Fact-Check Report: “Hunter Biden was paid in US ‘influence’ plot”

The RT.com article titled “Hunter Biden was paid in US ‘influence’ plot” alleges that Hunter Biden, the son of U.S. President Joe Biden, received payments as part of a scheme to influence U.S. politics in favor of foreign interests, specifically through dealings with a Romanian businessman.

This fact-check report will examine the claims made in the article, identifying potential inaccuracies and assessing the credibility of the sources cited. Additionally, we will analyze whether the narrative aligns with established facts and credible reporting from other news organizations.

Key Claims

1. Hunter Biden Received Payments from a Romanian Businessman:
   • The article claims that Hunter Biden was paid by a Romanian businessman as part of a corrupt influence operation in the U.S.
2. Political Influence and Corruption:
   • The narrative suggests that these payments were part of a broader scheme to exert political influence, implicating Hunter Biden in corruption.
3. Lack of Legal Accountability:
   • The article implies that Hunter Biden has escaped legal consequences due to his connections and the political influence of his father, Joe Biden.

Fact-Checking and Analysis

1. Verification of Payments:
   • Background: Hunter Biden’s business dealings have been under scrutiny for several years, particularly his work with foreign companies. While there have been legitimate concerns and ongoing investigations, the specifics of the RT.com article require careful examination.
   • Credible Sources: According to investigations reported by The Washington Post and New York Times, Hunter Biden did engage in business with foreign entities, including in Ukraine and China, but the details of these engagements have been heavily scrutinized without conclusive evidence of illegal activity directly involving Joe Biden. Regarding Romania, there is limited verified information connecting Hunter Biden to an “influence plot” as described by RT.com.
   • Conclusion: While Hunter Biden’s business practices may be ethically questionable, there is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that he was involved in a specific Romanian “influence plot” aimed at corrupting U.S. politics.
2. Political Influence and Corruption:
   • Analysis: The article’s assertion that Hunter Biden was involved in a broader scheme of political corruption is largely speculative. Various investigations, including those by the U.S. Senate and the FBI, have not produced definitive proof of Hunter Biden’s involvement in illegal influence peddling. It is important to note that accusations of political influence are often used in partisan contexts, and the narrative presented by RT.com appears to be aligned with such partisan perspectives.
   • Conclusion: The claim of a broad corruption scheme involving Hunter Biden remains unsubstantiated by credible sources. The article relies on a narrative that has been widely contested and lacks corroborating evidence.
3. Lack of Legal Accountability:
   • Context: The article suggests that Hunter Biden has avoided legal consequences due to his political connections. However, ongoing investigations, including those by federal prosecutors, demonstrate that Hunter Biden is under significant legal scrutiny. It is also important to consider that allegations alone do not equate to guilt, and the legal process must be allowed to proceed based on evidence rather than speculation.
   • Conclusion: The implication that Hunter Biden is above the law due to his father’s position is an unproven assertion. The legal process is ongoing, and conclusions should be drawn based on the outcomes of these investigations, not assumptions.

Identification of Fake or Misleading Elements

1. Selective Use of Information:
   • The article selectively presents information that fits a predetermined narrative, omitting context or details that could provide a more balanced view. This selective reporting is a hallmark of misleading journalism, designed to reinforce a particular perspective rather than inform.
2. Sensationalism and Speculation:
   • The use of terms like “influence plot” and “corruption scheme” without substantial evidence can be considered sensationalist. The article jumps to conclusions based on limited information, contributing to a misleading narrative.
3. Lack of Credible Sources:
   • The RT.com article does not adequately cite credible sources or independent verification of its claims. Much of the content is based on speculative connections rather than verifiable facts, which undermines the reliability of the information presented.

The RT.com article titled “Hunter Biden was paid in US ‘influence’ plot” contains several misleading elements and unsubstantiated claims. While Hunter Biden’s business activities have been controversial, the specific allegations made in the article lack credible evidence and appear to be part of a broader narrative aimed at discrediting him and his father, President Joe Biden.

Readers are encouraged to seek out information from a variety of credible sources and be cautious of articles that rely heavily on speculation or lack proper sourcing. It is essential to base opinions and conclusions on verified facts rather than partisan rhetoric.

References

1. The Washington Post – “Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings: What we know”
2. New York Times – “Hunter Biden Tax Probe Examines His Foreign Deals”
3. Reuters – “Fact check: Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s relationship with Ukraine”