The White House on June 23 declined to comment on whistleblower allegations suggesting that President Joe Biden may have been involved in his son’s Chinese business dealings.
The message was for Henry Zhao, a Chinese business associate of Hunter’s who has close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
In the message, Hunter Biden appears to be demanding payment from Zhao.
“I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” the younger Biden wrote, according to Shapley’s testimony. He then expressed the wish to “resolve this before it got out of hand.”
“Now means tonight,” Biden said, warning that if anyone other than Zhao, “Zhang, or the chairman” tried to reach out about the matter, “I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.
“I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
If true, this information would contradict Biden’s oft-repeated claim that he has never discussed, or been involved in, his son’s business ventures. In 2019, Biden said, “I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else—even distant family—about their business interests. Period.”
When White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and spokesperson for White House National Security Council John Kirby were pressed on the allegations, they deflected the questions.
James Rosen of Newsmax was the first to ask about the texts while Kirby was at the podium.
Rosen asked whether the allegations contradict Biden’s claim, repeated through the course of the 2020 election, that he was not involved in his son’s business dealings.
“No, and I’m not going to comment further on this,” Kirby said.
When Rosen tried to follow up with another question, Kirby said, “James, let me save you some breath on this.”
Rosen protested that he had further questions.
Jean-Pierre Ducks Questions
Later, after Jean-Pierre took the podium, a CNN reporter asked about the president’s decision to invite his son to a White House state dinner the same day the allegations came to light.“I’m just not gonna get into family discussions,” Jean-Pierre replied, calling the topic a “personal family discussion.”
“As you know, Hunter’s his son, I’m just not going to get into it”
“Again, that’s his son; he’s a family member. It is not uncommon for family members to attend events at the White House,” Jean-Pierre replied. “As it relates to anything related to Hunter, I’m just not gonna respond to it from up here.”
The New York Times’s Peter Baker pushed Jean-Pierre to answer Rosen’s earlier question to Kirby, saying “Kirby wouldn’t answer James’s question; are you gonna answer the question? It’s not an unreasonable question to ask if the president of the United States was involved, as this message seems to suggest, in some sort of a coercive conversation for business dealings by his son. If he wasn’t, then maybe you should tell us.”
“Here’s the thing—I appreciate the question, I believe my colleague at the White House counsel has answered this question already, has dealt with this, has made it very clear,” Jean-Pierre. “I just don’t have anything to share outside of what my colleagues have shared, and so I would refer you to him and the DOJ. Just not gonna comment from here.”
“The president and first lady love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life,” said a statement from Sams to The Epoch Times. “We will have no further comment.”
Chaos in Press Room
At this point, chaos erupted in the White House press room as several reporters—including representatives from CBS and NBC—began to speak over each other seeking a more substantive answer.“I just answered the question, I just answered the question,” Jean Pierre said above the hubbub.
“It’s not up to you how I answer the question,” she said when pressed further. “I just answered the question by telling you my colleagues at the White House counsel has [sic] dealt with this, and I would refer you to them.”
Asked by Rosen whether she would stand by her statements affirming Biden’s claim during the 2020 election that he never discussed business with his son, Jean-Pierre replied, “What I will say is that nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. And I will leave it there.”
“So this is not a change?” Rosen pressed.
“I just answered the question,” Jean-Pierre replied.
Another reporter followed up, asking the press secretary whether there was “anything [she] can say regarding this text message. ... Was the president there or not?”
Again, Jean-Pierre referred the reporter to the White House counsel.
Later, she said that she had not discussed the matter with the president.
“Do you plan to have that conversation with the president?” a reporter asked.
Hunter Biden’s Attorney Replies
While the White House has been largely tight-lipped on the issue, Hunter Biden’s attorney, Chris Clark, released a public statement on the matter.“An extensive, five-year long investigation conducted by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded this week, which resulted in my client taking responsibility for two instances of misdemeanor failure to file tax payments, as well as a firearm charge, which will be subject to a pretrial diversion agreement,” Clark said.
“As his attorney through this entire matter, I can say that any suggestion the investigation was not thorough, or cut corners, or cut my client any slack, is preposterous and deeply irresponsible.”
Clark said the investigation coincided with “a time of turmoil and addiction for my client.”
“Any verifiable words or actions of my client, in the midst of a horrible addiction, are solely his own and have no connection to anyone in his family.”
Clark protested, “Biased and politically motivated, selective leaks have plagued this matter for years. They are not only irresponsible, they are illegal.”
Clark suggested that the IRS agent Gary Shapley was a “very biased individual,” despite the whistleblower’s saying in his testimony that he had voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past.
“In the end, a fact is a fact, regardless of the political affiliation of the person who brought it to you,” Shapley testified.
Still, Clark wrote, “A close examination of the document released publicly yesterday by a very biased individual raises serious questions over whether it is what he claims it to be. It is dangerously misleading to make any conclusions or inferences based on this document.”
