Since assuming office in January 2021, the Biden administration has mostly been resolute in its efforts to build back better and manage the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the president’s son Hunter Biden’s business dealings have continue to create a political firestorm that has recused some ethics and legal experts in Washington. Alleged ties to foreign governments and potential conflicts of interest resulting from these business deals have caused widespread speculation and even calls for an independent investigation. The Biden administration, however, seems to be stonewalling efforts aimed at investigating Hunter Biden’s business transactions, increasing suspicion among some observers that the President is protecting his son.
The allegations against Hunter Biden became public knowledge during his father’s presidential campaign in 2020. The focus of these allegations has primarily centered on his business dealings in Ukraine and China. In Ukraine, Hunter was hired by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company, to join its board of directors in 2014. While his father was serving as vice president, allegations were made that Hunter had been hired to help influence government policies to the company’s advantage. In China, Hunter reportedly was part of a private equity firm that was looking to make investments in the country. There also have been rumors of potential tax evasion and other unethical business practices in both countries.
Despite questions being raised about Hunter Biden’s business dealings before he was appointed to his current position, the administration has been hesitant to comment or cooperate with investigations. In the United States, several lawmakers have requested a special counsel be appointed to investigate Hunter Biden, but the Biden administration has not yet accepted this request. This refusal to appoint a special counsel has raised questions and suspicions about the authenticity and impartiality of the administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
The refusal of the administration to cooperate with this investigation has been embraced by some Republican lawmakers and political activists who argue that the Biden administration should be held accountable for their action. However, considering the situation from the other side, there are several valid reasons why the administration might be blocking the investigation. The primary concern that critics and Biden supporters may have in allowing the investigation is the possibility that the claims against Hunter Biden are baseless or politically motivated.
Another consideration that is often cited is that focusing on these allegations would distract the Biden administration from more pressing policy matters. Pursuing these allegations could also potentially damage the longstanding relationship between the U.S. and both Ukraine and China. In summary, there is concern that a politically motivated investigation could be used as a tool of retribution to cast doubts on President Biden’s legitimacy.
The question of whether the Biden administration is stonewalling Hunter Biden’s probe is one which can only be answered by going through the proper channels. For instance, one avenue for those seeking accountability would be the formation of a special counsel investigation, an avenue which does not require the Biden administration’s support, but which would depend on the DOJ compliance.
The calls for this independent probe underscore the importance of transparency and accountability in public office. No one is above the law, and President Biden must remain committed and transparent if he wants to gain the trust of the people that elected him. He made several campaign promises to prioritize transparency, and there is no better place to start delivering on those promises than by cooperating with inquiries into his son’s business activities.
If the Biden administration continues to stonewall inquiries into Hunter Biden’s business activities, it could do more harm than good to the President’s credibility. On the flip side, it is also likely that potentially baseless investigations could inflict unwarranted harm to the Biden family and white house staff. The Biden administration needs to strike the appropriate balance between transparency and respect for privacy.
In conclusion, answers to these burning questions about Hunter Biden’s business dealings must be sought appropriately, and every effort should be made to ensure that the proper legal processes are followed. If allegations of unethical behavior are proven to be true, then the appropriate legal actions should be taken against Hunter Biden. Equally important is that the White House should maintain transparency and accountability standards that reflect its promise to uphold the rule of law. Failure to do so will erode the public’s trust in the administration and its ability to carry out its functions effectively.