After the House Oversight Committee testimony of a former business partner of Hunter Biden reportedly didn’t live up to what some Republicans had hoped, Fox News host Laura Ingraham told viewers Monday that it’s “irrelevant” “whether sufficient proof exists to convict Joe Biden of a financial crime.”
On The Ingraham Angle, the namesake host’s opening monologue centered around Devon Archer’s comments to lawmakers during a closed-door interview.
A source familiar with the interview told CNN that Archer said Hunter Biden was selling the “illusion” of access to his father, and stressed that he offered no evidence connecting the elder Biden to his son’s business affairs overseas. Similarly, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who was present for Republicans’ questioning of Archer, later told reporters that Archer said that the pair “never discussed any business on their phone conversations.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Goldman also appeared on CNN Monday to urge Rep. James Comer (R-KY) to release the transcript of Archer’s interview “rather than continue to send out misinformation about what transpired.” Comer had told Fox News after Archer’s appearance that Biden “lied to the American people when he said he had no knowledge about his son’s business dealings and was not involved.” And when asked by Sean Hannity if “this is officially the Joe Biden bribery allegation” and if he will be able to prove it, Comer replied, “I sure hope so.”
“I do believe that there’s a lot of smoke,” he added, “and where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Unsurprisingly, Ingraham was also skeptical of the substance of Hunter Biden’s phone conversations.
“We all know that when he was VP, Joe Biden was put on phone calls with Hunter and his clients not to discuss the weather—as fascinating as Joe’s perspective on the weather must be—but to reassure those clients that the big guy was on their side,” she said, similar to how some Republicans have interpreted Monday’s testimony. Arizona GOP Rep. Andy Biggs, however, didn’t appear to join in on the hype, telling reporters, “The substance of the conversations were pleasantries.”
Ingraham went on to suggest that it actually might not be worth Republicans’ effort trying to find evidence of President Biden himself committing a financial crime.
“Now, no one should really get hung up, as sometimes Republicans are wont to do, on whether sufficient proof exists to convict Joe Biden of a financial crime. That’s irrelevant here,” she argued.
“If Biden had any brains,” she explained, “he would never have wanted funds to go directly to himself, anyway. It would be better if it all went to his son, or brother, or anyone in his family, for that matter, as long as it went to a Biden.”
