Hallie biden hunter biden

Email exchanges between Joe Biden’s family and business associates show the Bidens planning to cash in on the family name in an academic venture with the University of Delaware while discussing ways to carefully distance Joe himself from financial documents outlining the deal.

Team Biden was to receive $12.5 million for the establishment of the Biden Institute at the University of Delaware (UD), which launched shortly after Joe Biden left the vice presidency in 2017. The arrangement meant a nice payday for the Bidens and their associates. And, as it turned out, the launch of the Biden Institute coincided with a bonanza in foreign money donations for the university. Correspondences show that UD wanted Joe Biden to raise funds for the university after his institute opened.

In the weeks and months following the opening of the Institute, UD received foreign cash donations totaling more than $33 million , including $6.7 million from China. Of that sum, three gifts came directly from the Chinese Communist government.

In a series of email exchanges that included Hunter Biden, Valerie Biden Owens (Joe’s sister who called Hunter Biden the “central person” in the UD plans), two of Owens’s daughters (Joe’s nieces), and various Biden business associates, they discussed ways that they could benefit from Biden’s academic ventures and having “the Biden Foundation” or a “family member” sign a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) “on behalf of the VP.” Emails from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop show that UD and Team Biden negotiated ways to compensate Biden family members, including Joe Biden’s sister Valerie Biden Owens.

Former U.S. Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE)—a longtime Biden associate—was central to the Bidens’ academic negotiations. In an August 30, 2016, email, Kaufman advised Team Biden: “When it comes to the [UD Memorandum of Understanding] MOU, probably less detail about what we are doing the better.”

Since Joe Biden would be publicly associated with the UD institute that bore his name, it is unclear why it was important to keep Joe’s name off the MOU. But it was not the first nor last time that the elder Biden—the “big guy” or Hunter’s “chairman” —was referred to opaquely in business correspondence or that Biden business associates were instructed to “don’t mention Joe.”

Having a private family member sign on his behalf would be one way to avoid having to disclose the precise amounts of money, if any, that Joe Biden would be paid. Indeed, Joe Biden disclosed zero income from UD while disclosing nearly $1 million in personal income from the University of Pennsylvania (Penn), which houses the Biden Center. (As it happens, Penn has also seen an influx of foreign donations from China since the launch of the Biden Center in 2017.)

For whatever reason, UD either did not pay Joe Biden any money or they paid it to someone else on his behalf, thereby bypassing the need for disclosure. UD has not responded to requests from my organization, the Government Accountability Institute, for clarification on the arrangement.

This news comes as House hearings have brought new focus to the tactics used to obscure the Biden family’s sources of income. Last month, Breitbart News reported that China’s military-linked CEFC energy company funneled approximately $3 million to a Biden associate who, in turn, distributed the money to multiple Biden family members in a series of smaller payments.

Hunter Biden, James Biden (Joe’s brother), Hallie Biden (Hunter’s paramour and the widow of Joe’s son, Beau Biden), and a mystery individual who was only identified as “BIDEN,” were among the Biden family members who received tranches of China-linked cash.

The email exchanges regarding the University of Delaware may suggest a possible answer to the mystery of how the Biden family made money: by brokering access to then-Vice President Joe Biden.

In an email on August 9, 2016, longtime Biden business associate Eric Schwerin related to the Bidens his conversation with “Alan,” who appears to be UD’s Executive Vice President of Finance and Facilities, Alan Brangman:

I just got off the phone with Alan at UD. I was doing some follow up with him per our last call. Few things we discussed.

1) To confirm, the budget for the Biden Center is $2.5m a year for five years. For a total of $12.5m over the five years . I know there was some question about that. [Emphasis added]

2) They are happy on their end to have consulting contracts for the employees of the Center. They have cleared that on their end. The consulting contracts can begin once we finalize the MOU and then the clock will begin ticking on the $2.5m budget for year one. So, it is up to us how much the consulting contract is for as long as it is within budget and can be justified vis a vis other consulting contracts.

