WH tries to spin Chinese bank wires sent to Joe Biden's Delaware address — but Hunter's plea deal gets in the way



The White House is desperately trying to spin new allegations that President Joe Biden's Delaware residence was the beneficiary address of two Chinese payments involving Hunter Biden's overseas business.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R) revealed the bombshell allegation on Tuesday.

"On July 26, 2019, Hunter Biden received a $10,000 wire from Wang Xin. On August 2, 2019, Hunter Biden received a $250,000 wire from Jonathan Li and Tan Ling," a press release from the Overnight Committee reported. "Both wires originated in Beijing and Joe Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home is listed as the beneficiary address for both wires."

White House spokesperson Ian Sams called the new allegations "bananas."

Responding to a journalist who called the allegations a "fake, would-be gotcha" because, allegedly, Hunter was living at Biden's Delaware home in 2019, Sams responded, "Imagine them arguing that, if someone stayed at their parents' house during the pandemic, listed it as their permanent address for work, and got a paycheck, the parents somehow also worked for the employer.

"It's bananas," he declared. "Yet this is what extreme House Republicans have sunken to."

— (@)

But there's a significant problem with Sams' response.

The now-defunct plea deal that Hunter struck with federal prosecutors included a statement of facts that Hunter agreed is true when he entered into the deal. In that statement of facts, Hunter agreed that he was living on the other side of the country — in California, not Delaware — in 2019.

That document states:

After numerous programs and trips to rehab, Biden got sober in May 2019, the same month he married his current wife. He has remained sober since. Biden remained in California and spent much of Summer 2019 painting and developing plans for his memoir, which he began working on through the fall and into the winter.

Questions about the payments themselves aside, it's not clear why Joe Biden's address was used if they were meant for Hunter, especially if Hunter agreed in court, as the plea document shows, that he lived in California in the summer of 2019 — the same time the payments were sent.

Hunter also attested to his California residency at the time of the wire transfers in his memoir, the New York Post reported.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Hunter, said the Delaware address was used because that was the address on Hunter's driver's license at the time.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If Barr had the opportunity to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, then WHY didn’t he?



President Donald Trump fired Bill Barr when he thought the then-attorney general wasn’t doing enough to investigate illicit campaign activity. According to Mark Levin, this is why Barr is now “on a seek-and-destroy mission.”

“So much so that he has defended the documents case against Trump, even though if you step back and say to yourself: ‘You’re prepared to put this man in prison for the rest of his life so he dies in prison over the documents case?’ Are you kidding somebody?” Levin asks.

Barr had also refused to appoint a special counsel in the Hunter Biden scandal — and it’s coming back to haunt him.

“By not appointing a special counsel, Bill Barr in effect limited the authority of the investigation,” Levin says, before playing a clip of Barr being called out on his decision by a news anchor.

“Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now on the Hunter Biden matter, and do you regret not appointing one?” the anchor asks Barr.

Barr tells him no, he doesn’t regret it because “in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest.”

Levin isn’t buying it.

“He was appointed by Donald Trump. Hunter Biden is the son of the incoming president. That certainly creates an appearance of a conflict of interest,” Levin comments. “This is what we call bull crap,” he adds.

While Barr did not appoint a special counsel, Levin believes that as soon as a Republican is back in office, that person need to take things up a notch.

“They need to appoint a special counsel to investigate Joe Biden.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Hunter Biden almost got off scot-free — but everything changed when the IRS whistleblowers broke their silence: Report



Special counsel David Weiss was prepared to end the Hunter Biden investigation without prosecuting the first son, according to a new report. But everything changed when two brave IRS whistleblowers began speaking out.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that earlier this year, Weiss "appeared willing to forgo any prosecution of Mr. [Hunter] Biden at all, and his office came close to agreeing to end the investigation without requiring a guilty plea on any charges." The newspaper based that conclusion on more than 200 pages of correspondence between Weiss' office, Hunter Biden's lawyers, and interviews with people close to the negotiations.

But when two IRS whistleblowers went public this spring, alleging Weiss had been hamstrung by a politically motivated Justice Department, Weiss "suddenly demanded" that Hunter Biden be prosecuted, according to the Times.

