By Maverick
The public controversy of Hunter Biden began in October 2020, during the final days of the Presidential election campaign, when the New York Post published material it said came from a MacBook left at a Wilmington, Delaware, repair shop and eventually provided to the paper by allies of then-President Trump. The shop owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, said the device was dropped off in April 2019 and later seized by the FBI under subpoena in December 2019. From the beginning, there were questions about who it belonged to, provenance, chain of custody, and whether material had been manipulated, and for months, many major news outlets treated the story cautiously, essentially sweeping it under the rug, as one who is truly awake would expect the corporate media conglomerates would do. Subsequent forensic examinations and follow-up reporting have both confirmed that certain files are authentic, that the drive’s history is messy, with signs of multiple accesses and copies. Therefore, the laptop has been part of this authentication puzzle fiasco and part political flashpoint.
Among the items reported from the laptop’s hard drive were sexually explicit images and videos, photos, and messages showing heavy drug use (including crack pipes and references to smoking crack), texts/emails about prostitutes/sex-workers and spending on porn sites, plus business emails, financial records, photos, and other personal files. Some emails appeared to show outreach between business associates and Ukrainian figures connected to Burisma, a Ukrainian-based energy company.
Hunter Biden has, of course, never publicly and directly admitted that the laptop was his, though his legal actions and statements have acknowledged that “some of his personal data” was in the possession of the computer repair shop. Like, no shit, Sherlock? It’s safe to say you got caught with your pants down. In March 2025, Hunter Biden requested to dismiss a lawsuit he filed against a former Trump aide, citing financial hardship. In an April 2021 interview with CBS News, Hunter Biden was asked if the laptop belonged to him. He responded that he did not know and that it could have been his, or it could have been “hacked,” a “Russian fabrication,” or “stolen”. It all reeks of bullshit, and of course, he learned to lie from the best, his daddy. Logically, who gives a fuck if the laptop was his or not? That’s a diversion tactic. It’s what was on the laptop that needed additional scrutiny because the content was of him and unequivocally belonged to Hunter.
When Hunter Biden sued computer repairman John Paul Mac Isaac in March 2023 for invasion of privacy, his legal team stated that the suit was not an admission that the laptop belonged to him. Instead, they argued that Mac Isaac had illegally distributed data alleged to be from Biden’s device. I thought the laptop didn’t belong to him? Nice diversion and defensive tactic by playing the victim. The files on there sure belonged to him since there was a myriad of digital evidence. More importantly, if someone hypothetically hacked his “actual” laptop and transferred the explicit data to the MacBook, why then would they leave it at a laptop repair shop for months unattended, and not just release it immediately or leak it online? These are how inept these folks are, including Hunter Biden. I always believed the laptop drama was nothing but political noise and a distraction, like everything else in the world of politics. Meanwhile, for years, the far-left media continued to propagate that the laptop controversy was all Russian disinformation exploited by republicans on the right. The laptop controversy opened a can of worms to unearth a myriad of other potential and actual crimes committed.
Critics of the Bidens said the material on the laptop showed influence-peddling or conflicts of interest, while their defenders cautioned that the provenance issues, selective presentation, and the lack of direct proof tying Hunter’s daddy Joe Biden to corrupt acts made such claims unreliable on their own. It ultimately became a back-and-forth game of he said/she said, especially among House republican members in the U.S. Congress. A lot of talk but no action occurred. Welcome to politics. This was all that was talked about for 4 years during Biden’s first and only term as President, and NOTHING came of it. It was similar to how the Dems targeted Trump over alleged Russian collusion and election interference in 2016 & 2020. The Dems wouldn’t give it a rest and brought it up practically all of the time, and of course, NOTHING came of that either.
As for Hunter Biden, he joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company, in 2014. Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, and the company itself were controversial. U.S. and Ukrainian officials had at times viewed some Ukrainian energy associates as corrupt, especially at Burisma. Hunter’s role and the sizable fees he reportedly received drew scrutiny precisely because his father, Joe Biden, was then serving as Vice President of the United States and was the lead U.S. official on Ukraine policy. Critics argued that a family member of a U.S. Vice President accepting board pay from a foreign company created at least the “appearance of a conflict” despite it being just that.
Congressional Republican probes later produced detailed timelines and memos alleging problematic overlap between family business activity and official U.S. contacts. Supporters and many media fact-checkers pointed out that multiple official probes did not prove Joe Biden had acted to help Burisma in exchange for payments to his son, and that the vice president’s public pressure on Ukraine, notably pushing for the removal of a prosecutor, was consistent with U.S. policy and with other international actors.
