After claiming that he was going to be holding a “major press conference,” Old Joe Biden sat down for a scripted, carefully filmed, heavily edited softball interview with MSNBC sycophant Stephanie Ruhle on Friday, in which he addressed the allegations against his notorious son Hunter for the very first time. As you’d expect, Old Joe was no more disposed to admit any wrongdoing than he ever is, so unwary viewers would come away from the MSNBC interview with the idea that Hunter is a choirboy, as pure as the driven snow and doted on by his proud father as he goes around helping little old ladies across the street.
Federal prosecutors are considering charging Hunter with tax and firearm offenses, and there are numerous other, more serious things for which he could be charged, but Proud Papa was nevertheless adamant: “My son has done nothing wrong,” Old Joe insisted. “I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.” Gee, that’s touching, but it’s also even more separated from reality than the rest of the Biden “presidency.” It’s easier to accept that Old Joe himself is competent and coherent and that Rachel Levine is a woman than it is to buy the idea that Hunter Biden is an upstanding individual, as honest as the day is long.
Whatever Hunter Biden may end up being charged with or even if he is charged with nothing at all there is a massive “appearance of impropriety,” as Bill Clinton, a man who knows all about impropriety, used to call it. Back in Sept. 2020, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Senate Committee on Finance issued a report noting that while his father was vice president, Hunter Biden was “paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch” for his presence on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company.
Hunter’s presence on this board caused a great many problems. The report notes that “the Obama administration knew that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine.” What’s more, “in early 2015 the former Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent’s concerns went unaddressed, and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, ‘Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.’” It was more than just awkward. It was inexcusable, and it was clear evidence of corruption.
No one seems particularly concerned about Hunter’s presence on Burisma’s board now, yet it is a clear red flag. Hunter Biden had no educational background or experience in the natural gas industry. What’s more, he was a dissolute crack addict who consorted with prostitutes. If he had not been the son of the vice president of the United States, does anyone really believe that Burisma would have offered him this lucrative job? Hunter’s very presence on Burisma’s board is prima facie evidence of influence-peddling, as is his new career as an artist.
To be a struggling artist is a cultural cliché going back to Vincent Van Gogh shivering in a garret while producing world-historical masterpieces that the public wouldn’t come to appreciate until after his tragic death. Artist Hunter, however, has paid no such dues. Even though he took up painting late in life and you can find more compelling artworks on sale for a hundred bucks at the local frame store, Hunter’s paintings have commanded eye-watering prices up to $500,000, although the latest batch was positively bargain-basement stuff, going for only $85,000.
How many real artists are there out there who don’t happen to be the son of the president and who are struggling to get any attention for their artwork? How many competent artists are there on the scene today who would be grateful to be paid a tenth of what Hunter Biden gets for a painting? What are the people who buy these paintings getting? Why were the paintings in Hunter’s first exhibit so sharply divergent in style from those in his second exhibit (did he switch ghost painters)?
“My son has done nothing wrong,” says Old Joe, but it sure looks otherwise. And I haven’t even mentioned the laptop, the child support imbroglio, and all the rest. Will we ever know the full extent of the corruption of the Biden crime family?