Shortly before the U.S. presidential election that Joe Biden won, the New York Post published a bombshell story based on emails from Biden’s son, Hunter, that indicated corruption by his father.
The October 2020 story, neatly encapsulated by the quip, “ten percent for the big guy,” which the Bidens never denied, was castigated and largely ignored by the left mainstream media, and censored by Twitter.
That left censorship might well have led to the election of Biden instead of Donald Trump. Apparently, getting Biden elected was more important to them than his alleged China-linked corruption. Now, almost a year later, a Politico writer has finally confirmed the story.
This adds an additional confirmation to The Wall Street Journal’s corroboration and expansion of the Post story, through emails obtained from Hunter’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski.
“They showed that Hunter was seeking to cash in on his name via a business deal with a Shanghai-based company with ties to the Chinese government and military. One email noted that the deal envisioned ‘10 held by H for the big guy,’ whom Bobulinski identified as Joe Biden,” according to the Journal editors.
What might Beijing have gotten for its money? In May 2019, Biden was busy denying that China was a threat, against sentiment in both parties.
“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man … they can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the east, I mean in the west.” Biden said. “They can’t figure out how they’re going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they’re not, they’re not competition for us.”
Not bad folks? The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) runs the country with an iron fist, to the point of a triple genocide against Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Falun Gong. The CCP has been capturing territory from neighboring governments since the 1930s, including all of China in 1949 and a claim to the entire South China Sea in 2009. Since 2016, the regime of Xi Jinping has threatened war against the United States, Australia, Taiwan, and the Philippines.
Even the leftist Washington Post news team, which edited out Biden’s east-west gaff, confessed that it was perplexed about which mountains the presidential hopeful referred to.
Then, in February, Biden tried to divert concerns about China’s military competition with the United States into a fear over infrastructure competition. He apparently didn’t want to significantly increase military spending to defend against China, so he tried to reframe the competition as one over infrastructure.
While the United States is busy building, say, $2 trillion worth of solar-lighted roads across the nation, with imported Chinese concrete, steel, and silicon, China would be using the money it made from us to build amphibious assault vehicles for an attack on Taiwan, and hundreds of silos for nuclear missiles that could reach the U.S. mainland.
“If we don’t get moving, they are going to eat our lunch,” Biden said of China. “They’re investing billions of dollars dealing with a whole range of issues that relate to transportation, the environment, and a whole range of other things. We just have to step up.”
The money that China was investing in the environment, at the time, was in coal-fired power plants. Was Biden trying to get the United States to compensate for China’s pollution by building costly solar farms at the expense of the American taxpayer?
Biden had proposed, during the campaign, a $2 trillion infrastructure package to be spent over four years, including on jobs and clean energy. In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which could be biased given their profession, estimated the existence of an “infrastructure gap” in the United States of $2 trillion. They claimed that the economy would lose twice that amount if these funds were not invested.
Be that as it may, The Wall Street Journal was the only mainstream news source that took Hunter’s emails seriously at the time of the election. They wrote of the New York Post’s vindication this month: “A press that was interested in telling the truth about both candidates would have pressed to confirm the Post’s story and examined the emails for themselves.
“Instead, they rose nearly as one to denounce the Post and claim without evidence that the emails might have been Russian disinformation. That was a sorry repeat of the Russia collusion narrative from 2016, which the press flogged for more than two years but we now know was concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign.”
In the same opinion, the Journal’s editors allege that the FBI colluded with Clinton’s campaign in 2016, which is “cause for even more Americans to assume that the U.S. intelligence community is a partisan interest group that can’t be trusted. This is damaging to those institutions and the country.”
John Solomon, at the time writing for The Hill, also argued that the FBI colluded with Democrats during the 2016 election. If true, this should be taken seriously. The FBI must maintain its neutrality between the parties in order to maintain its integrity and legitimacy in the eyes of the American citizen.
However, tendentious arguments to “abolish the FBI” go so far as to be ludicrous. The FBI serves critical counter-intelligence and law enforcement functions that maintain the stability of the world’s most powerful democracy. Such arguments may be taking an extreme position in order to get the attention of political leadership, but they are the height of irresponsibility, and play into the hands of the world’s most powerful dictators, including Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.
But neither are Democrats blameless. They fuel such arguments by ignoring the FBI’s lapses and claiming that evidence of Biden’s China corruption doesn’t matter. They deflect blame by pointing to President Donald Trump’s own alleged transgressions, for example, payments by foreign governments to Trump-branded hospitality businesses.
The truth is that both parties compete so strenuously as to have a legalized corruption problem. To win elections, politicians need money and support, which they can seek from big corporations, government insiders, and powerful dictators such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.
To fix the problem, we need bipartisan electoral reform, which removes the influence of foreign money and powerful interests from election campaigns of either party, including through American intermediaries. We need laws that forbid high government officials from using their office, and the revolving door between government and industry, to enrich themselves and their families.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.