The Badges of Biden Bribery
by John D. O’Connor
The following is an article originally published on PJ Media. Read it HERE.
__________________
Contrary to mainstream media pundits, it is far from true that there is “no evidence” of Joe Biden’s corrupt influence peddling, if what we know is critically examined.
Any prosecutor will tell you that, unlike in the Rodney King and George Floyd cases, direct, conclusive testimony, such as video or pictorial evidence, is rarely to be expected in “white collar” cases where the key issue is criminal intent. Indeed, even murder cases such as that of O.J. Simpson and Alex Murdaugh relied primarily on circumstantial evidence to prove guilt. No pictures showed the crime, in other words, and no one testified to witnessing it.
As Representative James Comer releases new and damning information each week about Biden family corruption, many Biden critics are still hoping for “smoking gun” proof to seal the deal. But while new details would add to the case, there is already a critical mass of evidence sufficient to prove Biden’s guilt in the court of public opinion, and it only hurts perception to hope for an elusive form of proof that will never present itself.
Let’s first distinguish evidence we have for public consumption, but would likely not be offered in any impeachment or criminal trial. A tested, verified confidential human source has revealed that Burisma’s Mykola Zlochevsky admitted to being forced — that is, extorted — to bribe Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each to fire anti-Burisma Prosecutor Viktor Shokin. According to this reliable source, Zlochevsky claimed to have made recordings of both Hunter and Joe. While an impeachment trial is highly unlikely at this late date in Biden’s term, is this evidence dependable for purposes of public opinion? Certainly.
Of course, much more is clearly shown through available witnesses and records. Let’s start with widely known circumstantial evidence.
Hunter and Joe were both on several lengthy Air Force Two trips to corrupt foreign countries. If Biden was, as his supporters protest, not involved with Hunter’s business, wouldn’t he have been a tiny bit curious as to why Hunter’s business interests, whatever they may be, were taking him to the same dens of corruption where Joe was the American “point man?” It is impossible to believe, even without any emails or pictures, that Joe would not know that Hunter’s business was selling Joe’s influence, since this is the only value that Hunter had to offer in these countries. Biden’s likely awareness is cemented by a multi-hour White House meeting between Joe and Hunter’s partner Devon Archer in April 2014, as Archer and Hunter were pitching the corrupt Burisma for lucrative retentions. Of course Joe knew their business. The bigger question is whether Joe had recruited Hunter to be his bag man, as opposed to Hunter dragging his dad along, wittingly or otherwise. Why would Joe spend his valuable time with Archer if not seeking advantage?
Has there been evidence that Joe was working with Hunter? Yes. The final leg of this proof is the twenty-plus speakerphone confabs with Hunter and his clients. While one would expect no direct corrupt talk at such conferences, what was important about these calls was Joe’s demonstration that he was at Hunter’s beck and call. These calls, in short, were proof to clients that Hunter could deliver his dad. The purpose of the confabs was obvious: they were marketing calls.
But how can we say that in fact Joe delivered for Hunter’s corrupt clients? That question is nailed down by the impulsive Vice President’s direct admission that he extorted, by withholding foreign aid, the firing of Ukraine Prosecutor Viktor Shokin, after Shokin had raided Zlochevsky’s home. While most know of this firing, few media accounts have followed its sequelae. Several cases against Burisma, worth hundreds of millions of dollars in potential recoveries for Ukraine, were quietly settled for the nominal sum of $7 million after the cases were reassigned from the Prosecutor’s office to NaBu, a newly formed, supposed anti-corruption entity. NaBu (the National Anti-Corruption Bureau) was advised by a delegate from James Comey’s FBI. Was there any connection here to Joe Biden? Not unless Comey was a sneaky partisan — which, come to think of it, he was.
Of course, there is other dramatic evidence. After UK authorities seized $23 million embezzled from Burisma by Zlochevsky on its way to Cyprus in 2014, all that the British Magistrate needed was a statement from the Ukraine Prosecutor’s office that the money needed to be returned. To the Court’s frustration, no one from Ukraine sent that message, amid reports of fear of Biden’s wrath.
Meanwhile, another Hunter client, Igor Kolomoisky, of PrivatBank as well as Burisma, looted PrivatBank for approximately $5.6 billion, most to be reflated by foreign aid, including $1.8 billion of direct theft by Kolomoisky shell companies directed to their accounts in Cyprus.
