CBS’ Catherine Herridge broke down a fascinating Biden bank record that the House Oversight Committee posted on Wednesday.
The bank record was a 2018 email purportedly written by a money laundering investigator who was raising questions about money flowing into accounts connected to Hunter Biden.
Bank record from @GOPoversight probe of Hunter Biden, Biden family foreign business deals. Described as email from money laundering investigator,“payments appear erratic,” “does not appear to have any services rendered,” “no current business purpose,’ + “China target[s] children… pic.twitter.com/j6fITq3ozF— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) November 30, 2023
The email termed the entity “high risk.” It noted that $5 million from the Northern International Capital Holdings (HK) funded 16 wires connected to Owasco PC, Hunter Biden’s law firm. The payments were indicated as “management fees and reimbursements.” It says that they found it unusual that 58 percent of the funds went to the law firm in the course of just a few months. “Payments appear erratic” and this despite the fact Hudson West III LLC didn’t appear to have any current investment projects. So there was no current apparent business purpose. There also were no services rendered by the law firm, the email said.
The email also noted there was negative news about extravagant spending by the “beneficial owner of Owasco PC,” Hunter Biden including “drugs, strip clubs, prostitutes, etc.” that could leave his family in a financial hole.
Perhaps one of the most interesting things in the email highlighted news about a threat from China, “China targeting the children of politicians and purchase of political influence through sweetheart deals.”
Specifically Hunter Biden’s $1.5 billion deal with the Chinese-State to establish a private equity firm, in which they manage the funds over time and make huge fees. The management company’s purpose is to invest in companies that benefit Chinese government. Thus, the activity of the account appears unusual with no current business purpose…
The email concluded that it might require a “re-evaluation” of the “relationship with the customer.”
The Democrats were desperate to jump to Hunter’s defense, trying to point to other emails to claim that this was “reasonable.”
But as the GOP pointed out there was a problem with this defense.
There are thousands of pages of suspicious activity reports at Treasury from several banks that raise the same concerns as this bank’s money laundering investigator. This isn’t a one off incident. The Democrats know that, and it’s embarrassing they continue to defend this corrupt… https://t.co/m9lUETtsgc— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) November 30, 2023
There are thousands of pages of suspicious activity reports at Treasury from several banks that raise the same concerns as this bank’s money laundering investigator. This isn’t a one off incident. The Democrats know that, and it’s embarrassing they continue to defend this corrupt President with no intellectual honesty. In the emails Democrats reference, one says the activities are consistent with lobbying. Hunter Biden was not a registered lobbyist. The other is a summary of a Biden family associate’s defense of their corrupt schemes.
But if they want to go with what they produced — that this activity is consistent with lobbying — was Hunter Biden a registered lobbyist? Oh, that’s right he wasn’t. Are Democrats suggesting Hunter committed a FARA violation here?
Not exactly the greatest defense there.
Notice the Democrats in that post also didn’t address the concerning threat of “China targeting kids of politicians” and seeking to influence things for the benefit of the Chinese government. That question is at the crux of this case and if it involves more “kids of politicians” or others, it’s vital that we know that.
It looks like the GOP is going to have some very interesting questions to ask Hunter when he shows up on Dec. 13 to testify under subpoena. That is, if he shows up. As George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley explained, he could face grave consequences if he does not or if he does, but doesn’t tell the truth.