The White House has implemented an Orwellian modification in regards to Joe Biden’s conversations with his son about the Biden family’s international business connections. Biden has maintained for years that he and his son never discussed commercial matters.
This is false on so many levels; he has spoken to his child, he is rumored to have made at least 24 phone calls during business meetings, and he has even met with the associates we’ve mentioned; we have photographic evidence. According to reports, the business associates visited the White House eighty times. It is preposterous that Joe continues to assert that they have never spoken.
The White House attempted to change White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s Monday response because it is so preposterous and clearly false.
“I’ve been asked this question a million times. The answer is not going to change. The answer remains the same,” Jean-Pierre claimed. Joe Biden was “never in business with his son.”
However, the response did change; she did not repeat this incessantly. She emphasized numerous times that he has “never spoken” with his son about his business. Even with this response, she neglected to address a question regarding a recent article in which Devon Archer claimed Joe Biden had called during at least twenty-four business meetings. She would not contest this.
On Wednesday, the media went after Jean-Pierre once more, cornering him and pointing out that the question and answer had changed. “The president has previously said that he has never discussed overseas business dealings with his son, but the White House now says that the president has never been in business with his son. So, why the updated language?” Reporter Philip Wegmann for RealClearNews enquired.
"The president has previously said that he has never discussed overseas business dealings with his son, but the White House now says that the president has never been in business with his son. Why the updated language?"
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: "Nothing has changed." pic.twitter.com/CkNPoMWnov
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 26, 2023
The president previously said "I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”
But White House has since said Biden “was never in business with his son.”
Asked about the shift in language, the White House tells me four different times “nothing has changed.” pic.twitter.com/IT4c2wejUt
— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) July 26, 2023
Jean-Pierre argued, “Nothing has changed,” despite the undeniable fact that significant changes had occurred.
Another reporter asked if she would assert unequivocally that Joe Biden and his son had not spoken. She refused to respond to the inquiry, maintaining that she had nothing to “add” to her Monday statement.
"Can you say specifically that the president did not have discussions of any kind with Hunter about his business dealings?"
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: "I don't have anything to add to what I stated on Monday" pic.twitter.com/G5AhjdigNS
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 26, 2023
Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich stated that the White House was attempting to prevent her from asking questions by claiming that Hunter is a “private citizen” despite the fact that he is traveling in a Secret Service motorcade. In a report, Heinrich questioned who is paying for this. Perhaps us.
Did American Taxpayers pay for Hunter Biden’s motorcade to court?
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 26, 2023
Heinrich remarked, “It’s frustrating that we can’t get answers.” She mentioned that Hunter Biden is allegedly still under investigation for a potential violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), as evidenced by the plea agreement proceedings. As stated in my previous post, Devon Archer’s attorney disclosed that his client had testified before a federal grand jury investigating the international business transactions. Heinrich asserted that KJP contacted individuals other than Fox to inquire about the appointment of a Special Counsel.
“But the language has changed,” Heinrich admitted. She stated that this is the distinction between “no knowledge” and “no involvement.”
During business meetings, he is “involved” if he is talking on the phone. He is “involved” if he is photographing Hunter’s business associates in order to facilitate business transactions. He is deemed “involved” if he is anticipated to receive a portion of the proposed company, for example, “10% for the big guy.”
Not only are they attempting an Orwellian two-step, but it also makes no logic.