PDF Summary:The Big Guy, by Miranda Devine

In The Big Guy, Miranda Devine examines allegations of misconduct by the Biden family and their overseas business dealings, particularly those of Hunter Biden. The author suggests that Hunter leveraged his father's political influence while Joe Biden was Vice President to secure lucrative deals with foreign companies, especially in Ukraine and China.

Devine scrutinizes accusations that Hunter exploited his familial ties, arguing that these overseas ventures compromised U.S. interests and national security. The book also explores efforts by government agencies and social media platforms to suppress reporting on the Biden family's actions during the 2020 election.

(continued)...

Scrutiny of Hunter Biden's commercial dealings has led to substantial legal and political consequences.

Miranda Devine's book suggests that influential figures in Washington, intelligence entities, and prominent media outlets, along with affiliates of the Democratic Party, orchestrated the impeachment of Donald Trump and investigated Hunter Biden's dealings, which could involve his father, as part of a strategy to protect the Bidens. The author emphasizes how the Department of Justice and legal prosecutors attempted to diminish and obstruct the investigation into Hunter, which led to the rejection of serious allegations.

Legal entities, including the Department of Justice, have actively worked to postpone, obstruct, and ultimately limit the scope of investigations into Hunter Biden's alleged criminal activities.

The book scrutinizes the behavior of Joe Biden's son in great detail. Miranda Devine describes unforeseen complications and obstacles that emerged while Hunter's financial dealings were under IRS examination, a circumstance that persisted during Trump's administration. The writer argues that after the commencement of Joe Biden's presidential term, strategies of obstruction by policing bodies resulted in the dismissal of the most serious charges from 2014 and 2015 due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for legal action.

Representatives from the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice were accused of persistently hindering the FBI and IRS's investigation into Hunter Biden.

Devine highlights the crucial contributions of two individuals who supplied Congress with private evaluations regarding the obstacles created by the federal prosecutors in the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice. The individuals who came forward supported their claims with a range of corroborative materials, including emails and interview transcripts. The accusations aimed at Delaware's prosecutors revolved around their consistent denial of critical investigative resources, such as the ability to carry out searches or perform interviews, particularly in situations where these measures might reveal incriminating information connected to Joe Biden.

Other Perspectives

• The decision to deny certain investigative resources like searches or interviews might have been based on a lack of probable cause or insufficient grounds to believe that such actions would yield relevant evidence.
• The evaluations provided are not necessarily representative of the broader actions or intentions of the federal prosecutors or the Department of Justice as a whole.
• The interpretation of the materials could be subjective, and without proper context, they might not be as incriminating or conclusive as suggested.
• Federal prosecutors must adhere to strict legal and ethical guidelines that may limit their ability to grant certain investigative tools.
• The claim that the hindrances were particularly evident when measures might reveal incriminating information connected to Joe Biden could be coincidental and not indicative of intentional obstruction.

The proposal for a legal resolution presented to Hunter Biden by the authorities, aimed at preventing additional litigation, was rejected by the court.

Devine illustrates that as the legal team representing Hunter Biden exerted increasing pressure and the potential for political repercussions from a trial grew, the Delaware prosecutors proposed a plea agreement that was more forgiving, potentially enabling Hunter to evade incarceration. The initial agreement included being charged with a felony and two additional infractions related to taxes. The accord was expanded to include comprehensive safeguards against possible legal conflicts related to his business activities while Joe Biden was in office as vice president.

However, the arrangement disintegrated in 2023 when Judge Maryellen Noreika expressed reservations regarding the deal's unconventional terms and the risk of granting extensive immunity to Hunter without a complete understanding of the alleged misconduct. Noreika's refusal to give his consent led to the withdrawal of the proposal and ultimately caused the negotiations to fail.

