Connect with us


Hunter Biden remains under criminal investigation after paying off $1 million tax liability



joe biden and hunter biden

President Joe Biden’s son Hunter has paid off a huge tax liability, but remains under investigation for a “wide-ranging examination of his international business dealings.” The New York Times published a lengthy piece detailing just how much is going on in Hunter’s financial affairs.

“Hunter Biden told associates in recent months that he paid the federal taxes that had been the subject of Justice Department scrutiny. He told one associate that the tax liability was more than $1 million, and that he had to take out a loan to pay it off” reports the Times.

For two years, federal prosecutors in Delaware have issued numerous subpoenas relating to Hunter’s work abroad. And although Hunter has paid off his taxes, there is still much to uncover about his business transactions around the world. Although criminal charges against him remain, tax law experts say the fact that he has paid his debt may make juries and judges more sympathetic to a defendant who has paid their bills.

“As recently as last month, the federal grand jury heard testimony in Wilmington, Del., from two witnesses, one of whom was a former employee of Hunter Biden whose lawyer was later subpoenaed for financial records that reflected money Mr. Biden received from a Ukrainian energy company” writes the Times.

The investigation against Hunter began as a tax inquiry under the Obama administration and “widened in 2018 to include possible criminal violations of tax laws, as well as foreign lobbying and money laundering rules, according to the people familiar with the inquiry.”

One of the hurdles prosecutors face in bringing a charge against Hunter is being able to prove he purposely violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, “which requires disclosure to the Justice Department of lobbying or public relations assistance on behalf of foreign clients.”

However, there are emails in which “Mr. Biden displayed a familiarity with FARA, and a desire to avoid triggering it.” Another factor is prosecutors typically fight to keep jurors from knowing whether defendants have paid their back tax bills, arguing that the crime happens when the return is falsely filed or not filed at all. Due to the nature of Hunter Biden’s family and presidential power, prosecutors do not have the luxury of keeping much, if anything, private.

Hunter’s own father, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, also oversees the Justice Department which is carrying out the investigation.

You may like

Continue Reading


  1. Andy McManus Sr

    March 18, 2022 at 10:33 am

    Yea, so Obiden oversees the D.O.J. that may prosecute Hunter. What could possibly go wrong?

  2. Harry B. Davis Jr.

    March 18, 2022 at 4:58 pm

    If Hunter has committed a crime, I expect him to be held accountable for his actions just as the rest of us American citizens would be. I do however have my doubts, especially after seeing that Jussie Smollett only served five days out of 150. Our country cannot function as it should while a two-tiered justice system is in place.

  3. Erleebird

    March 19, 2022 at 11:52 am

    Isn’t it amazing that Hunter Biden paid $1M taxes on money he claims he never had!

  4. JayA

    March 19, 2022 at 7:37 pm

    He had to borrow a million dollars after al the payoff he received from foreign countries? Guess the “Big Guy” didn’t trust him for a loan out of his 10%. Or perhaps he knew it would go up in smoke!

  5. Terry Hagedorn

    March 19, 2022 at 8:06 pm

    I used to think that an FBI investigation meant something serious. However, now I know that an FBI investigation is a black hole from which no truth or light can escape.

  6. Sad4theUS

    March 20, 2022 at 2:23 am

    Everyone knows Biden has dementia and yet he’s remained president, so I’m sure his son will be “under investigation” for a long time, with probably nothing ever being done.

  7. Alan Ray Churchill

    March 20, 2022 at 9:37 am

    The Fox is in the hen house!

  8. JIM

    March 21, 2022 at 11:13 am

    This is a prime example of our two-tiered justice system we have in America! If this had been the average Joe, he would have been charged and sent to jail and still been fined and ordered to pay restitution, and whatever else the government could stick him with! But NO, MONEY has a way of talking the language of the elite!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


WSJ: Corporate Dirty Pool in Washington’s Senate Race



GettyImages 1241869045 scaled

The Wall Street Journal’s,  Kimberly A. Strassel wrote a piece identifying how the Democrats are so worried about Washington Senator Patty Murray’s re-election “that Seattle’s corporate heavyweights are playing dirty pool on her behalf.”

Murray, a leftwing progressive, has faced little competition while in office; until now. Tiffany Smiley, a Republican nurse and entrepreneur “is pummeling Ms. Murray from every direction and laying out her own detailed reform agenda” adds the WSJ.

