Indeed it would be, but you'd have to be able to clearly tie that together. It's not enough to say "Hunter complained about having to share his 'Chinese' money with his dad/give him some of it to help with house repairs" if there are in fact other reasons why Hunter would have been paid by a Chinese company that are not directly related to his father (as there appear to be). It's not illegal to have Hunter be paid for his own stake in a company, and then use that money to pay his dad. Nobody has to like that, but it's not illegal unless it can be proven that this was Hunter somehow laundering what was in fact a bribe intended for his father, which is not proven by reference to his complaining.
I'm not saying the Bidens are clean (in fact, I don't believe they are), but notice how many "if"s and "would"s are in your post. Things that are proven don't need hedges like that. It seems like those making these accusations are long on "it would be"s and short on actual evidence to support said accusations. The reason I'm not out and out against this investigation (as ill-timed as it is, vis-a-vis the looming government shutdown) is that I think that if there is such evidence out there, the opportunity to find it and bring it forward is entirely necessary to ensure that, in so far as it is possible, politicians don't get away with being a bunch of grifting, manipulative scumbags, despite that being their nature. Having said that, what has been presented so far is simply not evidence. It's conjecture, hearsay, 'Chinese whispers', if you will, but direct evidence it is not.
