If you find it fascinating that Joe Biden’s 2016 through 2018 tax returns have been removed from his website, join the crowd.
The reason those particular years hold lots of interest lies in the numbers.
Below is a graphic from Fox News that posts the Bidens’ income from when Joe Biden played VP for Obama in 2016. Then, the graphic shows how the Biden’s feasted in the post-Obama years, leading into his ill-fated run for and ultimate coup to “win” the presidency.
But the numbers are even more fascinating when you look at Biden’s 2019 returns:
Biden’s return shows that the DOCTOR Jill made $944,737 in taxable income in 2019 and paid $299,346, or a 31% tax rate, in federal income taxes.
So in 2017 and 2018, the Bidens took in $15,651,242. That’s almost $8 million per year. What could have possibly driven up the Biden’s income by more than 20 times their income in 2016?
Two words: Hunter Biden.
So it’s very convenient that the Bidens chose these specific years to “perform maintenance” on the returns. Believe it or not, that is the excuse given for taking down their taxes. Not the revelation that Hunter Biden claims he paid The Big Guy almost $50,000 a month for rent.
And as we’ve learned, Biden claimed about $21,000 in rental income for 2017 and $0 for rental income for 2018.
If Hunter Biden’s declaration is true, Joe and Jill made almost $600,000 from March 2017 to the end of the year, and about $100,000 in rental income in 2018 thru Feb of that year.
Which Biden is lying? Either way, both Bidens have some explaining to do.
Links on JoeBiden.com to the Biden’s federal and Delaware tax returns from 2019 can still be viewed on the website. And I suspect they left 2019 up, since those returns had the most reasonable earnings for a do-nothing brain dead moron and his narcissistic wife.
As for 2016 to 2018 returns, click those buttons and you get redirected to a Democrat donations page.
Could we see Joe and Jill Biden file amended returns? Because I’m betting they will try to correct the record with a “no harm no foul” amended return. And this return will include Hunter Biden’s money. What excuse can they use? I have no idea. But nobody takes down returns for “maintenance”, unless by “maintenance” you mean SPIN!
How much media coverage do you expect from this development? If you believe as I do, you don’t expect much coverage since the players are Bidens. However, if this were Trump you can bet this would be the lead, i.e the top story for media.
The Federalist asked the same questions I’m asking. Who bought this many Biden books? Because neither I nor they believe Biden sold enough books to enter 8 digits of income.
From The Federalist:
The same media that ignored Hunter’s laptop has shown a complete incuriosity about these entities, accepting the premise that Joe and Jill raked in $13 million from their book deal to generate their huge increase in income. We simply don’t know if that’s true, though. What we do know is that their book sales were dismal.
Perhaps sensing smoke starting to build just before the election, USA Today published a “fact check” piece that attempted to support that the Bidens earned “$15.6 million … from speaking fees and book deals” in the years 2017 through 2019 and that “more than $10 million of that total income was profits from Biden’s memoir ‘Promise Me, Dad’ and $3 million in profits from Jill Biden’s book.”
Follow the source link provided to that $10 million number, though, and you’ll end up at Joe Biden’s campaign website with financial disclosure links to only their individual returns — no S-corporation tax returns. So, in reality, readers were left with a smokescreen. (Now the financial disclosure links for 2016, 2017, and 2018 have even been changed to connect to a Democratic National Committee fundraising site via ActBlue rather than the tax documents.)
I noted back in 2020 that, “While (Joe Biden’s) financial disclosures reasonably support the $2.7 million of net income reported by CelticCapri in 2018, a notable $8.7 million gap exists between its $9.5 million net income in 2017 and the $809,709 of disclosed income in that year from book tour and related speaking events. Since his disclosure covers only part of 2017, we lack the insight into other income that may explain it.”
I agree with The Federalist that the USA Today article is meant to provide cover for the Bidens. Sadly, it’s a feeble attempt for cover should anybody actually look more closely at these book deals.