Around 2015-2016, while Joe Biden was Vice President under Barack Obama, the U.S., the European Union, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other international organizations were pressuring Ukraine to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin because he was widely seen as corrupt and ineffective in investigating corruption cases, including failing to pursue serious investigations into oligarchs and companies like Burisma Holdings, where as mentioned above, Hunter Biden sat on the board.
At a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) event in January 2018, Joe Biden said, “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion dollars. I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.” Officially and on the surface, this was part of a larger, publicly acknowledged diplomatic strategy, “not” a private bribe, and reflected the official position of the U.S. government and its allies at the time. It was supposedly consistent with U.S. foreign policy and international consensus or agreement to encourage anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine.
However, Republicans and common sense can smell a bribe when they see one. How could it be a coincidence that Biden just so happened to be in a position of power as Vice President to apply pressure to the Ukrainian government to fire their lead prosecutor, who was investigating the very energy company Hunter Biden sat on the board of? This is the epitome of gaslighting. Again, supposedly, Shokin was not looking into Burisma, and he was fired for not pursuing corruption, at least officially. How convenient. I mean, if he actually did his job and thoroughly investigated Burisma, would Biden have allowed him to investigate the company Hunter sat on the board of? Of course, it’s been concluded that no evidence has been found that Joe Biden’s actions were intended to protect his son or Burisma, that he engaged in corruption, or accepted a bribe.
Over the years, congressional investigations have described a web of limited liability companies (LLCs), investment vehicles, and joint ventures tied to Hunter Biden and various associates. Some investigators and partisan committees have called these “shell companies” and alleged they were used to route foreign funds to Biden-family associates. Other analysts and some mainstream news outlets emphasized that many such entities are normal for cross-border business work and that the available transaction records do not by themselves prove criminal money-laundering or quid-pro-quo corruption. They look suspicious as fuck though.
Several financial transactions have been produced to Congress and reported by both parties:
• On July 28th, 2017, Joe Biden (via a wire from an “Attorney Trust Account” maintained by his attorneys) transferred $40,000 to James & Sara Biden’s joint account.
• On September 3rd, 2017, James & Sara Biden wrote a check to Joe Biden for $40,000, and in the memo line of the check, it said “Loan Repayment”.
• On January 12th, 2018, another wire (from Joe Biden’s attorney trust account) of $200,000 was made to James & Sara Biden’s personal account.
• On March 1st, 2018, the same day James & Sara Biden received the $200,000 wire, they issued a check for $200,000 to Joe Biden, again with “Loan Repayment” in the memo line.
The so-called “loan agreements” themselves, meaning formal, signed promissory notes, interest terms, collateral, etc., have not been publicly released, at least based on what the congressional record shows. James Biden testified that there were no written documents for the “loan” to his brother. The source of the funds used to make the repayments and how they were generated is a major subject of investigation. For instance, in the case of the $40K repayment, it arose shortly after James and Hunter Biden received money from a Chinese-linked entity, which has gained controversy. Whether Joe Biden had any knowledge of the underlying business deals (that generated funds for repayment) or whether the transfers constituted something other than a simple loan is not proven in the public record, unfortunately. It’s blatant that something peculiar was taking place here. Fact-checking organizations say the records show what appear to be “personal family transactions” but don’t definitively prove wrongdoing by Joe Biden.
House republicans argue that the timing of the wire from Joe to James Biden, James then receiving foreign-linked funds, and the repayment to Joe, suggests Joe Biden may have benefited indirectly from his family’s business dealings. For example, the $200K repayment happened the same day James Biden received the $200K loan from Americore (a rural hospital chain), according to bankruptcy filings.
The Biden White House, of course, defended him to no end by stating that these were simple personal loans between family members, made when Joe Biden was a private citizen, after his vice presidency and before he was president, and that there’s “zero evidence of wrongdoing.” So these are all just big misunderstandings? Right. If it truly was a loan, then the existence of repayment, the same amounts, the memo line “Loan Repayment”, etc., seems to support that it was a genuine loan and not payment for services or profit sharing. It looks good on paper, but the counter is, “Where did the money for the repayment come from? What was the business that generated it? Was Joe Biden’s name leveraged to generate that repayment?” As always, so many questions and no answers.
Let’s review this one more time just to make sure we’re all on the same page. We know the money moved from Joe Biden to James Biden ($40K + $200K), then back from James to Joe with a memo “loan repayment. We don’t know the original loan terms exactly, nor how and where James got the funds to repay the full loan on the same day. Let’s return to Hunter Biden and how it all connects. In mid-2017, Hunter Biden was involved in business discussions and deals with a Chinese energy firm, CEFC China Energy Co. (often through joint ventures like Hudson West III). On August 8th, 2017, CEFC wired about $5 million to Hudson West III, a Hunter-linked venture. Followed by a subsequent wire from Hunter’s entity to James & Sara Biden’s company (Lion Hall Group) of about $150,000 is documented. Then Sara Biden withdrew $50,000, and shortly after, James & Sara sent that $40,000 to Joe Biden. This timeline raises questions about where the “loan repayment” money originated. The investigation further alleges that James Biden received loans from Americore (e.g., the $600,000 in aggregate), and part of those funds flowed back as the $200K repayment to Joe Biden. The Committee memo states that James Biden characterized his payment to Joe as tied to “foreign dealings with Hunter,” though he still proclaims he had no knowledge of the source.
