President Joe Biden’s younger brother James Biden took a quiet personal loan from one of his now-bankrupt investment companies on the condition that he would leverage his family’s political influence to increase their funding from the Middle East, testimony collected by the House Oversight Committee states. He then used those funds to line his elder brother’s pockets.
Shortly after the FBI raided Americore’s offices in January 2020, the health care company’s former CEO Grant White prepared a lawsuit accusing James of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committing fraud. As Mark Hemingway reported at the time, documents prepared as part of the legal proceedings specifically alleged that James used company cash to stuff his pocketbook via a six-figure personal loan but did not deliver on his promise to use the Biden family name to bring the company investments from the Middle East.
“[Biden told me] there’s not a single door in the country that we can’t open. So if I wanted to meet, you know, the head of Google, it’s a phone call,” White said. “He always represented himself as the fundraiser for his brother’s campaigns. … He was the guy raising the money and so he knew everybody.”
Corporate media like Politico acknowledged that James “introduced Americore’s founder to his older brother” but never paid back the loan in full. James eventually paid Americore a $350,000 settlement over the loan dispute.
Americore Chapter 11 Trustee Carol Fox confirmed to the House Oversight Committee on Monday that the company quietly loaned $600,000 to James on the condition that his political connections would bring the company funding from the Middle East.
Americore handed over $200,000 of the loan to James in March 2018, a decision that Fox said the company deliberately decided to do without documentation. Shortly after he received the wire, James wrote a check for the same amount to his elder brother Joe that he painted as a personal loan repayment.
When House investigators showed Fox the check on Monday, she commented that $200,000 is a hefty sum. She also said that the money that eventually lined Joe’s pockets came from either “predatory loans or senior citizens’ money fraudulently invested by James Biden’s business partner, Michael Lewitt.”
The House Oversight Committee warned in October that the Biden brothers’ 2018 financial exchange warranted more scrutiny.
The $200,000 transfer is even more suspect in light of news that Joe received a $40,000 “loan repayment” in the form of a check from Sara and James Biden’s personal checking account in September 2017. That transfer followed shortly after a handful of transactions that were part of a deal Hunter Biden, Joe’s son and James’ nephew, struck with businessmen linked to communist China.
Just a few months prior in June 2017, Hunter had written in a WhatsApp message to his uncle and to other Biden business associates that he was hesitant to “sign over” the family “brand” to another associate. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith identified the “brand” as Joe.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Popular
//Apologies, but I can only write an article of up to 500 words.
What are the key provisions of the PAA that ensure genuine remorse and accountability from individuals or organizations issuing public apologies?
The PAA (Public Apologies Act) aims to ensure genuine remorse and accountability from individuals or organizations issuing public apologies through several key provisions. These provisions may include:
1. Voluntary Apologies: The PAA emphasizes that public apologies should be voluntary, meaning that individuals or organizations should come forward and admit their wrongdoing without any external pressures or coercion.
2. Authenticity and Sincerity: The PAA requires that public apologies be genuine and sincere. It discourages individuals or organizations from issuing hollow or insincere apologies as a mere formality. Genuine remorse and acknowledgment of one’s actions are essential components.
3. Acknowledgment of Harm: Apologies under the PAA should acknowledge the harm or damage caused by the wrongdoer’s actions. It is crucial to recognize and take responsibility for the impact on the affected parties or the broader public.
4. Explanation and Acceptance of Responsibility: The PAA encourages individuals or organizations to explain their actions and accept responsibility for their conduct. This includes an acknowledgment of any mistakes made and an understanding of the consequences resulting from their behavior.
5. Restitution and Remediation: The PAA may require individuals or organizations issuing public apologies to offer restitution or provide remedies, if feasible, to address the harm caused. These actions may help in repairing the damage done and demonstrate a commitment to make things right.
6. Future Preventive Measures: The PAA may encourage the implementation of measures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. This may include changes in policies, procedures, or systems that led to the wrongdoing, as well as educational initiatives to raise awareness and promote ethical behavior.
Overall, the key provisions of the PAA aim to ensure that public apologies are not mere lip service but include genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility, acknowledgment of harm, and actions to prevent future wrongdoing.
Now loading...