Context

• The collapse of the plea deal means that Hunter Biden could face a trial, which would bring more public scrutiny and potential legal consequences.
• Tax infractions can range from failing to file a return to underreporting income. These charges often involve the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and can result in fines, penalties, or imprisonment depending on the severity and intent.
• Granting immunity in plea deals can be controversial, as it may prevent future prosecutions for related offenses, potentially allowing individuals to avoid accountability for broader misconduct.
• During Joe Biden's vice presidency, Hunter Biden was involved in various international business ventures, including serving on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, which has been a focal point of scrutiny and controversy.
• Judges often rely on past cases to guide their decisions. If a plea deal appears to deviate significantly from established norms, it may raise red flags.
• The judiciary acts as a check on the executive and legislative branches, ensuring that legal processes are not influenced by political considerations.

IRS whistleblowers provided evidence and testimony indicating that actions were taken by government officials to protect Hunter Biden from the consequences of his actions.

Devine strengthens her previous reporting on a broad governmental initiative to protect the Biden family from the repercussions of their seemingly unethical deeds by drawing on narratives from Shapley and Ziegler. The writer argues that both the Delaware team and the Department of Justice headquarters consistently acted in a manner that benefitted Hunter Biden. Decisions strayed from the norm, resulting in a prolonged timeline and blocked avenues of investigation, which in turn impeded the gathering of potential evidence against Joe Biden.

Other Perspectives

• The whistleblowers might have biases or motivations that could color their testimony and the evidence they provide.
• The use of the term "narratives" suggests a story or a particular framing, which may not necessarily be an objective account of the events.
• The idea of a governmental initiative to protect an individual or family could be seen as an oversimplification of complex legal and bureaucratic processes that often involve multiple stakeholders with different interests and perspectives.
• The perceived benefits to Hunter Biden might be a result of legal protections afforded to all citizens, rather than preferential treatment.
• The interpretation of actions as deviations could be influenced by the observer's perspective or bias, rather than objective standards of normalcy.
• The assertion of a prolonged timeline could be seen as subjective without a clear benchmark for what constitutes a 'normal' investigation timeline for similar cases.
• Officials may have followed standard legal and procedural protocols, which can sometimes be misinterpreted as obstruction.
• Investigations often encounter obstacles that can slow down the process, which does not necessarily indicate protectionism towards any individual.

A scrutiny of the purported improper behavior by the Biden family and its consequences for their political reputation.

Insiders from the IRS have shed light on claims regarding the Bidens' involvement in global political deal-making, which had substantial repercussions in the political arena. Devine suggests that the scandal threatened the equilibrium of Joe Biden's tenure as president and had the potential to undermine his prospects for a second term, while also exposing clandestine activities by influential groups, eroding the trust of citizens in government institutions.

Revelations about the conduct of the Biden family might jeopardize the stability of Joe Biden's presidency and threaten his prospects for reelection.

Devine suggests that the blend of accusations of wrongdoing, waning support reflected in polls, and his advancing age made him a vulnerable candidate in the upcoming electoral contest. Public trust has significantly diminished as a result of the scandal's extensive impact.

Practical Tips

• Create a personal code of ethics for evaluating political candidates. Decide on key principles, such as honesty, transparency, and public service, that are important to you. Use this code to assess candidates during elections, focusing on their actions and family dealings as much as their campaign promises. This will help you make voting decisions that align with your values.
• Create a support system that can help buffer against waning support. Reach out to friends, family, or colleagues to establish a network of individuals who can offer honest feedback, encouragement, and advice. This network can serve as a sounding board for your ideas and a source of support when facing challenges.
• Develop a habit of reflective journaling to understand the impact of actions on trust. Each day, take a few minutes to reflect on your actions and decisions, considering how they might affect others' trust in you. For example, if you had to cancel plans with a friend, write down the potential impact on your relationship and ways to mitigate any negative effects.

The House of Representatives initiated an investigation to determine whether there was sufficient basis to impeach President Biden, in light of revelations pertaining to his purported participation in his family's purportedly unethical business dealings.

As the Republican Party took control of the House in 2023, the Oversight, Judiciary, and Finance Committees stepped up their scrutiny into the alleged unlawful activities associated with the Bidens. Under the leadership of Chairman James Comer, the Oversight Committee meticulously revealed proof of significant financial transactions from questionable global entities to the Biden family members. Joe Biden's assertive statement that "no one messes with a Biden" sharply contradicted the discoveries made by Comer's group.

