Will President Joe Biden’s son be indicted? Probably.
There is less in that answer than you might suppose. It has been widely known for years that Hunter Biden has tax problems. In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Biden fils with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017. The lien was filed in July, as the presidential campaign was heating up.
That was six months after then-president Donald Trump was impeached by the Democratic-controlled House over pressuring the Ukrainian government to conduct an investigation of the Biden family. As a result, Hunter’s penchant for landing big paydays in corrupt and authoritarian countries where his father wielded influence over American policy had drawn attention — though not nearly the attention it would have attracted had Hunter been the drug-addled, ne’er-do-well son of a Republican candidate. As the press looked the other way, the tax liens sank into an increasingly jam-packed black hole. In the Trump–Biden contest of 2020, there was no meaningful public consideration of two relevant questions: If Hunter can’t pay his bills, what happened to the millions of dollars he was paid by shady Ukrainian, Russian, and Chinese businesspeople? And what is the extent of Joe Biden’s knowledge of and participation in Hunter’s machinations?
The tax liability is so undeniable that Hunter Biden himself felt compelled to acknowledge it — but only after his father was elected, naturally. Justice Department prosecutors in Delaware, he explained, had advised his lawyers that “they [were] investigating my tax affairs.” The liens notwithstanding, Hunter insisted that “a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately.” Recently, though, the New York Times reported that Hunter had finally paid his back taxes, an action, the paper observed, that lawyers frequently advise clients to take, the better to improve their chances of avoiding prosecution, or at least imprisonment, on tax-evasion charges.
What’s more interesting, though, is that what has long been obvious to many Americans is now explicit even in the media–Democrat complex: The Hunter Biden probe is about far more than what he gingerly calls “my tax affairs.”
The Justice Department, it turns out, has been investigating him since 2018. The FBI is involved, which signals that the probe is not confined to tax violations, the purview of the IRS. And sure enough, the Times’ 1,700-word bombshell report — a CYA special buried on page A20 — related that a grand jury is examining whether Hunter violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) by failing to register with the Justice Department regarding his work for, and copious revenue from, foreign magnates and conglomerates, some with cozy ties to Beijing and Moscow. Money-laundering, for which the federal penal code prescribes severe incarceration sentences because criminal syndicates habitually resort to it, is also a subject of the grand jury’s scrutiny.
A mere 23 paragraphs into the Times article, it also emerges that investigators are poring over data from Hunter Biden’s laptop computer. Suddenly, almost a year and a half after the New York Post broke the news — or tried to — with a series of hair-raising reports about Hunter’s exploiting his father’s influence to strike lucrative deals with foreign partners, the “paper of record” decided that the laptop story was “news that’s fit to print,” after all.
That was not how the Gray Lady and other Biden allies saw it during the 2020 campaign. Twitter locked the account of the Post — the nation’s oldest continuously published newspaper and its fourth largest by circulation — as well as accounts of Trump advocates who attempted to circulate reports on Hunter’s laptop. Other social-media platforms followed suit. Journalists speculatively questioned the provenance of the laptop data, emphasizing that Trump henchmen Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon were complicit in its transmission to the Post from an obscure Delaware information-technology specialist to whose repair shop the erratic Hunter, whose drug abuse is notorious, apparently brought a laptop that he then forgot about. (There were actually three water-damaged laptops, but reportedly only one for which data extraction was done.) Yet the IT guy had a receipt signed by Hunter, and he had reported the abandoned laptop to the FBI.
That inconvenience, however, did not stop dozens of Biden-friendly former intelligence officials from baselessly speculating that the laptop data could be “Russian disinformation.” Seamlessly, the media–Democrat complex then dismissed the matter, with the social-media giants rationalizing post hoc that their ban on the information’s dissemination was mandated by their rules of service against the use of their platforms to abet foreign interference in American elections.SOURCE