What's more, both sides — Hunter Biden's attorneys and the IRS whistleblowers — agreed the whistleblowers altered the trajectory of Weiss' investigation. And Hunter Biden's lawyers want the whistleblowers to face criminal prosecution for speaking out.

From the Times:

Now, the IRS agents and their Republican allies say they believe the evidence they brought forward, at the precise time they did, played a role in influencing the outcome, a claim senior law enforcement officials dispute. While Mr. Biden’s legal team agrees that the IRS agents affected the deal, his lawyers have contended to the Justice Department that by disclosing details about the investigation to Congress, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.

"It appears that if it weren’t for the courageous actions of these whistle-blowers, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, Hunter Biden would never have been charged at all," attorneys for one of the IRS agents told the Times.

The other significant revelation from the New York Times is that Hunter Biden's now-former lead attorney, Chris Clark, drafted the controversial — and, in the eyes of U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, possibly unconstitutional — pretrial diversion agreement that would have allowed Biden to avoid prosecution for a felony gun charge.

Documents reviewed by Politico and the New York Times painted a similar picture: Hunter Biden's attorneys pressured the Justice Department not to prosecute their client because his father is President Joe Biden, one of the most powerful men on Earth. Clark even allegedly warned prosecutors that prosecuting Hunter Biden would be "career suicide."

Additionally, Hunter Biden's attorneys threatened that if their client went to trial, they would call the president to be a witness for the defense, which Clark said would result in a "constitutional crisis."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Send THIS to a Biden voter



Hunter Biden just might be the most irresponsible criminal of all time, and he isn't trying to hide it.

Leaving his laptop at a computer repair shop is among one of the self-defeating things he’s done, giving America all sorts of insights into what he — and his father — have been up to.

“You can say, ‘Oh, well, Joe Biden didn’t know any of this,’ but you can’t say there’s no evidence,” Stu Burgiere says.

And even the Washington Post is airing the receipts.

The Post brought attention to a contentious debate during which Joe Biden claimed his son made no money in China. The outlet then mentioned that in court last week, Hunter said he earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from Chinese business deals.

Then, the House GOP released bank records of the payments Hunter Biden received from Russian oligarchs and others, and the total cleared was $20 million.

Stu recalls that the response by the left and the media was to say something along the lines of, “They showed $20 million being transferred to all sorts of members of the Biden family, but not directly to Joe. Where’s the proof? Where’s the evidence of the transfer to Joe?”

“First of all, are we children here? The guy's vice president of the United States,” Stu continues. “He’s not going to get a Venmo from some Russian oligarch. That’s not how this works.”

Stu notes that while the media seems willing to sweep any foreign business dealings by the Biden Crime Family under the rug, they spent nearly all their airtime trying to take down Trump for supposedly colluding with Russia.

“This is the same media that spent years and years and years and years on Russia, with every little development every day being ‘the walls are closing in and evidence has finally come to prove all our accusations against Donald Trump,’ and that evidence never showed up,” Stu adds.


Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Hunter Biden crashed at White House for two weeks after plea deal — and most staff never knew: Report



Hunter Biden reportedly crashed at the White House for two weeks after U.S. Attorney David Weiss announced he had reached a plea deal with the first son.

On June 20, Weiss, now a special counsel, announced a sweetheart plea deal in which Hunter Biden would plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes and receive pretrial diversion for a felony gun crime. The next day after that now-defunct deal was announced, Biden went to the White House, where he stayed for two weeks.

The Washington Post reported:

The plea agreement was made public on June 20. One day later, the president and first lady welcomed houseguests from California to the White House: Hunter Biden, along with his wife and young son. They stayed for the next two weeks, according to two people familiar with the arrangement — a visit that included Hunter’s controversial appearance at a state dinner honoring the Indian prime minister, two getaways to the presidential retreat at Camp David and an Independence Day celebration.

Surprisingly, most White House staffers were unaware that Hunter Biden and his family were staying at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for two weeks.

