At a Jan. 26, 1998 White House event, with wife Hillary by his side, then-President Bill Clinton wagged his finger at reporters and said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
If not for the stains on Monica Lewinsky’s infamous “blue dress,” he would have been happy to leave it at that. But called upon to provide a blood sample for DNA testing that summer, Clinton was forced to admit to a grand jury that yes, actually, he did have “inappropriate intimate contact” with Miss Lewinsky.
In a televised address to the nation on Aug. 17, 1998, he confessed: “Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.”
Likewise, President Joe Biden has repeatedly denied having any knowledge of his son’s overseas business adventures, let alone the idea that he may have benefited financially from these deals. His emphatic denial in an October 2020 presidential debate was bolstered by a letter signed by 51 former high-ranking intelligence community officials that claimed the New York Post’s devastating story about Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
In April, House Republicans revealed that current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, then an adviser to Biden’s campaign, allegedly served as the “impetus” behind the letter.
Since then, solid evidence of Biden’s involvement in the family influence peddling business has continued to mount.
House Republicans have revealed bank records showing millions of dollars flowing through an elaborate maze of shell corporations set up by Hunter Biden and his associates and winding up in the accounts of at least nine Biden family members, including a grandchild.
Other evidence includes damning emails and text messages, the testimony of several highly credible federal whistleblowers, and an FBI 1023 report that alleges both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden received $5 million dollars each from Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder and then-CEO of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, in return for alleged political favors such as getting the prosecutor general who was investigating the company fired. We know Biden delivered on that promise because he boasted about it at a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations event.
Like Bill Clinton, Biden needs to answer the following questions (and so many more) under oath:
- Were you involved in your son’s foreign business dealings?
- Did you accept a $5 million bribe from Mykola Zlochevsky? What did you discuss during the alleged phone calls with him?
- Did you pay taxes on the money you received?
- Are you the “big guy” alluded to in the infamous email from your son’s laptop?
- Your son’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, has gone on the record to say he met with you in May 2017 at a Beverly Hills hotel ahead of a planned joint venture with Chinese energy company CEFC? Is he lying? Or are you?
Just as Clinton had no choice but to admit his improper relationship to Miss Lewinsky following the DNA match, it’s becoming more difficult for Biden’s denials to continue.
Biden has been protected by his Justice Department, the FBI, and a complicit media, advantages Clinton didn’t have in 1998. That was long before President Barack Obama and his “wingman” Eric Holder had begun their infiltration of the DOJ with progressive hirees, a campaign that spread to other government agencies during his tenure. It was also before the legacy media utterly abandoned the practice of actual journalism.
But, despite the incessant stonewalling of top-ranking DOJ, FBI, and Treasury Department officials, House Republicans have managed to put together a substantial case against Biden and they are far from done.
The truth about the Biden family business is that it’s becoming too big to hide. Although Congress lacks the authority to charge the president with a crime, lawmakers must continue to make their case to the American people who will reach a verdict of their own on Nov. 5, 2024.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.