The reasons why the transferring of these suspicious funds raises concern are the timing of it all. The repayments to Joe Biden occurred soon after funds were wired from business ventures linked to Hunter or foreign entities. For example, the $40K repayment followed soon after a Chinese-linked payment to Hunter’s venture. As for the shell companies like Hudson West III, Owasco PC, Lion Hall Group, etc., they are cited as vehicles that facilitated money flows. Owasco PC (Hunter’s firm) received Chinese-linked funds and then transferred to Lion Hall Group (James & Sara Biden’s entity) in one documented chain. The repayment checks say “Loan Repayment,” but there remains no publicly released formal loan agreement with detailed terms (interest, collateral, written contract). House Republicans asked Joe Biden to produce documentation, but he never did, and House Democrats were completely satisfied with just “loan repayment” written on the line, which was sufficient proof for them to declare it an actual loan repayment.
Tony Bobulinski is a former U.S. Navy lieutenant, coming from a military family (grandson of an Army intelligence officer, son of a long-serving Naval officer). After leaving the Navy, he became a businessman and institutional investor. In the mid-2010s, he got into business with Hunter Biden and others through an energy-investment vehicle. Bobulinski says he became CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, a joint venture formed in 2017 between Hunter Biden, Jim Biden (Joe Biden’s brother), and the Chinese energy company that was just mentioned, CEFC.
According to Bobulinski, Hunter and Jim Biden introduced him to this deal. He claims to have met Joe Biden in May 2017, during which they discussed business, and that Joe was “plainly familiar” with the venture. Bobulinski has pointed to an email from May 2017 that mentions “10% held by H for the Big Guy,” which he interprets as “H” = Hunter and “Big Guy” = Joe Biden. He alleges that Hunter repeatedly referred to Joe as “the Big Guy” or “my Chairman,” and that discussions of Joe’s involvement were kept off paper, not to be mentioned in writing, only in person.
Bobulinski alleged that the Biden family “aggressively leveraged” the Biden name in foreign business dealings, particularly with CEFC in China. He believes Joe Biden was more than a passive beneficiary. Be referred to Joe as “the Brand” that was being sold to foreign partners. Bobulinski has repeatedly claimed that Hunter “committed fraud” against the other partners, that Hunter and his lawyer replaced a company named Oneida Holdings (in which Hunter had only 20%) with a company he fully controlled, allegedly diverting money. Tony claims that more than $5 million flowed to a company Hunter controlled. Bobulinski interpreted the “10% for the Big Guy” line in the email as Joe Biden getting equity out of these shady dealings.
Bobulinski first publicly came forward in October 2020, shortly before the U.S. presidential election. On October 22nd, 2020, he held a press conference stating he wanted to “set the record straight” on the Biden family’s business dealings with China. At that time, he said he would hand over his electronic devices to the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Many of Bobulinski’s claims haven’t been independently verified by credible news outlets, according to the so-called “fact-checkers.” The Biden campaign then denied that Joe Biden had any role in his son’s overseas business. Joe Biden denied it several times, but does that mean he’s telling the truth? No. In more recent developments, Hunter Biden’s attorneys have accused Bobulinski of making false statements to the FBI about their business dealings.
Bobulinski testified before the House Oversight Committee in the context of a Republican-led impeachment inquiry, alleging that Joe Biden “met with business associates” to further the ventures. Bobulinski presented himself as someone who was in the inner circle of the Biden business operation, giving his claims potentially high weight, but because his independent proof is limited, many of his claims remain disputed, unfortunately. The swamp runs deep, and it’s asinine to think the Justice Department would roll over and actually indict and convict these criminal overlords.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires individuals who act on behalf of “foreign principals” (foreign governments, companies, or influential foreign individuals), especially when making political or lobbying contacts in the U.S., to register with the U.S. Department of Justice. Critics have alleged Hunter Biden may have violated FARA because of his business dealings with foreign entities, particularly in Ukraine (Burisma) and China (CEFC). In a May 2017 text exchange with then-business partner Tony Bobulinski, Hunter appears to explicitly say, “we don’t want to have to register as foreign agents.” The text suggests he and his partners considered creating a U.S.-based company to funnel their foreign work, presumably to avoid triggering FARA. He also referenced the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in the same message, though FCPA is a different law. According to court filings, Hunter Biden and his business partner Rob Walker worked on behalf of a Romanian oligarch (Gabriel Popoviciu). The DOJ contends Popoviciu hired them “to attempt to influence U.S. government agencies,” which could fall under FARA-type activity. There are also claims that Biden and his associates structured their business agreements to avoid registering as foreign agents.
