Connect with us

Biden Administration

GOP REPORTS: Breakdown of $21 Million the Biden Family, Associates Received From Foreign Sources

Published

on

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.

id5464126-A9476C0F-07E0-476E-B441-38BEBCD827FA_1_201_a Breakdown of $21 Million the Biden Family, Associates Received From Foreign Sources: GOP Reports Featured Politics Top Stories [your]NEWS
(L-R) Kenes Rakishev, Hunter Biden, Vice President Joe Biden, and Kazakhstani Prime Minister Karim Massimov pose for a photo after a dinner at the Cafe Milano in Washington on April 16, 2014. (Courtesy of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee)

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.

id5464126-A9476C0F-07E0-476E-B441-38BEBCD827FA_1_201_a Breakdown of $21 Million the Biden Family, Associates Received From Foreign Sources: GOP Reports Featured Politics Top Stories [your]NEWS

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.”

id5464126-A9476C0F-07E0-476E-B441-38BEBCD827FA_1_201_a Breakdown of $21 Million the Biden Family, Associates Received From Foreign Sources: GOP Reports Featured Politics Top Stories [your]NEWS

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.

Biden Administration

The Biden Admin’s Attempt to Ban Cigarettes Just Days Before Trump Returns Setting Up For Boost in Criminal Cartels and Black Market

Published

on


Biden Administration’s Nicotine Ban: A Move Toward Regulation or a Boost for Cartels?

In a controversial move during its final days, the Biden administration is advancing a proposal to drastically lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively banning traditional products on the market. While the administration frames the measure as a step toward reducing smoking addiction, critics argue it will backfire, fueling black markets and empowering criminal cartels.

Regulatory Shift with Broad Implications

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its proposed rule to establish maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes has completed regulatory review. The measure is part of a broader effort to make cigarettes less addictive, potentially shaping one of the most impactful tobacco policies in U.S. history.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously stated that the initiative aims to “decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit.” However, opponents warn that this policy could create new public safety and economic challenges.

A “Gift” to Organized Crime

Critics of the proposed regulation, including former ATF official Rich Marianos, are sounding the alarm. Marianos described the plan as a “gift with a bow and balloons to organized crime cartels,” arguing that it would open the floodgates for illegal tobacco trafficking.

Mexican cartels, Chinese counterfeiters, and Russian mafias are well-positioned to exploit the demand for high-nicotine cigarettes. These groups, already entrenched in smuggling operations, would likely ramp up efforts to meet consumer demand. This shift would not only enrich organized crime but also compromise public health by introducing unregulated, potentially more harmful products into the market.

Unintended Consequences for Public Health

While the FDA’s goal is to reduce smoking rates, experts suggest the policy may have the opposite effect. Smokers could resort to “compensatory smoking,” consuming more cigarettes to achieve their desired nicotine levels. This behavior increases exposure to harmful chemicals like tar, negating the intended health benefits.

Additionally, the regulation could discourage smokers from transitioning to safer alternatives, such as vaping or nicotine replacement therapies. By removing higher-nicotine products from the legal market, the government risks alienating individuals who might otherwise seek healthier pathways to quitting smoking.

National Security and Economic Concerns

Beyond health implications, the nicotine ban raises significant national security issues. A 2015 State Department report highlighted the role of tobacco trafficking in funding terrorist organizations and criminal networks. Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes could expand this illicit market, providing criminal groups with a lucrative new revenue stream.

Moreover, law enforcement agencies could face increased pressure as they work to combat tobacco smuggling alongside ongoing efforts to address opioid and fentanyl trafficking. This strain on resources could compromise broader public safety initiatives.

Balancing Public Health and Freedom

The proposed nicotine reduction also ignites debates over personal freedom. While reducing addiction is a laudable goal, critics argue that adults should retain the right to make their own choices regarding tobacco use. For many, the measure feels like government overreach, imposing a paternalistic approach to health regulation.

As the Biden administration pushes forward with its nicotine reduction proposal, the policy’s broader implications remain uncertain. While intended to curb addiction and promote public health, critics warn of significant risks, including empowering organized crime, increasing smoking rates, and straining law enforcement resources.