As the Post noted, Hunter Biden's visit overlapped with the shocking discovery of cocaine near the West Executive Entrance of the White House, not far from the Situation Room. The Secret Service investigated the incident, but claimed it could not identify the person responsible for bringing the illicit substance inside one of the world's most secure buildings.

Hunter Biden and his family left the White House on July 5 after spending the Fourth of July holiday at Camp David.

Meanwhile, CNN reported on Thursday that Hunter Biden is a "sensitive topic," one that is "mostly verboten" inside the West Wing, despite the political ramifications of Hunter's legal troubles and the allegations stemming from congressional investigations

"Hunter Biden is not a topic of discussion in campaign meetings," a senior aide said told CNN. "It's just not addressed."

CNN analyst John Avlon confirmed the reporting during an appearance on "Inside Politics" Thursday.

"I've heard reports that [Biden is] very obsessed with the negative coverage of Hunter. He's concerned about it. It's an irritant and that's understandable," Avlon said. "But not one that the allies around him are going to want to raise, because it will derail a conversation into some place dark."

On Thursday, a federal judge dismissed Hunter Biden's misdemeanor tax crimes after Weiss petitioned the court to vacate the charges. Weiss, however, intends to refile the charges (and perhaps additional charges) in other jurisdictions.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Karine Jean-Pierre blunder reveals she writes Joe Biden's Tweets FOR HIM



Karine Jean-Pierre likely has one of the hardest jobs in the Biden administration — fielding questions from reporters that she cannot legitimately answer — and it may be taking a toll on her quality control.

In a since deleted tweet, Jean-Pierre wrote, “Investing in America means investing in ALL of America. When I ran for President, I made a promise that I would leave no part of the country behind.”

Had that been posted to Joe Biden’s X account, it would have made sense. But it wasn’t.

And now Americans have all been made aware that President Biden, not surprisingly, does not have the mental bandwidth or mental strength to write his own tweets.

Unfortunately for Jean-Pierre, the tweet was screenshotted and will now live on the internet forever.

“So, she obviously tweets out stuff on his behalf,” Pat Gray assesses.

“We’ve been blaming interns and stuff for really crappy tweets. It’s been her the whole time,” Keith Malinak laughs, agreeing.


Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Special counsel fires back at Hunter Biden's lawyers over latest argument as top attorney withdraws representation



Special counsel David Weiss fired back at Hunter Biden's lawyers on Tuesday, rebuking their assertion that Biden's pretrial diversion agreement is valid.

What is the background?

Last Friday, Weiss asked a federal court to vacate criminal charges against Hunter Biden because he and Biden's attorneys were "at an impasse" and "not in agreement on either a plea agreement or a diversion agreement." Weiss indicated he would file charges in other U.S. jurisdictions.

In response, Biden's attorneys accused federal prosecutors of having "renege[d]" on their deal.

They also argued in a court filing on Sunday that the controversial diversion agreement allowing the first son to avoid prosecution for a felony gun charge is valid because both parties — Biden and prosecutors — had signed it.

How did prosecutors respond?

In a court filing on Tuesday, prosecutors forcefully denied the attorneys' claims and the validity of the diversion agreement.

"The Defendant chose to plead not guilty at the hearing on July 26, 2023, and U.S. Probation declined to approve the proposed diversion agreement at that hearing," prosecutors explained. "Thus, neither proposed agreement entered into effect."

According to prosecutors, the diversion agreement was written to require the approval of the court before it took effect — one of U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika's chief concerns about it — and thus it never took effect because the court never signed it.

Indeed, Biden and prosecutors signed the diversion agreement, but Chief United States Probation Officer for the District of Delaware Margaret Bray did not.

"In sum, because Ms. Bray, acting in her capacity as the Chief United States Probation Officer, did not approve the now-withdrawn diversion agreement, it never went into effect and, therefore, none of its terms are binding on either party," prosecutors explained.

Anything else?

Meanwhile, one of Biden's top attorneys, Chris Clark, filed a motion on Tuesday to withdraw from representing the first son.

Citing Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, the court filing explained that Clark's withdrawal is necessary because the ethics rules state that "a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness."

