Connect with us

International

Impeachement report lays out President Biden’s alleged offenses

Published

7 months ago

7 minute read

From The Center Square

By

“The Biden family, with the help and knowledge of the president, used the Biden family name around the world to rake in nearly $30 million from overseas entities in Ukraine, China, Romania and elsewhere in secretive influence deals.”

President Joe Biden committed impeachable offenses in his role in his family’s alleged overseas business dealings, a newly released report from the U.S. House Ways and Committee alleges.

“As described in this report, the Committees have accumulated evidence demonstrating that President Biden has engaged in impeachable conduct,” the report said.

The 291-page report lays out in detail what have at times been murky allegations against the president.

House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., helped spearhead the investigation, uncovering and laying out evidence. He and Republicans on the impeachment committee argue that the Biden family, with the help and knowledge of the president, used the Biden family name around the world to rake in nearly $30 million from overseas entities in Ukraine, China, Romania and elsewhere in secretive influence deals.

“In order to obscure the source of these funds, the Biden family and their associates set up shell companies to conceal these payments from scrutiny,” the report said. “The Biden family used proceeds from these business activities to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Joe Biden—including thousands of dollars that are directly traceable to China.”

Biden has brushed off questions about his involvement in a scheme being highlighted in the Republicans’ report. The administration has yet to release a formal response in reaction to the report.

A key question in the investigation has been, even if Hunter Biden and others monetized the “Biden brand,” how much did the president really know or participate?

“Witnesses acknowledged that Hunter Biden involved Vice President Biden in many of his business dealings with Russian, Romanian, Chinese, Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian individuals and companies,” the report said. “Then-Vice President Biden met or spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign business associates, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia, and Kazakhstan. As a result, the Biden family has received millions of dollars from these foreign entities.”

The president has repeatedly brushed off these allegations, and so far Republicans have not gotten the needed votes to make impeachment a serious threat.

From the report:

First and foremost, overwhelming evidence demonstrates that President Biden participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family. Among other aspects of this conspiracy, the Biden family and their business associates received tens of millions of dollars from foreign interests by leading those interests to believe that such payments would provide them access to and influence with President Biden. As Vice President, President Biden actively participated in this conspiracy by, among other things, attending dinners with his family’s foreign business partners and speaking to them by phone, often when being placed on speakerphone by Hunter Biden. For example, in 2014, Vice President Biden attended a dinner for Hunter Biden with Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina.4 Following the dinner, Baturina wired $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a firm associated with Hunter Biden. Then, months later, as Hunter Biden and his business associates continued to solicit more money from Baturina, Vice President Biden participated in a phone call with Baturina and Hunter Biden where Vice President Biden told Baturina, “you be good to my boy.” Moreover, President Biden knowingly participated in this conspiracy. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is inconceivable that President Biden did not understand that he was taking part in an effort to enrich his family by abusing his office of public trust.

“The Biden-Harris Administration has lied to the American people time and again to cover up and obstruct the investigation into tax crimes committed by a Biden family business enterprise that capitalized on political power,” Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement. “The American people have been shocked to learn the magnitude of the scheme going back to the President’s time as Vice President, when Biden family members were allowed to use Air Force Two as their own private business jet.

“None of this would have come to light had it not been for the two IRS whistleblowers who were tired of watching their investigation into the President’s son become obstructed, delayed, and denied the ability to move forward as the pursuit of truth demanded,” he added.

The whistleblowers in question are Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley and Criminal Investigator Joseph Ziegler, two IRS employees with nearly three decades of combined federal experience.

Those whistleblowers came forward and testified before Congress about Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes, saying that this case was unlike any other. One whistleblower testified that the Biden administration interfered in the investigation to protect Hunter and prevent a raid at the president’s Delaware home.

Earlier this year, Hunter, who still faces tax charges Biden was found guilty on federal gun charges.

President Biden has said he will not pardon his son.

Whether Biden falling out of favor with his own party in the presidential election will change that trajectory remains to be seen.

“Americans now know Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ the Bidens sold around the world to enrich the Biden family, and Joe Biden knew of, benefitted from, and participated in his family’s influence peddling schemes,” Comer said in a statement. “The entire Biden influence peddling model relied on Joe Biden’s presence—at meetings, on the phone, or at dinners—to demonstrate his family members’ influence over him, and he repeatedly provided it.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 7 hours ago

Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?