So we have clear, constant access by Hunter to his father, seemingly on a moment’s notice, and policy favoring Hunter’s clients. To this, we could add Biden’s inexplicable softness to Chinese aggression, the prominent spy balloon only being the most dramatic, as well as seemingly easy approvals of energy sales to CEFC, the corrupt Chinese government energy arm.
Up to this point in the proof, Biden’s media supplicants can offer the lame defense that, grieving over his deceased son Beau, Joe was “blind” to Hunter’s machinations, which any other sentient human being would have been instantly aware of. But this weak argument would melt away with any proof that Joe benefited monetarily. If so, this would be game, set, and match in favor of Biden bribery and attendant extortion.
Is there proof of monetary gain? Well, we have the FD-1023 report of a $5 million payment to Joe from Burisma for firing Shokin. But even if this were questionable, how can one explain the shell companies, run through Biden associate Rob Walker, transferring large amounts of cash to nine of Joe’s relatives, none of whom provided any arguable services either to Ukraine or Chinese clients? So far, at least $1 million in such payments have been verified, although seventeen million dollars in payments, ultimate destinations still under investigation, was sent in total to Biden-connected entities.
There’s more. Hunter wrote to his daughter with the candid admission that he shared half of his fees with his father. Why would be write this if it weren’t true? This is a solid confession by a co-conspirator, admissible as evidence against his father.
It has also been reliably reported that Hunter paid his father $50,000 per month to stay at his house, a sum far above the market — indeed, one would think a son would normally crash at his father’s house for free. There is also clear evidence that Biden confidant Eric Schwerin was comingling Joe’s and Hunter’s bank accounts, with net outflows from Hunter to Joe.
We have influence being peddled, with great sums certified as being paid to Hunter and considerable amounts going to Joe via relatives. We have policy decisions and/or influence that protected Hunter’s Ukrainian clients and also a very soft policy toward China, including permissions to CEFC, a Chinese government arm, to purchase oil and gas assets. Recall that Hunter emailed a CEFC official, noting that his father was sitting next to him and demanding $5 million which was owed. This is around the time during which Hunter associate Tony Bobulinski spoke of Hunter holding a 10% interest in a CEFC deal for the “big guy.” Whether Joe was actually there or not during the email, certainly the client believed that he was in on the deal, failing which Hunter’s threats would have been empty.
So, the Biden bribery case is made, with reasonable certitude, per the above. But we would not wish to leave the subject without pointing to confirming evidence of criminal intent, as defined by federal jury instructions. False exculpatory statements may be admitted as evidence of a guilty mind, under federal instructions; this is precisely how we should view Joe’s adamant, longstanding, but egregiously false claim that he never talked with Hunter about his business. Entertaining at Café Milano and “selling” Hunter’s clients via speakerphone confabs should qualify as business talks. And are we to believe that Joe’s dinner with Hunter’s corrupt sponsors contained no talk of their wish lists from the United States? Many of us were born at night, but not last night. When Joe Biden met with Hunter’s partner Devon Archer for hours in the White House in April 2014, as the two younger men were pitching Burisma, maybe, just maybe, they talked business.
Moreover, Biden’s conduct is marked by “structuring,” that is, deceptive, opaque, disguised money trails, often a method of money laundering. If it weren’t criminally inculpatory evidence, why would Biden associates hide payments to Joe’s relatives through an elaborate maze of LLCs and many offshore accounts? This structuring is, again, evidence of a guilty mind. And hiding that structuring even more so.
It is too late in the day for impeachment talk beyond that involving an “inquiry,” and Republicans would in any case be accused of politicizing the process, a great irony.
It is not clear that, during any such impeachment action, the proof must be rendered “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but that question is academic since no impeachment is likely. But in the court of public opinion, most, if not all, would conclude the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or that at the very least, the evidence is extremely strong. While other shoes will likely continue to drop, the case now has been made that there is an abundance of strong evidence, as opposed to the “no evidence” refrain chirped by those media commentators in the tank for the most transparently corrupt President in American history.
Even these media acolytes, sensing a defeat in 2024 if this disabled, compromised President is nominated, are beginning to sense reality, and realize that the “no evidence” refrain should be saved for a desperate criminal defense attorney, and not employed by the leader of the free world. Soon these media pundits will in effect be yelling, “Gavin Newsom, get to the bullpen and start warming up! Our starting pitcher is getting shelled.”
__________________
John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books, Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened.