Breitbart: A Tuesday New York Times article confirms revelations in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book Secret Empires regarding the $1.5 billion deal Hunter Biden’s private equity firm secured from the state-owned Bank of China while his father was vice president; however, the Times omits key details that call into question statements made by Biden’s associates about the foreign financial deals engulfing his father’s 2020 presidential campaign in scandal.
The Times’ article focuses on criticism of President Trump’s call for an investigation into the financial deals Hunter Biden’s firm secured in Ukraine and China while his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, was negotiating U.S. foreign policy with those countries. However, the article does at least acknowledge that the deals occurred.
“Hunter Biden and a business partner, Devon Archer, were involved in a fund that reportedly pursued an investment from the Chinese government-owned Bank of China,” the Times states.
The Times continues:
The fund was announced in late 2013 — days after Hunter Biden and one of his daughters flew to China from Japan aboard Air Force Two with the vice president, who was in the midst of a diplomatic mission intended to calm rising tensions in the region. During the trip, Vice President Biden warned Chinese leaders not to use fighter jets to enforce an air defense zone created by Beijing over contested waters.
The conservative author Peter Schweizer has claimed that Hunter Biden used the trip to secure a deal with the Bank of China — a claim that has been echoed by Mr. Trump’s allies in the conservative news media.
But a lawyer for Hunter Biden said he did not conduct any business related to the China investment fund on that trip, and was not an equity owner in the fund while his father was vice president. He later acquired a 10 percent interest in the entity that oversees the fund, but to date has not received any money from the arrangement, according to the lawyer.
The Times fails to note basic facts about Biden and his associates that would challenge their version of events or, at the very least, offer readers context to assess the veracity of their claims. more here