The title and subtitle are what the article, which is over 3000 words long, is actually about. Here are the the total of 109 words about Biden’s worth and how he acquired it:

The Obama campaign in 2008 made a pledge to exclude lobbyists from policy deliberations and, once in office, policymaking. “Lobbyists are not bad people,” then-Sen. Joe Biden said. “Special interest groups are not bad people. But they are corrosive.” Biden was the most modest vice president in recent history, coming into office with a net worth of less than $150,000. But afterward, he made big money, profiting from a multimillion-dollar book deal and earning $540,000 annually from a University of Pennsylvania center named for him that doesn’t involve any teaching. He nevertheless promoted himself as Middle-Class Joe. “I work for you—not any industry,” he tweeted last year.

That’s it. That is all there is about Biden’s personal wealth. That is what you find as the horrible charges made against Biden by the author and shamefully linked to by me. I don’t see where the article suggests that any of Biden’s wealth has shadowy origins. The rest of the over three thousand word article is about people who are now his advisers and about those expected to be in very important places in his prospective administration.The article is about their career paths and what those paths indicate we can expect from them.   

Do you believe that there is such a thing as the military-industrial complex? Do you believe there are actual people in it that are playing actual roles that make it what it is?

 In your overwrought response you ignore the point of the piece entirely and do not challenge a single statement of fact as presented in the article, and there are a lot of them about the people that the article is actually about, people that are not Biden.  Your main point about the article itself which you think is significant is that the couple million for a book and $540,000 a year for a non-job is just trivial bucks in the world where Biden operates. That is true enough but in making the only pertinent part of your rant be about how Biden got his money fair and square you are defending a charge that was not made. Have you looked up the definition of troll lately. 

Is there a despot I do not support?  The wanna-be despot that I absolutely do not support is named Donald Trump. Among the reasons I don’t are his terrible policies. How  do you see Trump's policies re Venezuela as effectively different than what Biden says his policies will be, or does it even matter to you if they are not different as long as it is Biden administering them and Trump is gone?   The crimes against Venezuela did not begin with Trump and they certainly will not end with Biden if he does as he says he will. By effectively different I mean difference of a kind that will ease the suffering in Venezuela and encourage partnership with it that will help both countries. 

 The Bush administration actively worked in the shadows to the extent that they could do so to instigate and support a coup against Chavez when he was extremely popular among the masses of his people. Obama overtly raised the ante by declaring that Venezuela is a threat to the national security of the U.S.A. He did so in order to “legally” initiate sanctions. Trump blustered and staggered like the jackass he is through that door opened by Obama and increased the sanctions to a much more killing level. He did so with all the intelligent study he applies to all his policies.  Venezuelan people are dying in great numbers as a result. That is not a hyperbolic statement.

 Do you believe that Venezuela actually is a threat to our National security? How?  Do you think that our nation or our government or the American populace, or you, or me, much less the Venezuelans themselves will be safer if the people of Venezuela, who have continued to vote for the Chavista Bolivarian government, are starved into submission and a right wing government takes over and administers the country like South and Central American right wing governments always have?  If the number includes, oh say 500,000 dead children to reach that goal, will you echo Madeleine Albright and say that you think it is a terrible price that all those *other* people paid but, hard as it may be, that you think it is worth it? Worth it to who? To you? To what end, for what purpose, do you support that and all the other carnage that obviously would be, that actually is, happening concurrently? To believe we have those rights and are in the right in Venezuela is a truly “exceptional” as well as a truly sociopathic position to take. 

For many reasons including my direct experiences when traveling through Venezuela, although it was a long time ago, I firmly believe that the Venezuelan people like and admire the American people and could be, would choose to be, a firm ally of our country but do not want to be under the thumb of right wing leaders effectively installed by us. I don't see how it helps anybody except some rich or otherwise cynical power hungry fucks if we succeed in making them into a vassal state. Are there any of the first person kinetic or the proxy or the economic wars that the U.S. is waging which you do not wholeheartedly support?

There is a follow up article today. Why Our Analyses on Powell and Iraq Matter Today Short answer is: It is simply because we are still living today with the serious consequences of those events.

I'll take your word for it that Musk often says stupid provocative things on social media.  That being the case, there is plenty of evidence that in the plane of U.S. society and power in which Musk travels his stupid provocative comment on who-could-coup-who and how everybody else can just "deal with it" is indicative of widely held opinion.  "The arrogance toward the political life of other countries, and the greed toward resources that people like Musk think are their entitlement" is one reason that I believe we should pay attention to Musk's saying out loud what so many believe. 

  By any reasonable interpretation of the law he should not have run for president.

That is debatable and has been debated with strong arguments on both sides.  Whether he should have run for another term or not and whether or not the courts would have ultimately deemed the election legal and valid, I accept the preponderance of evidence that he did win the popular vote in that election. The OAS report is not credible. What is not debatable is that Morales had some months to go in his then current term of office when he was 'encouraged' to leave office and get the hell out of the country.

 I propose a question only slightly different from the one you posed in your final paragraph:  Consider a scenario in which Biden had somehow got to appoint two or three Supremes in his first term, and then, between being elected for a second term in an election that was disputed by Republicans but decided, by those same Supremes which Biden had appointed, to be valid. Then while undisputedly still the legitimate President in his first term but before inauguration to his second term, was 'encouraged" to resign and leave the country along with his VP because his life and the lives and property of his family and supporters depended on it and then an obscure Representative from the Republican Party that only a very small percentage of voters had ever heard of claimed the Presidency and got away with it. Would you believe it was a coup? Would you believe that justice had been done?  Would you believe we then had a legitimate President? Would you support that Presidency?