Context

• An impeachment inquiry can affect the functioning of the government, potentially leading to political gridlock and impacting domestic and foreign policy decisions.
• Such investigations typically attract significant media coverage and public interest, influencing public opinion and potentially impacting future elections or policy decisions.
• Previous investigations into presidential conduct, such as those involving Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, have set precedents for how such inquiries are conducted and the potential consequences for a sitting president.
• When financial transactions are described as "questionable," it often implies potential ethical or legal violations, such as money laundering, bribery, or conflicts of interest, especially if they involve politically exposed persons.
• James Comer, as the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, played a significant role in leading the investigation. His leadership was pivotal in directing the focus and intensity of the inquiries into the Biden family's financial activities.

The examination of Hunter Biden's conduct emerged as a notable weak point for the Biden administration and the Democratic Party within a political framework.

The author contends that as the scandal unfolded, proponents of Biden within the media and political circles were compelled to alter their position, transitioning from initially dismissing the laptop's legitimacy and any meetings involving Joe Biden and Hunter's business contacts, to eventually acknowledging that such interactions may have taken place, while maintaining that these were merely casual conversations about the weather and did not include any financial dealings with Joe Biden.

Other Perspectives

• The actions of an adult family member are not typically considered within the scope of an administration's political strengths or weaknesses.
• The acknowledgment of the meetings does not inherently confirm any wrongdoing; it could simply be an acceptance of a factual occurrence without any implication of impropriety.
• Acknowledging that interactions may have occurred does not necessarily imply a change in stance, but could reflect the emergence of new information that was not previously available.
• The nature of a conversation, even if casual, does not preclude the possibility of implied understandings or non-verbal agreements related to financial dealings.

The alleged conduct involving Ukraine by members of the Biden family has led to substantial apprehensions regarding the security of the nation.

Devine posits that the association of Hunter Biden with Burisma, along with the undertakings of the Biden family in Ukraine, might put at risk the diplomatic and security interests of the United States. She highlights the challenges that arise when a child of the vice president occupies a managerial role at a firm in a country where American influence plays a substantial role in the development of energy strategies.

Concerns have been raised about potential conflicts of interest and threats to national security due to the Biden family's business dealings abroad, particularly in Ukraine and China.

Joe Biden advocated for the advancement of shale gas to enhance Ukraine's energy self-sufficiency, an effort that sought to diminish Ukraine's reliance on Russia and align it more with NATO, contrasting with his son's alleged objective of maximizing personal financial gain at every opportunity. The author stressed that this issue had been either disregarded or missed by those who back Biden.

Concerns about possible improper behavior emerged in connection with Hunter Biden's position at Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father was involved in formulating American policy in Ukraine.

The hiring of him by Burisma unquestionably led to a clash of interests that emerged simultaneously with Joe Biden's oversight of Ukrainian affairs, as Devine has noted. Joe Biden advocated for the participation of US energy companies in boosting Ukraine's shale gas production to reduce the country's reliance on Russian-supplied natural gas. The author emphasizes the risks that could arise if a vice president's son's position at a Ukrainian energy company might benefit from his father's policy-making.

Other Perspectives

• The Ukrainian government, not the U.S., would have been primarily responsible for regulating and overseeing Burisma's operations and any potential conflicts of interest.
• The presence of a relative in a business abroad does not necessarily result in a conflict of interest, especially if there are clear ethical guidelines and oversight mechanisms in place.
• The push for increased shale gas production could be criticized for potentially undermining sustainable energy initiatives, as it may prolong reliance on fossil fuels instead of promoting renewable energy sources.
• The presence of other international figures on the board of Burisma suggests that the company was seeking to enhance its global profile and legitimacy rather than specifically seeking to benefit from American policy-making.

Anxiety grew over the potential for U.S. interests to be compromised due to commercial interactions involving the Biden family and organizations linked to the Chinese administration.

Devine posits that the connections linking the Biden family to CEFC are a considerable risk to the security of the nation. The author argues that the apparent ease with which Hunter and Jim Biden could communicate with Joe, coupled with their willingness to leverage their surname for personal gain, raised concerns about the potential for CEFC, a firm connected to the state, to use them to influence American policy.