3) That $2.5m budget include salaries, benefits and operational expenses. So, if the Biden Center wants to put together a series of seminars, the funding for those seminars would come out of the $2.5m. The Biden Center can get sponsors to defray some costs, but we should keep in mind that the whole $2.5m can’t be spent on salaries. We need to start thinking programmatically what the Biden Center would do in year one and how much it might cost. Then we’ll know what we are left with for salaries/consulting contracts. [Emphasis added)

4) The counter-party to the MOU in UD’s mind would not be the VP personally but could be the Biden Foundation or potentially a family member signing on behalf of the VP (Hunter or Val?). We should discuss who we want it to be.” [Emphasis added]

This email from Eric Schwerin, who is now cooperating with the congressional committee that is investigating the Biden family’s foreign business dealings, confirms that the Biden academic venture at the University of Delaware would provide up to $12.5 million in cash to directly fund the Bidens’ plans there.

According to a follow-up correspondence from Schwerin on the same day, UD’s incoming president Dr. Dennis Assanis apparently agreed to spend staggering sums—up to $100 million over five years—building out the Biden Institute, including either by constructing a new building or by renovating an old building to house the Biden Institute on UD’s campus.

On June 11, 2016, Hunter received an email from his aunt Valerie Biden Owens concerning the issue of “salaries.” As they were working out how the academic ventures should be structured, Valerie Biden Owens wrote to Hunter:

Hunter – Hopefully UD will get back to us soon so that we can make our plans. We need to confirm space and funds available for salaries … and those new drapes that JRB [Joseph Robinette Biden] will want in his office. xoxo avbo

Correspondences show that Valerie Biden Owens was the only Biden family member for whom a firm compensation was negotiated (though UD suggested that Joe Biden would be on the payroll). In an August 24, 2016, email laying out the timeline of UD negotiations, Schwerin suggested that October 15 or November 1, 2016 would be the date that “UD signs Consulting Contract with Valerie Owens or her LLC for $12,500 a month for one year.”

The Biden Foundation was apparently tied up in the UD negotiations and, according to Schwerin, planned to sign a “Consulting Contract with Valerie Owens or her LLC for $12,500 a month for one year.” If executed, these agreements would bring Valerie Biden Owens’ first-year compensation to $300,000.

Valerie Biden Owens ultimately landed the position of “Vice Chair” of the institute when it opened in early 2017. She was promoted to Chair of the Biden Institute in February 2020— a position she holds today —though her current compensation is unknown.

Schwerin’s August 2016 email provides another example of how the Biden family discussed ways to shield Joe from disclosure. Ex-Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski provided messages to the FBI and Congress that revealed that the Bidens were nervous any time Joe’s name was mentioned in relation to their Chinese dealings. For example, in a May 2017 exchange between Bobulinski and another Biden business associate involved in the CEFC negotiations named James Gilliar, Bobulinski was warned not to mention Joe Biden’s name in writing. “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid,” Gilliar wrote. “OK they should be paranoid about things,” Bobulinski replied.

This also raises questions about the so-called “ Mystery Biden ” who received a chunk of the $3 million passed through from CEFC.

Perhaps the most mysterious aspect of Biden’s academic ventures at Penn and UD was how they were conceived. The initial plans for both the Penn Biden Center and the Biden Institute at UD were apparently hatched by Joe’s son Hunter Biden, Joe’s sister Valerie Biden Owens, Valerie’s daughters (Joe’s nieces), and Hunter’s business associates.

These plans were set in motion while Joe Biden was still the vice president and at the same time that Biden family members were making deals with foreign oligarchs.

In March 2016, Hunter Biden met with UD’s incoming president Dr. Assanis. Emails from Hunter’s abandoned laptop show that he, the Biden family members, and his business associates wanted to use the Penn Biden Center and UD Biden Institute as a “ stage ” to promote the “ Biden brand .”