"Based on recent developments, it appears that the negotiation and drafting of the plea agreement and diversion agreement will be contested, and Mr. Clark is a percipient witness to those issues," the filing said. "Under the 'witness-advocate' rule, it is inadvisable for Mr. Clark to continue as counsel in this case."

The development, then, foreshadows the potential of a showdown over the validity of the diversion agreement, and the increasing likelihood that Biden is heading to trial.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here

Hunter Biden's lawyers insist diversion agreement for felony gun charge is 'binding' despite plea deal collapse



Attorneys for Hunter Biden argued in a court filing on Sunday that a pretrial diversion agreement signed by federal prosecutors remains binding despite the first son's sweetheart plea deal falling apart.

In a court filing last Friday, now-special counsel David Weiss asked a federal judge to vacate charges filed against Biden in Delaware so that he could refile the charges in other jurisdictions. Weiss told the court that prosecutors and Biden's counsel were "at an impasse and are not in agreement on either a plea agreement or a diversion agreement."

But regarding the diversion agreement, that point is moot, Biden's lawyers argued.

Despite prosecutors' desire to start over, Biden's lawyers said their client "intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his counsel, and the United States" because, in their view, "the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement."

To support their argument, Biden's attorneys cited the words of federal prosecutors, who repeatedly stated at the July 26 hearing with U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika that the diversion agreement is "binding," "in effect," a "contract[] between the Government and a defendant," and separate from the plea agreement.

A copy of the diversion agreement was posted to the court docket with signatures from Biden, his attorney Chris Clark, and federal prosecutor Leo Wise. The line for the probation officer, however, was left blank.

Because diversion agreements — technically agreements not to prosecute — are struck between prosecutors and a defendant, judicial approval is typically not required, the Washington Post explained. But this deal was complicated by the fact that prosecutors included key terms of the plea agreement in the diversion agreement, one of the central issues that Noreika raised last month.

It's not yet clear whether prosecutors agree that the diversion agreement remains binding and in effect. They have until noon on Tuesday to file a response.

If the diversion agreement is, in fact, binding, that means Biden will escape prosecution for a felony gun charge that the Justice Department typically prosecutes aggressively.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Very suspicious': CNN panel raises all the right questions about David Weiss' sudden special counsel appointment



CNN anchor Jake Tapper exclaimed Friday that the timing of U.S. Attorney David Weiss' special counsel appointment is "very suspicious."

After Attorney General Merrick Garland shocked Washington with the appointment, Tapper and a CNN panel broke down the significance of the development and how it raises more questions than it answers.

Tapper, for example, questioned why the Hunter Biden case now merits a special counsel when, less than two months ago, Weiss was trying to push it across the finish line with a sweetheart plea deal.

"Does he know of stuff that should be in a special counsel investigation that wasn't in that plea deal? I mean, maybe he does, but then why do that plea deal?" Tapper questioned. "It's all very suspicious."

Among the other issues Tapper raised:

  • First, why choose Weiss when special counsels are normally non-U.S. government employees?
  • Second, why stick with Weiss when his plea deal was recently decimated by a federal judge?
  • Third, doesn't the appointment of Weiss as a special counsel confirm what IRS whistleblowers alleged?

"This move makes it seem as though, well, maybe the whistleblowers were right," Tapper explained. "Maybe what they were alleging is true, and he didn't have the ability to charge wherever he wanted to charge, and now he does. So I do have a lot of questions about that. And I do think some of the political questions being raised by Republicans have merit."

In a later panel segment with Tapper, CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates, and reporter Paula Reid, more questions were raised.

Coates, noting that Garland claimed Weiss asked for special counsel powers just last week, asked: "Why now?"

Reid, moreover, questioned whether the motive for the appointment was "to insulate" the Justice Department if the case goes to trial and from House Republicans, who are investigating allegations of corruption involving Hunter Biden and President Joe Biden.

Finally, Tapper asked why Weiss is suddenly interested in prosecuting Hunter Biden for more potential crimes than those he had agreed to just weeks ago.

