Egregious Abuses of Power
The House GOP Oversight Committee has released a scathing report detailing the findings of its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, accusing him of committing some of the most severe abuses of power ever investigated by Congress. The report, backed by the Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees, presents what Republicans describe as undeniable evidence of Biden’s direct involvement in a vast influence-peddling scheme that enriched his family to the tune of millions.
Allegations of Corruption and Influence Peddling
According to the report, Biden was not just aware of his family’s illicit activities but was an active participant. The investigation uncovered a network of foreign business deals facilitated by Biden’s political influence while he served as Vice President. The report asserts that Biden’s family, including his son Hunter and brother James, received over $27 million from foreign entities, with Biden himself allegedly benefiting financially from these transactions. The funds were reportedly funneled through shell companies to obscure their origins, raising serious questions about the legality and ethics of these operations.
The committee’s findings suggest that Biden frequently engaged with foreign business partners, attending dinners and taking calls to project his influence, which was sold as a commodity by his family members. The GOP report brands Biden’s actions as one of the most “egregious abuses of power” in U.S. history, drawing comparisons to the very dangers the Founding Fathers sought to prevent when they included impeachment provisions in the Constitution.
Obstruction and Cover-Up Allegations
The report also accuses Biden and his administration of systematically obstructing the impeachment inquiry and the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden. The committee highlights what it describes as a deliberate and sustained effort by the Biden-Harris Administration to hinder investigations, including manipulating the Justice Department’s handling of Hunter Biden’s case. The report claims that political appointees within the administration intervened in the investigation to protect the President’s son, allowing significant felony charges to expire and granting Hunter Biden preferential treatment.
Implications and Next Steps
The findings from the GOP-led investigation are expected to intensify the already heated political climate. Republican leaders argue that the evidence supports the strongest case for impeachment of a sitting president that the House of Representatives has ever investigated. With accusations ranging from influence peddling to obstruction of justice, the report paints a picture of a presidency steeped in corruption and the abuse of public trust.
As the political battle over these findings unfolds, the potential consequences for President Biden and the future of his administration remain uncertain. However, the GOP’s report has undoubtedly set the stage for what could be one of the most contentious impeachment proceedings in modern U.S. history.
LINK TO OFFICIAL REPORT (or read the full report below disclaimer)
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is based on the available data and current events around the time of publication, to the best of our staff research and knowledge. It is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as professional advice, financial advice, or legal advice. We at Las Vegas Top Picks do our best to get stories accurate, but sometimes mistakes and biases happen, and it is always good to double-check other sources and media outlets to confirm stories and the factual details. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the overall opinion of Las Vegas Top Picks.
Official Report Below
REPORT OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Report of the
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Committee on the Judiciary
Committee on Ways and Means
Prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives
118th Congress
In accordance with
H. Res. 918
August 19, 2024
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Constitution of the United States entrusts the House of Representatives with “the
sole Power of Impeachment.”1 When confronted with evidence that the President of the United
States may have engaged in “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,”2 it is
the House’s responsibility to conduct an impeachment inquiry and, when appropriate, prepare
articles of impeachment. In accordance with this obligation, and pursuant to direction from the
House, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the
Committee on Ways and Means have been conducting an inquiry to assess whether sufficient
evidence exists that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. engaged in impeachable conduct.
3 As
described in this report, the Committees have accumulated evidence demonstrating that President
Biden has engaged in impeachable conduct. The Committees have prepared this report to inform
the House on the evidence gathered to date.
First and foremost, overwhelming evidence demonstrates that President Biden
participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family. Among
other aspects of this conspiracy, the Biden family and their business associates received tens of
millions of dollars from foreign interests by leading those interests to believe that such payments
would provide them access to and influence with President Biden. As Vice President, President
Biden actively participated in this conspiracy by, among other things, attending dinners with his
family’s foreign business partners and speaking to them by phone, often when being placed on
speakerphone by Hunter Biden. For example, in 2014, Vice President Biden attended a dinner for
Hunter Biden with Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina.4 Following the dinner, Baturina wired $3.5
million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a firm associated with Hunter Biden.5 Then, months later,
as Hunter Biden and his business associates continued to solicit more money from Baturina, Vice
President Biden participated in a phone call with Baturina and Hunter Biden where Vice
President Biden told Baturina, “you be good to my boy.”6 Moreover, President Biden knowingly
participated in this conspiracy. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is inconceivable that
President Biden did not understand that he was taking part in an effort to enrich his family by
abusing his office of public trust.