Emails show that the Biden academic ventures could operate like the “Clinton Global Initiative without the money raise.” When Joe Biden announced the opening of his institute, UD said that the Biden Institute would operate “similar to the World Economic Forum or the Aspen Institute.”

We previously reported that at the same time Joe Biden was setting up his institute at UD, multiple members of the Biden family were making deals— worth millions of dollars —linked to the highest levels of Chinese intelligence.

For a full analysis of these findings, watch the following episode of The Drill Down podcast with this author and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer here :

Seamus Bruner is the Director of Research at the Government Accountability Institute and the author of Compromised: How Money & Politics Drive FBI Corruption and Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russia Spies, and D.C. Lies . Follow @seamusbruner .

Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson followed up on his interview with former Biden family confidante Tony Bobulinski, who shared details of Biden family business dealings a night earlier on Fox News.

Carlson accused the media of suppressing the details of the Hunter Biden scandal to influence an election, which he described as “Soviet-style suppression.”

Transcript as follows:

For many weeks, we’ve been hearing the outlines of a story about Joe Biden, hard to know what to believe in the late stages of a presidential campaign. But now, we know.

We have now heard at length on camera from one of the Biden family’s former business partners. He is a successful businessman, a very successful businessman and a Navy veteran. His name is Tony Bobulinski.

Bobulinski spoke for a full hour last night on the show. He told us — and this is the crux of what he said — how he met two separate times with Joe Biden himself, not just with his son or his brother, but with Joe Biden, the former Vice President, the man now running for President to discuss business deals with the communist government of China.

That’s a very serious claim and whatever your political views, it is hard to dismiss it when Tony Bobulinski makes it, because Bobulinski is an unusually credible witness.

He is not a partisan. He is not seeking money. He is not seeking publicity, just the opposite. He did not want to come on our show.

But when Adam Schiff and the Joe Biden for President Campaign accused Tony Bobulinski of participating in a Russian disinformation effort, he felt he had no choice. That was a slander against him and against his family. So Bobulinski came. He arrived with heaps of evidence to bolster the story he was telling. He brought contemporaneous audio recordings, text messages, emails, many financial documents.

By the end of the hour, it was very clear to us that Tony Bobulinski was telling the truth and that Joe Biden was lying. We believe that any honest person who watched the entire hour would come to the same conclusion.

Well, today a Senate Committee confirmed it. The Senate reported this afternoon that all of Tony Bobulinski’s documents are in fact real. They are authentic. They are not forgeries. This is not Russian disinformation. It is real.

So tonight, we have another recording for you from Tony, Bobulinski and we will add that to the evidence file we will play for you in just a minute. But we can’t help noticing that in a normal country, you probably already would have heard it. Bobulinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden, who once again could be President of the United States next week, was planning business deals with America’s most formidable global opponent.

And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied, and then he went further. He slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that. That’s not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential campaign. It’s true.

So the question is, what is Joe Biden’s excuse for doing that? What is his version of the story? Everyone has a version and we’d like to hear it.

But we don’t know what Joe Biden’s version of the story is, because no one in America’s vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden to answer the question. Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers have openly collaborated with Joe Biden’s political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has never happened in American history.

This morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobulinski had to say, so do the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobulinski appeared on CNN or anywhere else.

Newsweek decided to cover it, but came to the conclusion that the real story was about QAnon, somehow.

This is Soviet-style suppression of information of a legitimate news story days before an election. The ramifications of it are impossible to imagine. But we do know, the media cannot continue in the way that it has. No one believes the media anymore, and no one should.

You should be offended by this, not because the media are liberal. But because this is an attack on our democracy. You’ve heard that phrase again and again. This is what it actually looks like.

In a self-governing country, voters have a right to know, an obligation to know who they are voting for. In this case, they have the right to know if the Democratic nominee for President is a willing partner in his family’s lucrative influencing peddling operation, an operation that went on for decades and stretched from China and Ukraine, all the way to Oman, Romania, Luxembourg and many other countries.

