A House Democrat may have unintentionally raised questions about President Joe Biden’s assertions regarding his awareness of his son Hunter’s business activities.
This unexpected turn of events was brought to light by Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University.
The incident occurred during a hearing where Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) was in conversation with Gary Shapley, a whistleblower from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Goldman made reference to a portion of Shapley’s earlier testimony, in which Shapley quoted Rob Walker, a business associate of Hunter Biden. Walker had relayed to the FBI that Hunter had broached the subject of his potential business ventures with a Chinese energy firm, CEFC, during a lunch meeting with his father.
In an attempt to downplay the involvement of Joe Biden in Hunter’s business affairs, Goldman posed a question to Shapley. He asked if, based on Hunter’s comments, it seemed like Joe Biden was involved. Shapley responded by stating that while it doesn’t demonstrate Joe Biden’s involvement, it does show that Hunter had conversed about his business plans with his father.
This exchange led Turley to remark on Twitter that Goldman had inadvertently “set off an alarm” on Joe Biden. He pointed out that Goldman, in his effort to demonstrate that there was no evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement, had instead drawn out a response that confirmed that Joe Biden had indeed discussed Hunter’s business deals with the Chinese.
Turley further observed that Goldman had unintentionally prompted a sworn statement from the investigator that Biden had indeed discussed his son’s business deals. He suggested that this could be one of the most damaging moments in the hearing for the Bidens.
Despite this revelation, Goldman proceeded with his line of questioning, asserting that Shapley had “no direct evidence” linking Joe Biden to Hunter Biden’s business deals. Turley concluded his Twitter thread by suggesting that if Goldman had continued his line of inquiry about the Biden business deals for a few more minutes, it would have “made a compelling case” for the appointment of a special counsel.