A more balanced approach—focused on education, harm reduction, and access to cessation resources—may better address smoking-related challenges without creating new societal harms.


Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden DOJ to Charge 200 More Individuals Involved in January 6 Riot Just Weeks Before Trump Returns to The White House

Published

on

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to assume office, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering charges against approximately 200 additional individuals for their roles in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This includes about 60 suspects accused of assaulting or impeding police officers during the riot that disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

To date, around 1,583 people have faced federal charges related to the events of January 6, with over 600 charged with felonies involving assaults on law enforcement. The DOJ’s recent disclosure marks the first time prosecutors have provided an estimate of uncharged cases, signaling the potential scope of ongoing investigations. Notably, prosecutors have exercised discretion by declining to charge approximately 400 cases presented by the FBI, focusing instead on individuals who committed multiple federal offenses.

The impending inauguration of President-elect Trump, who has indicated plans to pardon individuals involved in the Capitol attack, adds complexity to these proceedings. His statements have led some defendants to seek delays in their trials, anticipating potential clemency. Judges have expressed concerns about the implications of such pardons, emphasizing the importance of accountability for actions that threatened democratic processes.

As the DOJ continues its efforts, over 200 cases remain pending, underscoring the enduring legal and political challenges stemming from the January 6 events. The situation remains dynamic, with the potential for significant developments as the new administration takes office.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden Admin Hid Info Pointing to Lab Leak Theory From Intel Agencies

Published

on

A newly released report alleges that the Biden administration withheld information that pointed to a lab leak in China as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic from U.S. intelligence agencies, while working with social media platforms to suppress dissenting voices challenging the official narrative. According to the Wall Street Journal, the report claims that the suppression of alternative viewpoints was part of a broader effort to control the narrative surrounding the origins of the virus, particularly the zoonotic theory that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans.

The debate over the origins of COVID-19 has become a focal point for concerns over censorship and government influence. While some agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), supported the zoonotic theory, the FBI stood apart, asserting with “moderate confidence” that a lab leak was the most plausible origin. However, despite this assessment, the FBI was excluded from an intelligence briefing for President Biden in August 2021, leading to concerns from officials within the agency about the omission of their perspective.

The Wall Street Journal’s report highlights the role of social media platforms in silencing opposing views. Public health officials and government agencies allegedly collaborated with platforms like Facebook to remove or flag content that questioned the zoonotic-origin theory. Rep. Jim Jordan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the White House had pressured Facebook to censor narratives contrary to the official stance.

The report also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Adrienne Keen, a former State Department official, was involved in advocating for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) zoonotic findings despite criticism of the WHO’s reliance on data from China. This involvement has led to questions about her impartiality, with some critics suggesting that her work may have discredited the lab leak hypothesis to protect Chinese interests.

Domestic efforts to suppress the lab leak theory were also widespread. Public health officials dismissed the theory as a baseless conspiracy, and social media platforms removed content that raised doubts about the official narrative. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) later acknowledged funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which could have played a role in the virus’s development, but questions about the research were often dismissed as unscientific or even racist.

Internally, the suppression of information extended to government agencies. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) reportedly concluded that the virus was genetically engineered in a Chinese lab, but up to 90% of their findings were excluded from official reports. The DIA’s Inspector General has launched an investigation into the suppression of these critical contributions.

As more evidence supporting the lab leak theory has emerged, support for this explanation has grown. In 2023, the Department of Energy joined the FBI in concluding that a lab leak was the most likely origin of the virus. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has also supported this view, citing the intelligence community’s access to the most information on the matter.

The growing consensus around the lab leak theory raises questions about why it was suppressed for so long. Critics argue that the censorship and control of narratives not only delayed crucial inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 but also undermined public trust in the institutions tasked with managing the pandemic.

This case highlights broader concerns about government-directed censorship and its impact on free speech. The suppression of alternative viewpoints, especially when it comes to critical issues like the origins of a global pandemic, has far-reaching implications for public discourse and democratic principles.

Continue Reading

Trending