This is not speculation once again, and it’s not a partisan attack. It’s true, and Tony Bobulinski confirmed it.

Bobulinski met with Joe Biden at a hotel bar in Los Angeles in early May of 2017, and when he did, Joe Biden’s son introduced Bobulinski this way, quote, “Dad, here’s the individual I told you about that’s helping us with the business that we’re working on and the Chinese.”

The man I told you about, Tony Bobulinski. Now, written documents confirmed this is real. At one point, Joe Biden’s son texted Tony Bobulinski to say that Joe Biden, his father was making key decisions about their business deals with China. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: When Hunter Biden said his Chairman, he was talking about his dad.

TONY BOBULINSKI, FORMER BUSINESS AFFILIATE OF HUNTER BIDEN: Correct. And what Hunter is referencing there, as he spoke with his father, and his father is giving an emphatic no to the-ask that I had, which was putting proper governance in place around Oneida Holdings.

CARLSON: So Joe Biden is vetoing your plan for putting stricter governance in the company. I mean — and it’s right here in the emails.

BOBULINSKI: Tucker, I want to be very careful in front of the American people. That is not me writing that. That is not me claiming that. That is Hunter Biden writing on his own phone typing in that I spoke with my Chairman, referencing his father.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Exactly. That is not Tony Bobulinski’s word. It is spelled out in the clearest possible language in documents that Bobulinski provided us and documents that subsequently Federal authorities have authenticated as real.

On May 13, 2017, for example, Hunter Biden got an email explaining how his family would be paid for their deal with a Chinese energy company. His father, Joe Biden, was getting 10 percent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOBULINSKI: In that email, there’s a statement where they go through the equity. Jim Biden is referenced, as you know, 10 percent doesn’t say Biden, it says Jim. And then it has 10 percent for the big guy held by H. I a thousand percent sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden. There it’s — that’s crystal clear to me because I lived it. I met with the former Vice President in person multiple times.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So that was three years ago, and we still don’t know where all that money went? We don’t know because the media haven’t forced Joe Biden to tell us.

But last night, Tony Bobulinski did add a telling detail. Joe Biden’s brother, Jim saw his stake in the deal double. It went from 10 percent to 20 percent. Was Jim Biden getting his brother’s share?

Again, it might be worth finding out. We also know that according to an email from a top Chinese official, this one written on July 26, 2017, the Chinese proposed a $5 million interest-free loan to the Biden family quote, “Based on their trust in the Biden family.”

The email continued quote, “Should this Chinese company, CEFC keep lending more to the family?” And indeed, CFC was supposed to send another $5 million to the Biden’s business ventures. Apparently, that money never made it to the business. Where did it go? A recent Senate report suggests it went to Hunter Biden directly and from there, who knows? Again, no one has asked.

Tony Bobulinski also told us he learned Hunter Biden became the personal attorney to the chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, just as they were tendering 14 percent of the Russian state-owned energy company. That was a deal valued at $9 billion.

It’s pretty sleazy. It’s pretty amazing, actually, that this happened, and no one noticed.

The bottom line in all of this, and we’re not going to spend the next six months leading you through a maze of complex financial transactions. This isn’t that complicated at its bottom line.

Here’s the bottom line: millions of dollars linked directly to the Communist Party of China went to Joe Biden’s family, not because they are capable businessmen, they are certainly not. His brother, Jimmy Biden’s one business success appears to have been running a nightclub in Delaware. Ultimately, that went under.

No, they were cut in on the world’s most lucrative business deals, massive infrastructure deals in countries around the world for one reason, because Joe Biden was a powerful government official willing to leverage his power on behalf of his family.

Now, if that is not a crime, it is very close to a crime, and it is certainly something every person voting should know about. The Biden’s didn’t do this once, they did it for decades. So the question is, how did they get away with it for so long?