National / 8 hours ago

No enthusiasm, no movement—just media spin trying to sell a Liberal comeback that doesn’t exist

Business / 10 hours ago

We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?

International

Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?

Published on March 10, 2025

By

A guest post by

Matt Taibbi and Racket Staff

Subscribe

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock this week, on entering a “new era of nefariousness”:

I say clearly and across the Atlantic, what is right and what is wrong shall never be irrelevant to us. No one wants and no one needs peace more than the Ukrainians and Ukraine. The diplomatic efforts of the U.S. are of course important here. But such a peace must be just and lasting and not just a pause until the next attack… We will never accept a perpetrator-victim reversal. A perpetrator-victim reversal would be… the end of security for the vast majority of countries. And it would be fatal for the future of the United States.

Baerbock’s declaration that a “perpetrator-victim reversal” (a Täteropferumkehr, I’m reliably informed) would be “fatal” to the U.S. was historic. It was accompanied by a promise that “as transatlantacists,” Europeans must “stand up for our own interests, our own values, and our own security.” Although new leaders are ready to take the reins in Germany, she said, there can be no waiting for the transfer of power. Immediately, “Germany must take the lead at this historic milestone.”

A few years ago Baerbock pleaded for patience with a British conservative who demanded to know why Germany wasn’t providing Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

Now, with Donald Trump cutting off weapons deliveries and shutting down access to ATACMS missiles, Baerbock’s speech is an expression of more enthusiastic European support for continued fighting.

The war in Ukraine is often called a proxy conflict between Russia and the West or Russia and the U.S., but it increasingly looks more like a fight between Baerbock’s “transatlanticists” and those who believe in “spheres of influence.” In preparing Racket’s accompanying “Timeline: The War in Ukraine,” I found both sides articulated this idea repeatedly.

In January, 2017, as he was preparing to relinquish his seat to Mike Pence, Joe Biden alluded to the recent election of Donald Trump in a speech at Davos. Describing the “dangerous willingness to revert to political small-mindedness” of “popular movements on both the left and right,” Biden explained:

We hear these voices in the West—but the greatest threats on this front spring from the distinct illiberalism of external actors who equate their success with a fracturing of the liberal international order. We see this in Asia and the Middle East… But I will not mince words. This movement is principally led by Russia.

Biden even then lumped Trump and Putin together, as enemies of the “liberal international order.” Russian counterparts like Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, spoke of a “post-West world order” where diplomatic relations would be based on “sovereignty” and the “national interests of partners.” These are two fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews. Was conflict inevitable, or could peace have held if Russia didn’t strike in 2022?

There’s no question who invaded whom. Hostilities began in February, 2022 with an angry speech by Vladimir Putin and bombs that landed minutes later in Ukraine. Little discussion of the “why” of the war took place in the West, however.

Phrases like “unprovoked aggression” became almost mandatory in Western coverage. Politico interviewed a range of experts and concluded that what Putin wanted was “a revanchist imperialist remaking of the globe to take control of the entire former Soviet space.” This diagnosis of Putin’s invasion as part of a Hitlerian quest for Lebensraum and a broader return to national glory might have merit, but it was also conspicuously uncontested. A differing article by University of Chicago professor John Mearshimer declaring the crisis “the West’s fault” made him, as The New Statesman just put it, “the world’s most hated thinker.” Few went there after.

Russians and Ukrainians don’t have the typical profiles of ancient warring tribes. They have a deeply intertwined history, with citizens of both countries retaining many of the same customs, jokes, and home remedies, while living in the same crumbling Soviet buildings, with fondness for the same cabbage soup and moonshine. There are huge numbers of mixed/bilingual families and many famous cultural figures (including my hero Nikolai Gogol) are claimed by both countries. They’ve fought before, but what jumped out reviewing this “Timeline” is how much it seemed that these old Slavic neighbors mostly fall out now over attitudes toward the West.

It’s hard looking back not to be struck by the superior tone of bodies like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), whose “reviews” of Ukrainian and Russian elections often read like zoological descriptions of inferior species. Same with a tsk-tsking report by a mission of visiting IMF economists in 2013, who were appalled by Ukrainian energy subsidies that were among of the few popular remnants of Soviet life.

