Hunter Biden fled to ‘ultra-luxurious’ vacation with Secret Service protection — avoiding grueling deposition

New York Post - Mar 15th, 2025

Hunter Biden has been reported to be in South Africa, indulging in a luxury vacation while avoiding a deposition scheduled for a lawsuit in California. This development follows a California District Court Judge's decision to dismiss a case against former Trump staffer Garrett Ziegler, citing Hunter's financial constraints. However, Hunter, who was already in Cape Town before the case dismissal, is seen enjoying a $500-a-night villa with Secret Service protection, stirring controversy over the expenses involved. Ziegler's lawyers claim that Hunter's extravagant lifestyle contradicts his claims of being financially broke, leading to calls for the revocation of his Secret Service protection.

The incident has sparked debates about the appropriateness and cost of Hunter Biden's Secret Service protection, which was extended beyond standard limitations via an executive memorandum by President Biden. Critics argue that such protection, especially at a time when the Secret Service faces budget constraints, is unwarranted and excessive. The case has also drawn parallels with previous criticisms of similar protections extended to President Trump's adult children, highlighting ongoing tensions regarding the use of taxpayer funds for personal security of political figures' families. The legal battle and its implications on public resources continue to unfold, with Ziegler seeking reimbursement for legal costs, arguing Hunter was not forthcoming with the court about his financial status.

Hunter Biden Joe Biden Legal Battle Cape Town Garrett Ziegler Secret Service Executive Memorandum Luxury Vacation Taxpayer Funds

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The story presents a mix of factual claims and allegations that require careful verification and corroboration. While it addresses topics of public interest and has the potential to engage and influence readers, the lack of balanced perspectives and reliance on potentially biased sources diminish its overall quality. The article is timely and clear but leans towards sensationalism, which may affect its credibility and impact. To enhance reliability, it would benefit from including diverse viewpoints and authoritative sources, providing a more comprehensive and objective account of the events described.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that require verification, such as Hunter Biden's trip to South Africa and his alleged avoidance of a deposition. The article mentions Biden's stay in a $500-per-night villa and the presence of Secret Service protection, but these claims lack direct evidence or authoritative confirmation. The mention of Biden's financial status and legal claims against Garrett Ziegler also lacks corroboration from independent sources, which affects the story's overall factual accuracy.

Balance

The article leans heavily towards a critical perspective of Hunter Biden, focusing on allegations and criticisms without providing his or his legal team's perspective. It quotes Garrett Ziegler and others critical of Biden but does not offer a balanced view by including statements from Biden's representatives or neutral third-party experts. This imbalance suggests a potential bias in the reporting.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it easy for readers to follow the narrative. However, the tone leans towards sensationalism, particularly in the descriptions of luxury and alleged misconduct. This could affect the neutrality and perceived objectivity of the report, although the basic facts are presented in a straightforward manner.

Source quality

The story references independent reporter Laura Loomer and unnamed 'Trump administration sources,' which raises questions about the reliability and potential bias of the sources. The lack of diverse and authoritative sources, such as official court documents or statements from Hunter Biden's legal team, diminishes the credibility of the information presented.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose how the information was obtained or provide a transparent methodology for verifying the claims made. There is a lack of context regarding the sources' potential biases or conflicts of interest, which affects the story's transparency and the reader's ability to assess the credibility of the information.