"Here's another one for you: OK, so I'm David Weiss, once again, play this game with me. I'm special counsel. Just a few weeks ago, I was ready to say, 'Eh, a diversion, a slap on the wrist, a misdemeanor.' Really, it was not a big punishment. And now I want special counsel authority to investigate something that just a few weeks ago I was basically saying this is the most I can prove in a court of law? That doesn't make sense to me either," Tapper said.

"By the way, I'm fully willing to believe there's a lot more to investigate and a lot more to charge him with, but that wasn't his position a few weeks ago," he noted.

Coates agreed the development "lends credence" to the IRS whistleblowers before asking a final question: Why did Weiss say two times that he had full authority to carry out the investigation in any direction that it led, yet now he feels that he needs special counsel authority?

"The whole thing is a disaster for everyone," Reid said to conclude the segment.

'Why now?': Move to appoint special counsel in Hunter Biden case raises questions www.youtube.com

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

CBS reporter makes critical observation about the timing, political ramifications of David Weiss' special counsel appointment



Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday appointed U.S. attorney David Weiss as special counsel in the investigation of Hunter Biden.

The move, CBS News senior correspondent Catherine Herridge explained, has significant political ramifications for Republicans investigating allegations of corruption involving President Joe Biden and the first son.

"A former federal prosecutor I spoke to just before this event said to me: the appointment of a special counsel would have the effect of delaying a resolution on the Hunter Biden matter, in his opinion, and it would certainly delay any anticipated testimony from [Weiss] to Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have been seeking that testimony for several months," Herridge reported after Garland's announcement.

— (@)

Republicans reacted with the same concern but will still push Weiss to cooperate with their ongoing investigations.

At a press conference, Garland said Weiss asked for special counsel powers on Tuesday, and he agreed to grant that power.

Special counsel regulations give the attorney general sole power over special counsel appointments. But those same regulations state, "The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government." Weiss is currently an employee of the U.S. government in his capacity as the U.S. attorney over Delaware.

Meanwhile, Weiss revealed in new court filings on Friday that the Hunter Biden plea deal has collapsed, and the case will likely go to trial.

In June, Weiss announced that Hunter Biden was charged with two misdemeanor tax crimes and a felony gun charge. Biden agreed to plead guilty to the tax charges but would receive pretrial diversion for the felony firearm charge (an unusual prosecutorial decision). But the deal broke down last month when U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika refused to approve it.

In subsequent discussions with Hunter Biden's lawyers, Weiss said the plea deal broke down completely.

"Following additional negotiations after the hearing held on July 26, 2023, the parties are at an impasse and are not in agreement on either a plea agreement or a diversion agreement," Weiss said in a court filing.

In a separate filing, Weiss asked the court to dismiss the charges against Hunter Biden so that he can prosecute Biden in another jurisdiction, either in the Central District of California or the District of Columbia. Additionally, Weiss indicated that Biden may go to trial because he left the hearing last month having pleaded not guilty.

Importantly, Weiss explained Biden cannot waive his right to challenge the court venue because he may bring new charges Biden does not know about.

"The Government, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, is considering what tax charges to bring in another district and may elect to bring the same charges set forth in the instant information or different ones," Weiss wrote. "As such, a waiver now is not and could not be knowing because the Defendant is unaware of what charges he would be waiving a venue challenge to."

The development appears to corroborate information claimed by two IRS whistleblowers that Weiss was hamstrung and was not free to bring charges against Biden outside of Delaware.

In a statement, Hunter Biden's attorney, Chris Clark, said there is no wrongdoing outside of Delaware that his client could be prosecuted for.

"It is hard to see why he would have proposed such a resolution if there were other offenses he could have successfully prosecuted, and we are aware of none," Clark said.

But, according to Weiss' filing for a venue change, the alleged crimes were not committed in Delaware, which is why he is seeking to have the charges in Delaware dismissed without prejudice and the venue changed.

"After [last month's] hearing, the parties continued negotiating but reached an impasse. A trial is therefore in order," Weiss said. "And that trial cannot take place in this District because, as explained, venue does not lie here."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!