Donald Trump Jr, unlike Hunter Biden, participates regularly in his father's political campaigns. He spoke at the RNC in 2020. He is regularly on Fox news. This makes him part of the political news in a way that Mr Biden's son simply is not.
Maybe... But Hunter traveled with his father, then VP, on Air Force Two to China in 2013 and met with senior bankers to establish a Chinese private equity fund. So at least there was a bit of commingling between his father's political affairs and his son's business ambitions. Not to mention his questionable connections in Ukraine. Or his prior work as a lobbyist.
And while I don't think the sex videos on the laptop should have been published or covered in the news, the emails about Hunter's dealings with China probably should be. But the inconsistency of the media and the social networks on this issue should be pointed out. And if Don Jr had a laptop stolen with questionable emails about deals with Russia, I can guarantee that the media would have a field day with it (much like they did with the largely fraudulent Steele Dossier) -- not to mention the more lurid content.
> But Hunter traveled with his father, then VP, on Air Force Two to China in 2013 and met with senior bankers to establish a Chinese private equity fund.
This is exactly the kind of sentence which is technically true but worded in a way to make it sound like it says more than "Hunter took a plane trip with his dad in 2013."
- Biden was VP for 8 years. Is he not supposed to travel with his kids during that time?
- "Air Force Two" is the term used for any plane the VP is on. Anyone flying with the VP is on Air Force Two.
- Hunter Biden, and only Hunter Biden, met with the Chinese bankers. Joe Biden had no contact with the bankers, involvement in the meeting, or financial involvement with the fund before or after.
- The emails in question were from 2017, after Joe Biden was no longer VP.
- While the emails may be questionable, there is no evidence of Joe Biden's involvement in any part of the deal during or after his time as VP.
Flying with your dad, Vice President of the United State, to raise a billion dollars from senior party members from an adversarial country isn't a good look.
Taking a well-paid board seat on a Ukrainian gas company... despite knowing nothing about energy and while dad, the VP, is managing affairs with the Ukrainian government also isn't a good look.
"Just taking a trip with dad" indeed. This is clearly graft -- and condemning it should be bipartisan.
I don't expect everyone to be as pure as Obama -- but, "C'mon, Man."
Can we all agree that - sure - all those things look dodgy and most likely Hunter Biden benefited from his dad's position, but:
1) That doesn't prove Joe Biden himself benefited directly from it (that's implication all these last-minute 'stories' are trying to make)
2) So far nobody has presented a single shred of proof of anything other than hearsay and the testimony of people who seem to have a really big chip on their shoulders. In fact, the only 'recording' that has been presented is of a third party warning Bobulinski that him making a scandal out of that would affect them all (it's not Hunter Biden in the recording)
3) Tucker Carlson's dog conveniently ate his homework last night
4) The source of the story - Rudy Giuliani - seems to be severely detached from reality, to the point that he somehow fell for the simplest prank in the book and got himself into a Sacha Baron Cohen film
5) There's been so many contortions to this story - from accusations of child pornography, to all kinds of evidence that would be 'presented' but never materialized - that it's very hard to believe anything these messengers are saying anymore
This story stinks to high heaven. Did Hunter Biden benefit from his dad's position? Possibly, but the people trying to push the narrative have shat the bed so many times already I find it very hard to believe they are motivated by anything other than politics.
I'm 100% down with condemning failson grift! Let's start by instituting 100% tax rates for inheritance or gifts over idk, 100k, and making legacy university admissions illegal. For me it's a "nonpartisan" question not because it spans R vs. D but because the largest fundamental faults that cause it are so divorced from any one candidate or party it can only be seen as a partisan campaign tactic if someone tries to make it about a specific person.
