As a conservative, it’s hard to overlook the recent revelations about President Joe Biden’s phone calls. The Bidens, it seems, have a penchant for meteorology. Hunter Biden, in particular, has a habit of interrupting his father’s meetings with Eastern European energy executives to discuss the weather. It’s a curious pastime.
Daniel Goldman, known for his entertaining commentary, recently explained that these “casual conversations” and “niceties about the weather” were a regular occurrence. This was after Devon Archer, Hunter’s business partner, testified that Joe Biden had spoken to Biden Inc. clientele at least 20 times.
However, some have suggested that it wasn’t the weather that kept the Bidens on the phone, but rather Joe’s deep love for his son. Jonathan Lemire of Politico indicates that we must consider the context; at the time, Beau Biden, Joe’s other son, was seriously ill and subsequently passed away.
But let’s be clear: if your son, who happens to be struggling with addiction, puts you on speakerphone with executives from a company under investigation by Ukrainian authorities, and you’re the point person in the Obama administration’s efforts to root out corruption in that country, you hang up. It’s not rocket science.
The narrative that Joe was completely oblivious to the family’s shady dealings is hard to swallow. Either he allowed himself to be used to create the illusion of access, or he used the force of the U.S. government to enact policies that enriched his family. Both scenarios reek of corruption.
The fact that Joe needed to lie about these phone calls for years is still unexplained. He has yet to clarify what services his family provided to Romanians, Chinese, and Ukrainians worth millions. No amount of spin or fantastical stories about family man Joe Biden will change that fact.
In conclusion, the defense of Biden’s corrupt phone calls is not just weak. It’s downright ridiculous. As conservatives, we must continue to demand transparency and accountability from our leaders, regardless of their political affiliation.
source: The Federalist