A new transcript from a key Hunter Biden witness undercuts many of the claims Republicans are making about “Biden corruption.”

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.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    1162·
    9 months ago

    why are we supposed to care about this? is it worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars in man-hours to achieve… whatever it is?

    is this a butteryemails thing that wont die because conservatives have no real agenda and love to waste government resources?

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      731·
      9 months ago

      is this a butteryemails thing that wont die because conservatives have no real agenda and love to waste government resources?

      Bingo.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      32·
      9 months ago

      I don’t know… Loans without expectations of repayment to someone who doesn’t work in the government??? Lies or not, I reserve that kind of behavior for my Supreme Court Justices, not some random guy who has zero impact on my daily life!

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    41·
    9 months ago

    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.

    This is exactly why they want Hunter in a closed-door session. They want to be able to lie about what he said. Hopefully this shows that won’t be enough for them to be able to get away with it.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.worldEnglish
    192·
    9 months ago

    Having disgraceful relatives is a long political tradition. Billy Carter surely wasn’t the first but just in the era I know about, Roger Clinton accepted a $50,000 Rolex from the Gambino mafia family. Nancy Reagan was the throat GOAT. George HW Bush had an idiot son who broke everything he touched.

    I can’t remember an Obama one that came up but there probably was one. Maybe someone in Kenya has made a Billy Beer equivalent. And the Trump boys would clearly eat decorative soap and say, “This candy kind of sucks.” and then eat another one.

    And it was probably worse before. The Kennedy family certainly had their share of fuck ups.

  • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
    11·
    9 months ago

    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?

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      3·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          And I don’t think that the courts can impose anything here. That’s all legislative branch business, separation of powers and such.

          • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
            1·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • stoly@lemmy.world
              1·
              9 months ago

              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.

  • jak@sopuli.xyz
    6·
    9 months ago

    Bruh, I just realized now that this guy is different from James Comey.