David Weiss, the Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden probe, did consider FARA-related charges. However, in his final report, he declined to charge Hunter under FARA. Weiss stated his team “couldn’t put together a sufficient case” proving that Hunter acted as an “agent of a foreign principal” in a way that would satisfy FARA. His report did not provide detailed findings on the FARA investigation part, as it mostly focused on the tax and gun charges that were prosecuted. Weiss also testified that he asked for broader prosecutorial authority (to bring charges in other districts), but he said nobody blocked him from pursuing FARA-related allegations if he chose to. According to congressional oversight documents, some DOJ and IRS officials dispute how much freedom Weiss really had, as there are conflicting claims over whether he truly had “ultimate” decision-making power.
An IRS agent, Gary Shapley, testified that FARA violations were part of the Hunter Biden investigation. But whistleblowers say their concerns weren’t fully pursued. America First Legal sued the DOJ, claiming the department failed to enforce FARA against Hunter Biden, despite what they view as clear evidence. A former Burisma lawyer, John Buretta, did retroactively register as a foreign agent for his work with Burisma. This raises additional questions given Hunter’s role with the same company. Many Republicans argue that not charging Hunter under FARA despite these documented foreign ties is a major lapse, pointing to influence-peddling.
One of the clearest legal developments in Hunter Biden’s public story was the federal prosecution related to a 2018 handgun purchase. Prosecutors charged that Hunter Biden bought a pistol in October 2018 and answered “no” on the ATF firearm-purchase form to a question about unlawful drug use, while he had been using crack cocaine around that period. Federal prosecutors ultimately brought three felony counts connected to making false statements and unlawful possession. A jury in Delaware found him guilty on those counts in June 2024. The Department of Justice’s statements and court filings document the charge, the trial, and the conviction. Separately, Hunter faced tax-related charges that were part of broader plea negotiations and later developments.
After the conviction, and amid appeals and political controversy, President Joe Biden issued a presidential pardon to his son despite initially saying he wouldn’t, covering federal charges within a specified period. That pardon altered the legal landscape for the federal courts covered by the grant. The pardon itself became another major political flashpoint and generated debate about norms, justice, and conflicts of interest when a sitting president uses clemency for a relative.
In July 2023, Secret Service officers located a small bag containing what federal testing later identified as a small quantity of cocaine inside a locker area at the White House. That discovery prompted a short evacuation and an internal Secret Service inquiry. The investigation ultimately closed without identifying a suspect. The Secret Service said it could not narrow the list of possible individuals to a single person. At various times, public figures and commentators asked whether Hunter Biden was connected to that particular discovery. Hunter has denied that the drugs were his, and the Secret Service’s public account did not tie the finding to him. Who else could the crack have belonged to? Better yet, why would the Secret Service even allow that news to travel back to the media and public? It’s almost as though they wanted that news pumped out there into the airwaves as a distraction and to give people more of a reason to loathe the Biden administration, to prime the general public for another Trump victory in 2024. Political narratives also thrive on implication and insinuation, while criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They’ll treat appearance and hearsay as proof of corruption.
The Department of Justice appointed Special Counsel David Weiss to oversee the long-running probe of Hunter Biden. Weiss’s investigation produced criminal charges (the gun conviction and various tax-related prosecutions at different times) and culminated in a public special counsel report summarizing findings and prosecution decisions. The report and subsequent court outcomes are the formal, public record of what the DOJ pursued and what it did not charge. Those documents are important because they move questions from rumor and accusation into the realm of documented prosecutorial choices.
The Hunter Biden story is a knot of personal crisis, international business dealings, messy digital evidence, and high-stakes politics. Some threads are well-documented, such as his Burisma board service, his documented drug addiction, and the gun prosecution. Other controversies remain contested or unresolved, for instance, the exact provenance and meaning of every file on the laptop, the degree to which business payments created illicit influence over public policy, etc. Multiple official investigations, congressional and Department of Justice, have produced reports, filings, and outcomes that form the public record. Reading those sources directly gives the clearest sense of what has been officially proven versus what remains an allegation or inference. It leaves things in limbo, unfortunately, “perks” of how flawed and corrupt the system truly is, and is ever more convincing that it simply just doesn’t work, especially for high-profile individuals like the Biden family. Please share your thoughts in the comment section. Be well.
