The evidence is there, whistle blowers have come forward but the right people to push it have not done so. More than likely for the same reasons you have stated.

Or more likely because no one has come forward with evidence sufficient to demonstrate a violation of the law committed by Joe Biden.

What always catches my ear in these discussions are the repeated references to the "Biden Crime Family" - rather than simply discussing the crimes that Joe Biden is being alleged to have committed. It's very reminiscent of the "Bush Crime Family" stuff that Mike Malloy was always going on about. Because at least one member of the family has done something prosecutable, you can allege that they're all in it together because they're a family - without ever having to articulate the specific things that the other members of the "Crime Family" have done that constitute crimes.

It's undeniable that Hunter Biden was trading on his last name, and trying to convince anyone and everyone that hiring him might confer benefits because of his connection to his politically-powerful relative. That's unseemly - whether Hunter Biden or Billy Carter - but not generally not a crime. And certainly not a crime committed by the relative.

It's always a bad look - but claiming that "of course the Politically Powerful Relative must have been in on it!" is not a substitute for evidence that the Politically Powerful Relative actually did anything wrong, if you're looking for any kind of formal enforcement action against them. It takes a lot to prove that a government official engaged in actual malfeasance when making choices that are within the purview of their office, and it's not easy to develop sufficient evidence that would support a charge or enforcement action. You might suspect that the officeholder is dirty, especially if they're in the party you dislike - but proving that is another thing altogether.

Which, again, is where the Biden Crime Family formulation is important. Hunter's a bad guy, so saying "Crime Family" blurs the distinction between him and the President and lets you impute all the scurrilous things he did to the President. It's a neat little rhetorical trick, but it's not going to get any formal action against the President.