Tony, Bobulinski asked Joe Biden’s brother, Jimmy, that question directly and to his credit, Jimmy Biden answered that question, honestly. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOBULINSKI: And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying, “How are you guys getting away with this? Like, aren’t you concerned?” And he certainly looked at me and he laughed a little bit and said, “Plausible deniability.”

CARLSON: He said that out loud?

BOBULINSKI: Oh, yes. He said it directly to me one-on-one in a cabana at the Peninsula Hotel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Plausible deniability. In other words, we lie. We get away with selling access to the U.S. government, which we do not own because we lie about what we’re doing. And as we lie, we try to make those lies plausible. That’s why we call it plausible deniability.

That is the answer that Joe Biden’s brother gave when asked directly. So the question is what is Joe Biden’s answer to that question? We wish we knew.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson may be making gains against President Joe Biden ahead of the 2024 election, a new poll suggests.

Williamson, an author and political activist, formally announced her presidential campaign at the beginning of March—making her the only officially declared Democrat seeking the party’s 2024 nomination. While Biden is seen as the frontrunner and has repeatedly expressed his intention to seek a second term, the president has not officially announced another White House bid.

Widely viewed as a long-shot candidate, an initial March poll showed Williamson with low single-digit support against Biden. Notably, the progressive political activist previously sought the Democratic nomination in 2020, along with more than 20 others, but dropped out before the Iowa caucuses . She did, however, gain notable national visibility and has remained a prominent figure within progressive political circles.

After nearly a month of campaigning, a new poll by Echelon Insights shows Williamson backed by a double-digit percentage of likely Democratic primary voters. The survey, which was conducted from March 27 to 29, showed the long-shot contender with 10 percent of likely Democratic voters saying that they’d “probably” or “definitely” back her, compared to 73 percent who supported Biden. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.8 percent.

While the data shows a massive advantage for the incumbent president, the results were notably better for Williamson compared to a previous Morning Consult poll carried out from March 3 to 5. In that survey, the author received just 4 percent support and Biden garnered 77 percent. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent.

The headline of the Morning Consult poll was: “Biden leads Williamson by 73 points among Democratic Primary voters.” If the new Echelon Insights poll is accurate, it shows that Biden’s lead is now 10 points lower, at 63 percent.

Williamson said in emailed comments to Newsweek on Saturday that she is “grateful that our message is reaching people.”

“A season of repair and a new beginning in America are possible, but not if we keep electing status quo politicians committed to perpetuating the system as it is.

The progressive Democrat added: “We need to get back to a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’—not ‘of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.'”

Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment.

It’s still early days, however, with the first Democratic primaries not taking place until early next year, and polling data only represents a preliminary glimpse of how voters are thinking.

But polls have consistently shown the president with a low approval rating. Surveys also show an appetite among Democratic voters for an alternative candidate. Fox News polling data released on Wednesday showed that a majority (52 percent) of Democratic primary voters would prefer someone besides Biden to be their 2024 nominee.

In particular, Biden has faced criticism from many progressives, who are frustrated with his relatively moderate political positions. Progressives want Democrats to push forward a substantially stronger agenda when it comes to addressing climate change and economic equality. Some progressives feel Biden has betrayed commitments he made during his 2020 campaign, as he has often compromised significantly with moderate Democrats and Republicans to pass legislation.

For her part, Williamson told Newsweek in a March interview that she’s not “too worried at this point about polling data.” She expressed optimism about voters’ reception to her message, noting that she believes Americans “have a deeper understanding of the fundamental flaws of modern capitalism.”

“People have a greater understanding, I think, than they did four years ago that the government too often supports that amoral bottom line,” the Democratic candidate said.

Positioning herself as an outsider candidate, Williamson thinks that her lack of Washington, D.C., experience sets her apart from establishment politicians. “Too many in D.C. lack the spine or the moral courage to change our system. Let me in there. I will,” she posted to Twitter on Saturday morning.