A new transcript from a key Hunter Biden witness undercuts many of the claims Republicans are making about “Biden corruption.”
The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released the transcript of the testimony of Kevin Morris, a friend of and attorney for Hunter Biden, and his statements undercut everything Republicans have said about the embattled first son.
Morris is a high-powered entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles who met Hunter at a 2019 presidential fundraiser for his father, Joe Biden. Morris has loaned Hunter nearly $5 million in the years since. He testified about his relationship with Hunter in a closed-door committee hearing last week.
Initially, Oversight Chair James Comer just released a list of paraphrased highlights from Morris’s testimony. Comer claimed that Morris informally loaned Hunter the money and does not expect to be repaid until after the 2024 election—or possibly ever. But the transcript shows this couldn’t be further from the truth.
In reality, Morris never once mentioned the possibility of forgiving the loans. Instead, he said he has a “100 percent” expectation that Hunter will repay him, and repeatedly states that he and Hunter have a series of promissory notes agreeing the younger Biden will pay back the money.
Question for a lawyer:
Were we going to see this eventually, or was it only released because Comer lied about it?
There was mention of Morris’s lawyer snapping back at Comer last week. Is this the product of that?
The individual Congressional committees have full control over what is released, though each chamber could surely force one of their committees to release information it if they felt like it.
I was thinking that was the case for congressional stuff. I seem to remember a civil deposition that was released early due to mischaracterization in the media. Seems you would need to have a judge in the loop for that. I also could be misremembering the facts anyway.
Thanks.
And I don’t think that the courts can impose anything here. That’s all legislative branch business, separation of powers and such.
Right. Just to clarify “seems like you need a judge, *and that’s obviously not the case here as it would be to the civil context.”
Fixed that for me. Thanks again.
The cases that have gone to court recently over Congressional subpoenas are really not the judicial branch getting involved with the legislative branch, but rather affirming that the legislative branch has that power and you have to comply. Really the courts are just acting as the teeth for Congress in this case.