In the realm of political intrigue and financial mysteries, few tales have captured the imagination quite like the ongoing saga of Joe Biden's alleged financial dealings. The story unfolds with a dose of unexpected humor, as President Biden himself jovially quips, "Where's the money?" in response to startling allegations of a multi-million-dollar bribe from a Ukrainian businessman.
It's almost as if Biden has taken a page out of the Jerry Maguire playbook, channeling Cuba Gooding Jr. with his own version of "show me the money." Much like the movie, where the chant becomes a mantra, the chorus demanding evidence of direct payments to Jill or Joe Biden rings through the corridors of politics. Yet, simultaneously, there's resistance to any investigation by the House, echoing the words of Maguire's famous phrase, "Help me, help you."
Enter the House Oversight Committee, unveiling evidence that could potentially satisfy even the most ardent skeptics. The focus of this evidence? A payment dating back to 2018 involving James Biden, the president's brother, and a company named Americore. James, no stranger to accusations of influence peddling, had reportedly touted his connections to his brother for potential business opportunities.
On March 1, 2018, the plot thickens as Americore transfers $200,000 to James Biden's personal account, rather than his business account. Intriguingly, on the very same day, James issues a check for an identical sum, directing it to Joe Biden's personal bank account. The memo line on that check reads "loan repayment."
The term "loans" has long been a source of contention in the Biden narrative. IRS whistleblowers have flagged instances where Hunter Biden allegedly categorized substantial payments from questionable foreign sources as "loans," despite the absence of any standard loan agreements or evidence of repayment. The taxman apparently went unpaid.
If indeed Joe Biden lent nearly a quarter of a million dollars to his brother, it raises questions about the timing of this disbursement. Did it occur while Joe Biden held the vice-presidential office? Such queries delve into the nexus between Joe's brother's influence peddling and the financial viability of the associated companies.
The White House maintains that the payment was a loan to James, duly repaid. However, without concrete evidence of a formal loan agreement, skeptics argue that it could be tantamount to a payment from an influence-seeking company to Joe Biden.
At the very least, this payment underscores the intricate web of financial dealings within the Biden influence-peddling enterprise. While politicians from both sides of the aisle have faced scrutiny for decades, the Bidens appear to be in a league of their own. House committees have painstakingly traced millions of dollars as they meander through a labyrinth of shell companies and accounts, ultimately finding their way to Biden family members, including grandchildren.
In recent months, this operation has gained undeniable momentum. Devan Archer, under oath, openly acknowledged that they were actively marketing the "Biden Brand," with these companies avidly seeking influence and access to Joe Biden.
Despite the media's earlier dismissals of this corruption scandal, it has reluctantly shifted its stance. Now, it concedes that Hunter and his associates were indeed peddling influence, though it attempts to downplay it as a mere "illusion" of influence. The stage is set, with the president and his media allies adopting a "show me the money" refrain, mirroring the antics of Cuba Gooding Jr.
Crucially, it's vital to note that direct monetary receipt by Joe Biden isn't necessary to establish potential wrongdoing. According to standard criminal case law, payments made to Joe Biden's family members are considered a "benefit" to him.
Ordinarily, Biden's call to "show him the money" would send the media into a frenzy, akin to the infamous Gary Hart scandal, where reporters doggedly pursued him to prove allegations of infidelity. However, in this case, few in the media seem eager to follow the financial trail, fearing what they might uncover.
Allegations of cross-benefits and payments involving Joe Biden abound. These include arrangements with the Chinese, such as financing an opulent office for Joe and Jill Biden and shared accounts with credit cards, one of which Hunter allegedly used to pay for a prostitute. There are also suggestions of taxes and household expenses being covered from these accounts for Joe and Jill Biden. Hunter even lamented that he was being forced to fork over half of his earnings to his father.
Returning to the latest financial transfer, it undeniably illustrates that Joe Biden was well aware of his family members' dire financial straits during these years. Frank Biden, the president's younger brother, evaded efforts to compel him to settle damages stemming from a reckless driving incident in California. The daughters of the victim in that tragic accident repeatedly sought assistance from then-Senator Joe Biden, to no avail. His response? A casual acknowledgment that Frank had no assets to meet the judgment, expressing regret over the situation.
In Hunter's case, desperation reached such heights that he allegedly threatened a Chinese figure, insinuating that his father would intervene unless money was promptly sent. One message even indicated that Hunter's father was seated beside him, ensuring the payment's completion.
Hunter's financial woes were evidently dire enough to prompt James, reportedly after consulting with Joe Biden, to extend an olive branch in the form of a "safe harbor" to avert catastrophe.
Now, Joe Biden asserts that he had to provide James with nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
Throughout this tumultuous period, media coverage swirled around the allegations of influence peddling involving James, Frank, and Hunter Biden. According to the Oversight Committee's findings, it's increasingly evident that James received $600,000 in loans from Americore, despite the company's own financial woes.
The proof of money flowing from these companies through James to Joe Biden's personal accounts is poised to catalyze a pivotal shift: the media is poised to yet again redefine the goalposts.
Influence peddling is inherently corrupt, and benefits to one's family members are already sufficient grounds for criminal charges, as demonstrated in the case of Senator Bob Menendez. However, a new threshold emerges—now, not even money received by Joe and Jill Biden will suffice to warrant further investigation.
The new demand? A money trail directly from one of these companies, explicitly designated as a "bribe" on their books, rather than cleverly disguised as a "loan repayment." Even photographic evidence of Joe Biden seated with Hunter's clients in restaurants and offices will fall short of establishing knowledge or involvement.
In the saga of the Biden "Monkey Business," even a photograph featuring a Burisma executive perched on the president's lap will not suffice. The new standard will hover somewhere between an envelope filled with cash and an unequivocal confession.
Either way, just rmember not to trust anything you hear from the 10,000. Stay Free, and Curious.
Jesse
For media inquiries, please contact:
UK - 020 3404 2295
USA - 0650 278 4440
AUS - 02 9072 9499
press@anonymouspublishinghouse.com
Help Support Jesse and the rest of our Authors by visiting the store to get your copy of the latest Anonymous Author Novel or Anything Anonymous.
コメント