The evidence also establishes that the Biden family went to great lengths to conceal this
conspiracy. Foreign money was transmitted to the Biden family through complicated financial
transactions. The Biden family laundered funds through intermediate entities and broke up large
transactions into numerous smaller transactions. Substantial efforts were also made to hide
President Biden’s involvement in his family’s business activities.
Evidence obtained during the Committees’ impeachment inquiry also shows Hunter
Biden and his business associates leveraged Vice President Biden’s official position to garner
1 U.S. CONST. Art. 1, § 2, cl. 5. 2 U.S. CONST. Art. 2, § 4. 3 H. Res. 918, 118th Cong. (2023); H. Res. 917, 118th Cong. (2023).
4 Transcribed Interview of Devon Archer, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, at 58 (July 31, 2023)
[hereinafter “Archer Interview”]. 5 Transcribed Interview of Jason Galanis, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
at 83–84 (Feb. 23, 2024) [hereinafter “Galanis Interview”]. 6 Id. at 11.
3
favorable outcomes in foreign business dealings and legal proceedings. Several witnesses
testified that Hunter Biden invoked his father in business dealings with Romanian, Chinese,
Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian companies, resulting in millions of dollars flowing to the Biden
family. For example, around 2014, Hunter Biden explored starting a joint venture with Chinese
businessman Henry Zhao and his company, Harvest Fund Management (Harvest), “a $300
billion Chinese financial services company closely connected to the Chinese Communist Party,”7
and when it appeared the deal may not materialize, he called his father for assistance.8 Similarly,
while Hunter Biden served on the board of directors of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma
from 2014 to 2019, he utilized his father’s position to relieve pressure the company was under
from a government investigation. In doing so, Vice President Biden changed U.S. policy in order
to withhold a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee until Ukraine took government action to stop the
investigation into the company affiliated with Hunter Biden. After leaving office, Joe Biden and
his family continued their financial relationships with corrupt Chinese businessmen who would
send the Bidens millions of dollars.
President Biden’s participation in this conspiracy to enrich his family constitutes
impeachable conduct. By monetizing the Vice Presidency for his family’s benefit, he abused his
office of public trust, placing the welfare of his family ahead of the welfare of the United States.
He also put foreign interests ahead of the interests of the American people. Indeed, precedent set
by House Democrats in 2019 in their impeachment of President Donald J. Trump establishes that
“abuse of office,” defined as the exercise of “official power to obtain an improper personal
benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest,” is an impeachable offense.9
Separately, the Committees have gathered evidence that President Biden used his official
position to conceal his mishandling of classified information as a private citizen. During his
tenure as Vice President, Joe Biden removed highly sensitive classified documents from the
White House, despite having no authority to do so. Documents with classified markings were
later found at the Penn Biden Center, at his personal residence in a garage, and at the University
of Delaware.10 The report of Special Counsel Robert Hur detailed how President Biden willfully
retained classified material, shared it with a ghostwriter who was unauthorized to receive
classified information, and utilized the classified information to draft a memoir for which he
received an $8 million advance.
11 The Special Counsel’s report, as well as the Committees’
inquiry, disclosed how President Biden caused White House employees to conceal his conduct
and mislead the American people about his actions.12
Finally, the Committees have obtained significant evidence that corroborates many of the
allegations made by the IRS whistleblowers with respect to the Justice Department’s deviations
7 Id. at 9-10. 8 Id. at 10; see also id. at 88 (“[W]hat I overheard was looking for help to get it over the finish line, and the it was
the Harvest investment into Burnham.”).
9 H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 44 (2019). 10 ROBERT K. HUR, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., OFF. OF SPECIAL COUNS., REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO
UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL, RETENTION, AND DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS DISCOVERED AT LOCATIONS
INCLUDING THE PENN BIDEN CENTER AND THE DELAWARE PRIVATE RESIDENCE OF PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.,
at 19 (Feb. 2024) [hereinafter “Hur Report”]. 11 Id. at 102. 12 See generally id.
4
from standard procedures to benefit Hunter Biden. The Justice Department allowed the statute of
limitations to run on two serious charges facing Hunter Biden. The Justice Department prevented
line attorneys from conducting key interviews and pursuing important lines of inquiry. The
Justice Department tipped off Hunter Biden’s attorneys about nonpublic investigative actions and
implemented unnecessary hurdles and approvals for prosecutors to charge Hunter Biden. The
special treatment for Hunter Biden, which only ceased at the onset of congressional attention on
the Department’s investigation, may be a basis for impeachment, as the distortion of an official
investigation was a basis in the prospective impeachment of President Nixon in 1974.13
Additionally, the House need not show that the President directly ordered his subordinates to
obstruct an investigation; in certain circumstances the President may be impeached for the
actions of subordinate officials.