Other Perspectives

• The U.S. has robust security and intelligence capabilities to monitor and counter any potential threats to national security.
• The assertion of risk is speculative without concrete evidence of quid pro quo or policy changes that directly benefit CEFC or the Chinese administration.
• The use of a surname, while potentially opening doors, does not equate to actual influence or compromise of U.S. interests.
• The presumption of guilt without due process undermines the principles of fairness and justice, and any concerns should be thoroughly investigated before drawing conclusions about the potential for influence.

The ambiguity surrounding the conduct of the Biden family, along with the absence of comprehensive details about their activities, undermined trust in the governance and essential institutions of the United States.

In her book, Devine emphasizes the wider implications of actions implemented to protect the well-being of the Biden family, especially when it comes to issues of national security. Miranda Devine posits that the suppression of the New York Post's stories, along with the notorious "Dirty 51" letter, the sway held by the FBI over online platforms, and the actions taken by Department of Justice personnel to hinder inquiries, have collectively led to a waning trust in American institutions, a situation that undermines the well-being of a democratic society.

Context

• The controversies surrounding the Biden family have contributed to broader discussions about transparency and accountability in government, influencing public trust in political figures and institutions.
• A laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden surfaced with emails and documents that some claim show evidence of questionable business practices, though the authenticity and implications of these materials have been debated.
• Trust in U.S. governance affects international relations, as allies and adversaries alike gauge the stability and reliability of American leadership based on domestic trust levels.
• The "Dirty 51" letter refers to a statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials suggesting that the Hunter Biden laptop story had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, which some argue was used to deflect attention from the allegations.
• Trust in intelligence agencies is crucial for effective national security operations. If these agencies are seen as biased or compromised, it can hinder their ability to gather and act on critical information.
• Critics argued that the suppression of these stories by major tech companies was an example of censorship and raised concerns about the influence of these platforms on public discourse and information access.
• The letter was released shortly before the 2020 U.S. presidential election, which led to debates about its potential influence on voters and the election outcome.
• The FBI can influence content moderation policies by flagging certain posts or accounts that may violate terms of service or pose security risks, leading to their removal or suppression.
• The perception of DOJ interference in investigations can contribute to broader concerns about the politicization of justice and the potential misuse of power by government officials.
• When trust in institutions declines, it can exacerbate political polarization, as different groups may become more entrenched in their beliefs and less willing to engage in dialogue.
• The rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring that laws are applied equally to all citizens. Perceived or actual deviations from this principle can lead to a belief that the system is corrupt or unjust.

The impact that the business dealings of the Biden family have had on America's diplomatic and strategic interactions with key international allies and competitors.

Devine suggests that the actions taken by the Biden family in Ukraine and China have adversely affected the United States' stance on foreign policy and its dealings with other nations, whether they are friendly or adversarial. In her view, their behavior diminished the country's standing on the world stage and impeded its ability to achieve its foreign goals.

The intensification of tensions between the U.S. and Russia was further fueled by the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine, particularly due to Russia's view that the ousting of a Ukrainian official investigating Burisma posed a threat to its interests.

The author highlights the intensification of the strained relations between the United States and Russia, which were exacerbated by Joe Biden's demand for the removal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Miranda Devine implies that actions taken by Joe Biden, which Russia perceived as a definitive attempt to protect his son's interests, intensified the existing strained and suspicious relationship.

Practical Tips

• You can deepen your understanding of international relations by tracking current events related to US-Russia interactions. Start by setting up a news aggregator with specific keywords like "US-Russia relations," "Ukraine," and "international diplomacy" to receive daily updates. This will help you observe real-time developments and understand the complexities of international politics.
• Engage in online simulations or strategy games that involve geopolitical decision-making to better understand the consequences of international actions. Look for games that allow you to take on the role of a country's leader or a diplomatic strategist. As you play, pay attention to how your decisions affect your relationships with other countries and the balance of power. Reflect on these experiences to gain insights into the complexities of international diplomacy and strategy.
• Improve your decision-making process by considering the broader impact of your choices. Before making a significant decision, create a mind map that outlines the potential effects on all stakeholders involved. This exercise can help you foresee consequences that might strain relationships, similar to how political decisions can have international repercussions.
• Develop a habit of seeking diverse perspectives before making decisions that affect others. Reach out to friends, colleagues, or family members who are not directly involved in the situation and ask for their input. This can help you identify any blind spots and ensure that your actions are perceived as fair and unbiased.

