain, but for now, the U.S. remains a steadfast partner in Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty.
The U.S. government has inadvertently sent at least $239 million to the Taliban in development assistance since 2021, according to a new report. The oversight occurred because the State Department failed to properly vet award recipients.
Less than a year after it was reported that the Taliban established fake nonprofits to siphon millions of dollars in U.S. aid to Afghanistan, a new investigation by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reveals that the terrorist group has received hundreds of millions in development assistance due to inadequate vetting by the State Department. Since the 2021 U.S. military withdrawal, at least $239 million have likely filled the Taliban’s coffers.
The State Department’s divisions known as Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) disbursed the funds to implement development projects aimed at supporting American foreign policy and national security goals in Afghanistan.
Investigators found that the State Department failed to comply with its own counterterrorism partner vetting requirements before awarding at least 29 grants to various local entities. The agency has a system in place to identify whether prospective awardees have a record of ethical business practices and is supposed to conduct risk assessments to determine if programming funds may benefit terrorists or terrorist-affiliates before distributing American taxpayer dollars. However, in the more than two dozen cases examined, the agency neglected these procedures and failed to maintain proper records.
“Because DRL and INL could not demonstrate their compliance with State’s partner vetting requirements, there is an increased risk that terrorist and terrorist-affiliated individuals and entities may have illegally benefited from State spending in Afghanistan,” the SIGAR report states. “As State continues to spend U.S. taxpayer funds on programs intended to benefit the Afghan people, it is critical that State knows who is actually benefiting from this assistance in order to prevent the aid from being diverted to the Taliban or other sanctioned parties, and to enable policymakers and other oversight authorities to better scrutinize the risks posed by State’s spending.”
The watchdog identified issues with 29 awards distributed by DRL and INL. For instance, DRL failed to properly screen the recipients of seven awards totaling about $12 million. INL did not provide any supporting documentation for 19 of its 22 awards totaling about $295 million, making it impossible to determine if they complied with vetting requirements. The State Department acknowledged that not all its bureaus have complied with document retention requirements, complicating the assessment of the magnitude of its transgressions. INL cited “employee turnover and the dissolution of the Afghanistan-Pakistan office” as reasons for not retaining records.
Given the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, SIGAR emphasized the importance of U.S. government activities adhering to laws, regulations, and policies intended to prevent transactions with terrorists.
Besides establishing fraudulent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to loot significant portions of the $3 billion in humanitarian aid the U.S. has provided Afghanistan since the Biden administration’s abrupt military withdrawal, the Taliban has also accrued millions by charging taxes, permit fees, and import duties. This money has flowed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a State Department arm known for its corruption, which received $63.1 billion for foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement this year. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the government’s international broadcasting service, also disbursed funds.
The United Nations has received $1.6 billion in U.S. funding for Afghanistan, and a significant percentage of that money likely went to the Taliban, according to a federal audit. The U.S. government does not require the UN to report on taxes, fees, or duties incurred on American funds for activities in Afghanistan, further complicating accountability.
The United States announced on Monday a new tranche of military aid for Ukraine valued at approximately $1.7 billion. This package includes critical air defense munitions and artillery rounds that Ukrainian forces have urgently requested.
The assistance package comprises $200 million in equipment drawn from existing U.S. military stocks, ensuring rapid deployment to the battlefield. Additionally, it includes around $1.5 billion in new orders, which will take longer to reach Ukraine, according to a statement from the Defense Department.
Key Components of the Aid Package
The new security assistance will provide Ukraine with:
Various types of air defense munitions to shield against Russian strikes
Artillery rounds
Ammunition for HIMARS precision rocket launchers
Multiple types of anti-tank weapons
Other crucial capabilities
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed deep gratitude in a social media post, thanking U.S. President Joe Biden, the U.S. Congress, and the American people for their continued support. Zelensky emphasized that the aid includes items “critical to strengthening Ukrainian defenders, as well as funding to sustain previously committed equipment from the United States.”
Zelensky visited special forces in the border region of Kharkiv on Monday. Moscow’s forces launched a surprise ground offensive in this region in May but failed to make significant progress. The Ukrainian leader observed firsthand how the ongoing assistance from the U.S. helps to save lives and protect citizens from Russian attacks.
The United States has been a pivotal military supporter of Ukraine, committing over $55 billion in weapons, ammunition, and other security assistance since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Before late April, Washington had announced limited new aid for Ukraine this year, with only a $300 million package made possible through Pentagon savings on other purchases. After months of intense debate, Congress finally approved large-scale funding for Kyiv in April, authorizing $95 billion in aid, including $61 billion specifically for Ukraine.
Despite the new aid, Ukrainian forces are facing significant challenges. On Monday, Russia claimed its forces had captured the village of Vovche in eastern Ukraine, marking the latest in a series of front-line advances by Moscow.
The Ukrainian military reported that it had repelled six Russian attacks on the Kharkiv front line over the past day, including at Vovchansk, a small town that Russian forces have targeted since May. As the conflict grinds through its third year, neither side has managed to gain a decisive advantage, although Moscow’s forces have made recent gains.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login