14
During the course of the impeachment inquiry, President Biden and his Administration
have failed to fully cooperate with the House’s inquiry. The Biden-Harris Justice Department has
instructed certain key fact witnesses to not answer questions and directed others to disregard
subpoenas from the Committees. The Biden-Harris White House has obfuscated facts and denied
the Committees access to witnesses. President Biden met with Hunter Biden before Hunter’s
defiance of his subpoenas for testimony, and the White House acknowledged that President
Biden was aware in advance of Hunter’s actions. Here, too, precedent from the Democrats’ 2019
impeachment is instructive. “As a matter of constitutional law,” Democrats explained then, “the
House may properly conclude that a President’s obstruction of Congress is relevant to assessing
the evidentiary record in an impeachment inquiry” and “[w]here the President illegally seeks to
obstruct such an inquiry, the House is free to infer that evidence blocked from its view is harmful
to the President’s position.”15 Applying the precedent here, the House is free to conclude that the
witnesses and information currently withheld from the Committees are adverse to the President.
The totality of the corrupt conduct uncovered by the Committees is egregious. President
Joe Biden conspired to commit influence peddling and grift. In doing so, he abused his office
and, by repeatedly lying about his abuse of office, has defrauded the United States to enrich his
family. Not one of these transactions would have occurred, but for Joe Biden’s official position in
the United States government. This pattern of conduct ensured his family—who provided no
legitimate services—lived a lavish lifestyle. The evidence uncovered in the Committees’
impeachment inquiry reflects a family selling the “Biden brand” around the world with President
Biden—the “big guy”—swooping in to seal the deal on speaker phones or in private dinners. It
shows a concerted effort to conceal President Biden’s involvement in the family’s influence
peddling scheme. One witness explained that when it comes to mentioning Vice President Joe
Biden’s involvement, “Say it, forget it. Write it, regret it.”16
13 Philip C. Bobbitt, Impeachment: A Handbook, 128 YALE L.J. FORUM 515, 581 (2018). 14 See id. at 581–82 (“The Framers repeatedly stated that the president could be impeached for the acts of his
subordinates, whether or not he directed them in their misdeeds.”).
15 H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 67-68 (2019). 16 Galanis Interview at 120.
5
President Biden acquiesced to and participated in his family’s influence peddling
schemes. Indeed, those schemes would not have generated millions of dollars if President Biden
did not do exactly what his family members needed him to do: show up. He did so intentionally,
repeatedly, and with the knowledge that his actions sent the message his family members
intended: that they had access to Joe Biden and, in exchange for payment, anyone—even a
foreign adversary—could obtain access.
Given considerable Member interest in the status of the inquiry and to correct false and
misleading assertions, this report presents the state of evidence as gathered to date in the House’s
impeachment inquiry. The inquiry continues as the Committees develop evidence and obtain
access to information. The Committees continue to seek relevant documents and testimony.
Subpoenas to various entities remain outstanding. Whistleblowers continue to provide
incriminating evidence of the Administration’s special treatment for the President’s son.
The Constitution’s remedy for a President’s flagrant abuse of office is clear: impeachment
by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate. Despite the cheapening of the
impeachment power by Democrats in recent years, the House’s decision to pursue articles of
impeachment must not be made lightly. As such, this report endeavors to present the evidence
gathered to date so that all Members of the House may assess the extent of President Biden’s
corruption.
6
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FINDINGS
- From 2014 to the present, as part of a conspiracy to monetize Joe Biden’s office of public
trust to enrich the Biden family, Biden family members and their associates received over
$27 million from foreign individuals or entities. In order to obscure the source of these
funds, the Biden family and their associates set up shell companies to conceal these
payments from scrutiny. The Biden family used proceeds from these business activities to
provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Joe Biden—including thousands of dollars
that are directly traceable to China. While Jim Biden claimed he gave this money to Joe
Biden to repay personal loans, Jim Biden did not provide any evidence to support this
claim. The Biden family’s receipt of millions of dollars required Joe Biden’s knowing
participation in this conspiracy, including while he served as Vice President. - Joe Biden used his status as Vice President to garner favorable outcomes for his son’s and
his business partners’ foreign business dealings. Witnesses acknowledged that Hunter
Biden involved Vice President Biden in many of his business dealings with Russian,
Romanian, Chinese, Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian individuals and companies. Then-Vice
President Biden met or spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign
business associates, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia, and Kazakhstan. As a
result, the Biden family has received millions of dollars from these foreign entities. - The Biden family leveraged Joe Biden’s positions of public trust to obtain over $8 million
in loans from Democratic benefactors. Millions of dollars in loans have not been repaid
and the paperwork supporting many of the loans does not exist and has not been
produced to the Committees. This raises serious questions about whether these funds
were provided as gifts disguised as loans. - Under the Biden Administration, the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) afforded special treatment to President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.