The Biden family's pursuit of business opportunities in China, despite the country's authoritarian rule and conduct, raised concerns about potential conflicts with US diplomatic objectives.

Devine suggests that the involvement of the Biden family in commercial activities with companies linked to the Chinese Communist Party, at a time when Joe Biden was advocating for a strong position against China's authoritarian government and its economic and military ambitions, raised serious concerns about double-dealing and potential conflicts of interest. The writer posits that this contradiction lessened the genuine ability of the U.S. President to further the country's foreign policy objectives, especially when it came to curbing the global influence of China.

Other Perspectives

• The involvement of the Biden family in business in China could be seen as a private matter separate from Joe Biden's role as a public official, assuming there is a clear boundary and no evidence of policy being affected by personal financial interests.
• The global economy is interconnected, and the participation of US citizens in foreign markets is a reflection of that reality, which does not automatically undermine diplomatic objectives.
• It is possible that the business activities in question were conducted in full compliance with U.S. laws and regulations, including any disclosure requirements that apply to the family members of public officials.
• The notion of a strong position might be more rhetorical than substantive, as actual policy decisions and trade agreements often require compromises that do not fully align with the rhetoric of taking a strong stance.
• The existence of business relationships with Chinese companies does not automatically imply endorsement of or alignment with the Chinese government's policies or actions.
• Potential conflicts of interest can be mitigated through transparency, ethics agreements, and divestment, which can allow a president to execute foreign policy without personal business interests interfering.
• The global influence of a country like China is shaped by its own actions and the responses of the international community, not just the policy stance of the U.S. President.

Claims of unethical behavior and the exploitation of their status for personal advantage by the Biden family have sullied America's global standing, undermining its ability to promote its interests abroad.

Devine contends that the United States' global moral standing and credibility have been eroded by the perception that the Biden family has exploited Joe Biden's position for their own benefit. The author argues that the financial ties of Joe Biden's family to global entities, along with his actions in Ukraine, have undermined the United States' position on corruption and diminished its ability to advocate for democracy around the world. Devine posits that such deficiencies consistently hinder the United States in realizing its foreign policy objectives.

Practical Tips

• Create a transparency log for your personal or professional life. Keep a record of instances where your actions could be perceived as a conflict of interest or unethical. For example, if you receive a gift from a vendor at work, note it down along with the action you took to ensure there was no impropriety (such as reporting it to your supervisor or declining the gift). This log can serve as a tool for self-reflection and accountability.
• Engage in cultural exchange by becoming a pen pal with someone from another country. Use platforms that connect people from different parts of the world and share your personal experiences that reflect American values like freedom, innovation, and community service. This can help create a more nuanced understanding of America's social fabric.
• Develop a habit of reading the fine print in political campaign materials and advertisements. Whenever you receive a flyer, email, or see an ad from a political campaign, take a few extra minutes to research who funded the material. This could involve looking up the names of organizations or donors mentioned in the "Paid for by" section on a campaign website or using online databases that track political contributions and spending.
• Write a reflective journal entry about the implications of foreign policy decisions on your personal values. Consider how actions taken by leaders align or conflict with what you believe is right or wrong. This exercise can help you clarify your stance on ethical issues in politics and understand how they resonate with your personal beliefs.
• Volunteer with a local organization that promotes transparency and accountability in government. Engaging with such groups can provide practical insights into the mechanisms of corruption and the efforts to combat it. This hands-on experience will give you a clearer picture of the challenges and successes in the fight against corruption at a grassroots level.
• Engage in micro-volunteering online to support democratic initiatives around the world. Platforms like United Nations Volunteers or Zooniverse offer opportunities to contribute to projects that require just a small amount of your time. You could be translating documents for NGOs, analyzing data for research that supports democratic reforms, or writing letters of solidarity to activists and political prisoners.