LOL: The White House Unconvincingly Pretends Hunter Didn’t Make Money Off Red China

Recently, Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson introduced definitive proof of Hunter Biden’s business ties to China, introducing a receipt showing that Hunter’s firm was paid $100,000 CCP-tied firm. During that exposition, Senator Johnson said:



“we’re presenting additional evidence today and over the next few days. For example, this is the first time this document is being made public. It shows that money from CEFC – which is effectively an arm of the Chinese Government – went directly to Hunter Biden.

Senator Grassley, jumping in to describe CEFC, the company with which Hunter’s firm was allegedly doing business, said:

CEFC operated under the guise of a private company but was for all intents and purposes an arm of the Chinese government. Hunter Biden and James Biden served as the perfect vehicle by which the communist Chinese government could gain inroads here in the United States through CEFC and its affiliates.”

So, according to that duo, Hunter took money from “an arm of the Chinese government,” making a bit of cash by working with Red China.

Additionally, even The Washington Post reversed course on the Hunter Biden story and confirmed reports that a CCP energy company paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle. That report, one regarding Hunter’s business dealings with CEFC, said that:

Will the new Press Secretary be just as awful as Jen Psaki?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle, according to government records, court documents and newly disclosed bank statements, as well as emails contained on a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden.

The Post did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or knew details about the transactions with CEFC, which took place after he had left the vice presidency and before he announced his intentions to run for the White House in 2020.

But the new documents — which include a signed copy of a $1 million legal retainer, emails related to the wire transfers, and $3.8 million in consulting fees that are confirmed in new bank records and agreements signed by Hunter Biden — illustrate the ways in which his family profited from relationships built over Joe Biden’s decades in public service.

So, in the media and legislature, it’s looking like the Biden brood’s ties to Red China are being proven: try as Biden might to pretend that his family hasn’t enriched itself by working with the CCP, report after report indicates that his family members did so. Even if he didn’t profit, it looks like his family did.

Despite that, Team Biden is standing behind Biden’s obvious lie during the third presidential debate.



You see, during the presidential debate that took place in October of 2020, Biden said that “nothing was unethical” about Hunter’s business deals and then went on to claim that “My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China.

Well, if groups as different as Senator Johnson and the Washington Post are to be believed, that looks like the opposite of the truth.

So, NBC’s Kristen Welker, the moderator of the third debate, the debate where Biden made that claim, asked the White House communications director, Kate Bedingfield, whether Team Biden stood by the claim that Hunter hadn’t made money off the Red Chinese.

Replying, Bedingfield said “We absolutely stand by the president’s comment.

Despite multiple other questions about Hunter, Bedingfield refused to say anything more about Hunter. Still, with that one reply she indicated that Team Biden is standing by the lie.

By: Gen Z Conservative, editor of GenZConservative.com. Follow me on Parler and Gettr.

Notice: This article may contain commentary that reflects the author's opinion.