LISTEN HERE:
Last week, the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, James Comer of Kentucky, disclosed a matter of public interest that involves President Joe Biden and a $40,000 transaction. The narrative was prefaced with a reminder about a statement made by Biden during the 2020 presidential debates.
Biden had emphatically assured the American populace that his son, Hunter, had not conducted any money-making operations in China, a claim later revealed as incorrect.
It appears, as per Comer’s disclosure, that President Biden, in addition to his son, had some notable financial implications tied to Hunter’s dealings.
The roots of this narrative take us back to the balmy days of the 2017 summer when Hunter seemed to have been engaged in some rigorous correspondence with a high-ranking official of the Chinese firm identified as CEFC.
Hunter sought the executive’s assistance with a certain financial transfer. An associate of Hunter’s, and Joe Biden himself, was pointedly requested by Hunter to inform the executive of the urgent need for a transfer of $10 million into his account. The request was embellished with an implied consequence of potentially turning against the executive – a veiled threat perhaps – if the demand was not met.
While the full amount wasn’t immediately procured, there was a quick response. Hunter received $5 million in his account, courtesy of an associate firm of CEFC. What followed over the next few weeks was an intricate series of transactions initiated by the Bidens. This series of strategic moves appeared designed to obscure the trail of the funds.
The $5 million received was promptly channeled into Hudson West III. If the name rings a bell, it is because Hudson West III is a joint venture established by Hunter Biden and an associate from CEFC. The venture seemed to serve as a holding space for the funds before they were further distributed.
From this lump sum at Hudson West III, a substantial amount of $400,000 was transferred to another entity: Hunter’s own firm, Owasco P.C. Thus, it seems at every stage the incoming funds were swiftly relocated, hardly resting before being injected into a new venture or account.
Next in this chain of financial reallocations was a notable sum of $150,000 from Owasco P.C. This was channeled into a group known as the Lion Hall Group. Ownership of this seemingly obscure group is traced back to President Biden’s brother, James Biden, and his wife, Sara Biden.
Sara Biden didn’t just sit on the transferred funds. She took the initiative to move these funds yet again, withdrawing a cool sum of $50,000 in cash. Before suspicions could be aroused about the cash withdrawal, action was swiftly taken to redirect them.
A check was subsequently drawn from these funds for an amount totaling $40,000. For further context, the check was marked with ‘loan repayment’ in the memo segment. It’s at this juncture that President Biden’s name re-enters the narrative, for he was the recipient of this check.
Clearly, there seems to be a number of questions that arise from the disclosed transactions and financial maneuvers. Particularly interesting is the fact that the much-contested $40,000 ended up in the hands (or account) of President Biden, despite his assurances regarding his and his family’s involvement with Chinese money during his campaign.
The news of the disclosed transactions raises eyebrows and could potentially become another stick for his opposition to beat him with. While it remains to be seen how this unfolds, it’s evident that the transactions certainly add another layer of complexity to President Biden’s already scrutinized financial history.
However, the main concern remains the integrity of the statements made by public figures, especially those in high-ranking positions. The revelation of this $40,000 directed to President Biden stands in stark contrast to his previous assertions regarding his family’s financial interactions with China.
Hence, similar to any tale involving large transfer of funds and political circles, the core narrative sparks numerous questions. While the promised investigation may reveal more, it’s imperative to ensure transparency to maintain the public’s trust. Regardless of the outcomes, it prompts an important conversation about political accountability and financial transparency.
Still, one must wait for the final results from the official investigation before drawing conclusions. While James Comer has brought this issue to the forefront, a thorough probe will provide necessary context and potentially frame the narrative in a different light. Until then, it serves as a reminder about the importance of political integrity and the elevated expectations the public has for their elected leaders.