These imperious Western assessments of childlike Slavs, and the panic and shame of some local officials before such foreign judgments, recall familiar satires in Russian literature (The Government Inspector comes to mind). Nationalists in both countries balked at this “advice,” and by the late nineties some came to the conclusion that the cost of cooperation with the West was greater than the benefit. These dynamics accelerated after the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan events of 2013-2014, which Russians still see as a West-backed coup and the beginning of the current war. Russians will say “first blood” was drawn in military operations against Donbass protesters around the same time. Those in the West will point at the 2014 annexation of Crimea as the beginning of territorial war.

The idea of Germany “taking the lead” in a war to secure the primacy of “transatlanticists” worries me more than trying to pronounce Täteropferumkehr. However, whether or not you think Baerbock is right, and a peace deal now would be a worthless “pause,” depends a lot on how you read this history. What do you think, and why?

Subscribe to Racket News. 

For the full experience, become a paying subscriber.

Share

Continue Reading

Business

Report: $128 million in federal grants spent on gender ideology

Published on March 9, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

More than $128 million of federal taxpayer money was spent on at least 341 grants to fund gender ideology initiatives under the Biden administration, according to an analysis of federal data by the American Principles Project.

In, “Funding Insanity: Federal Spending on Gender Ideology under Biden-Harris,” APP says it “found how the federal government has been spending hundreds of millions of YOUR MONEY on the Gender Industrial Complex!”

APP says it identified the grants by searching the USA Spending database. The data, which is available for free, is categorized by federal agency; notable grants are highlighted.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department awarded the greatest amount of funding totaling nearly $84 million through 60 grants.

The Department of State awarded the greatest number of grants, 209, totaling more than $14 million, according to the data.

Other agencies awarding taxpayer-funded gender ideology grants include:

  • U.S. Agency for International Development, nearly $18 million through 8 grants;
  • National Endowment for the Humanities, more than $2.6 million through 20 grants;
  • Department of Justice, $1.9 million through three grants;
  • Institute of Museum and Library Services, $1.87 million through 13 grants;
  • Department of Education, $1.67 million through two grants;
  • Department of Agriculture, $1.6 million through five grants;
  • Department of the Interior, more than 1,000,000 awarded through two grants;
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, more than $548,000 through 4 grants;
  • Inter-American Foundation, more than $490,000 through two grants;
  • National Endowment for the Arts, $262,000 through 13 grants.

APP also identified 63 federal agency contracts totaling more than $46 million that promote gender ideology. They include total obligated amounts and the number of contracts per agency.

The majority, $31 million, was awarded through USAID. The next greatest amount of $4.4 million was awarded through the Department of Defense.

The Trump administration has taken several approaches to gut USAID, which has been met with litigation. The Department of Defense and other agencies are also under pressure to cut funding and reduce redundancies.

Notable grants include:

  • $3.9 million to Key Populations Consortium Uganda for promoting “the safety, agency, well-being and the livelihoods of LGBTQI+ in Uganda;”
  • $3.5 million to Outright International for “the Alliance for Global Equality and its mission to promote LGBTQI+ people in priority countries around the world;”
  • $2.4 million to the International Rescue Committee for “inclusive consideration of sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual characteristics in humanitarian assistance;”
  • $1.9 million to the American Bar Association to “shield the LGBTQI+ population in the Western Balkans;”
  • $1.4 million for “economic empowerment of and opportunity for LGBTQI+ people in Serbia;”
  • $1.49 million to Equality for All Foundation, Jamaica to “Strengthen community support structures to upscale LGBT rights advocacy;”
  • More than $1 million to Bandhu Social Welfare Society to support gender diverse people in Bangladesh.

One of the grants identified by APP, which has since been cancelled, was $600,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Southern University Agricultural & Mechanical College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to study menstruation and menopause, including in biological men.

According to a description of the grant summary, funding would support research, extension, and teaching to address “growing concerns and issues surrounding menstruation, including the potential health risks posed to users of synthetic feminine hygiene products (FHP);” advancing research in the development of FHP that use natural materials and providing menstrual hygiene management; producing sustainable feminine hygiene sanitary products using natural fibers; providing a local fiber processing center for fiber growers in Louisiana, among others.

It states that menstruation begins in girls at roughly age 12 and ends with menopause at roughly age 51. “A woman will have a monthly menstrual cycle for about 40 years of her life averaging to about 450 periods over the course of her lifetime,” but adds: “It is also important to recognize that transgender men and people with masculine gender identities, intersex and non-binary persons may also menstruate.”

All federal funding was allocated to state agencies through the approval of Congress when it voted to pass continuing resolutions to fund the federal government and approved agency budgets.

Continue Reading

Trending

X