A RealClearPolitics average has Ms. Murray winning by 8 points. Another poll has Smiley within 2 points. Regardless, It’s close enough that “Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently transferred $500,000 of his own campaign cash to Ms. Murray’s campaign.”

Money from Schumer isn’t the only liberal panic dough. “Starbucks, the Seattle Times and the Seattle Seahawks—are actively attempting to sabotage the Smiley campaign, albeit in a distinctly underhanded fashion” writes the WSJ. “Their targets are two effective Smiley campaign ads.”

At the center of the fight are two of Smiley’s ads: “Game Day” and “Cup of Coffee.”

Strassel reports:

In “Game Day” the Republican is in a kitchen preparing to watch a football game, hitting Ms. Murray and Democrats for the spiraling cost of food. In “Cup of Coffee,” she stands in front of a derelict building. Barely visible at the top, and seen backward, is the store’s faded Starbucks sign. Ms. Smiley hits Ms. Murray for rising crime, while the ad flashes two Seattle Times headlines, one of which reads: “Starbucks to Close 5 Seattle Stores Over Safety Concerns.”

“Game Day” hit the airwaves Sept 1. Five days later, according to documents I obtained, the Smiley campaign received a terse email from the Seahawks claiming a trademark violation. The ad briefly shows Ms. Smiley’s husband, Scotty—a retired U.S. Army Ranger who was blinded by shrapnel in Iraq—expressing alarm that “even beer” prices are rising. You only see his shoulders above a tall couch—and if you get a magnifying glass you might make out a letter or two from the word “Seahawks.” The letter insisted the Smiley campaign “immediately cease” its “unauthorized commercial use.” Nothing like your local sports franchise dumping cease-and-desist orders on wounded veterans.

“Cup of Coffee” went live on Sept. 20. The next day, the Seattle Times sent an email to the “Jane Smiley” campaign—apparently without running it past its fact-checking desk—accusing it of “unauthorized use of The Seattle Times logo and two headlines” in violation of the paper’s “copyright and trademark.” It demanded the campaign remove any references to the paper not only in its own ad, but in an NBC News article about the ad’s launch.

Two days later, Starbucks sent a certified letter saying the campaign was appropriating its intellectual property, and complaining it might “create an unfounded association in the minds of consumers between Starbucks and your campaign.” It insisted the campaign either pull the ad or alter it to strip both the (barely visible, backward) sign and the Seattle Times headline referencing Starbucks.

One such letter may be the product of an overzealous lawyer, but three in a row looks like more than a coincidence. One might even wonder if some Murray staffer was putting bugs in Seattle business leaders’ ears. And while corporate political-action committees routinely play politics by making donations, it’s something else for individual companies to go to bat for a candidate via behind-the-scenes threats based on tenuous legal claims. These letters were bound to cost the Smiley campaign money and headaches and might have pushed it off the airwaves.

The campaign didn’t roll over. It made a painless accommodation to the “Game Day” ad, blurring the jersey colors to obscure anything distinct. In a legal letter sent Thursday to Starbucks, the campaign rebutted the company’s infringement claims, running through political speech protections and noting that no reasonable person would ever think a factual ad about shuttered Starbucks stores amounted to a coffee-chain endorsement. It suggested Starbucks focus on its own problems, like its recent union woes.

The Seattle Times also received a letter refuting its claims, but it got something in addition. The Smiley campaign on Thursday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint, charging the paper with providing the Murray campaign a prohibited in-kind contribution. It turns out that Ms. Murray has also used a Seattle Times headline in her ads. Her “First 2016 Ad” sports the newspaper’s logo under the headline: “Patty Murray’s and Paul Ryan’s Teamwork Is a Model for Congress.” It seems the Times has a different legal standard for candidates it endorses.

As the FEC complaint notes, the Smiley campaign would have to spend an estimated $5,000 to remove and update the ad—“costs that Patty Murray does not have to accrue.” It cites FEC regulations that provide “if a corporation makes its resources available for free, it must do so for all candidates.”

Don’t expect the Seattle corporate set to do anything on behalf of Ms. Smiley soon. But it shouldn’t be too much to ask that they do their politicking straight—and out in the open.

You may like

Continue Reading

Trending Now



Proudly Made In America | © 2022 M3 Media Management, LLC