Several witnesses acknowledged the delicate approach used during the Hunter Biden
case, describing the investigation as “sensitive” or “significant.” Evidence shows that
Department officials slow-walked the investigation, informed defense counsel of future
investigative actions, prevented line investigators from taking otherwise ordinary
investigative steps, and allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious
felony charges. These unusual—and oftentimes in the view of witnesses,
unprecedented—tactics conflicted with standard operating procedures and ultimately had
the effect of benefiting Hunter Biden. - The Biden Justice Department misled Congress about the independence of law
enforcement entities in the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden. Biden Administration
political appointees exercised significant oversight and control over the investigation of
the President’s son. Witnesses described how U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware
and now-Special Counsel David Weiss, who oversaw the investigation and prosecution of
Hunter Biden, had to seek (1) agreement from other U.S. Attorneys to bring cases in a
district geographically distinct from his own and (2) approval from the Biden Justice
Department’s Tax Division to bring specific charges or take investigative actions against
7
Hunter Biden. Despite the clear conflict of interest, Weiss was only afforded special
counsel status after the investigation came under congressional scrutiny. - The White House has obstructed the Committees’ impeachment inquiry by withholding
key documents and witnesses. The White House has impeded the Committees’
investigation of President Biden’s unlawful retention of classified documents, by refusing
to make relevant witnesses available for interviews and by erroneously asserting
executive privilege over audio recordings from Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with
President Biden. In addition, the White House is preventing the National Archives from
turning over documents that are material to the Committees’ inquiry.
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Impeachment Inquiry Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Procedural Background………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
The Constitutional Standard for Impeachment……………………………………………………………………11
I. Abuse of power. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………11
II. Obstruction of justice or obstruction of Congress. …………………………………………………… 13
President Biden Abused his Office By Engaging in a Conspiracy to Peddle Influence…………… 15
I. The financial analysis of the Biden family’s business activities reflects a pattern of
leveraging Joe Biden’s office and hiding Joe Biden’s involvement, but Joe Biden played a
critical role in nearly every foreign transaction investigated by the Committees………………… 18
A. Evidence shows that President Biden was essential to the Biden family influencepeddling operation as the “brand.” ……………………………………………………………………………. 18
B. Biden family members and business associates repeatedly used code and secrecy to
hide Joe Biden’s participation in the Biden family influence-peddling operation. …………… 23
C. The Biden conspiracy to peddle influence generated millions of dollars for the Biden
family and their business associates from foreign sources……………………………………………. 26
D. The Biden family and their business associates utilized a system of money transfers
and complexity to mask foreign funding sources………………………………………………………… 32
E. The Biden family used a network of close associates to entangle their financial
interests with Joe Biden’s. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 36
F. The Biden family did not provide services to merit the millions of dollars paid to them.
39
II. The Biden family and business associates leveraged Joe Biden’s official position for
financial benefit with Joe Biden’s awareness and participation………………………………………… 43
A. In April 2014, a Kazakhstani oligarch wired $142,300—the exact price of Hunter
Biden’s sportscar—to a bank account used by Mr. Archer and Hunter Biden. ………………… 43
B. Hunter Biden peddled Vice President Joe Biden’s political influence to benefit
monetarily from Russian business associates……………………………………………………………… 49
C. Hunter Biden and his business associates leveraged Vice President Biden’s political
power to obtain millions of dollars from a corrupt Romanian businessman……………………. 55
D. Evidence suggests Vice President Biden changed official U.S. policy to produce a
positive outcome for Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company implicated in a years-long
corruption investigation…………………………………………………………………………………………… 61
E. The Biden family earned millions of dollars from numbers business deals with Chinese
companies closely tied to the Chinese Community Party by selling access to Joe Biden while
he was Vice President and later preparing to run for President……………………………………… 76
III. The Biden family received other financial benefits, including forgiven and interest-free
loans, that they likely would not have received but for Joe Biden’s official position…………. 148
A. James Biden received large cash loans, many of which remain unpaid, from numerous
individuals who previously made political contributions to Joe Biden, as well as a bankrupt
healthcare company. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 148
B. Democrat donor Kevin Morris has loaned $6.5 million to Hunter Biden in order to
protect Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. ………………………………………………………………. 168
9
IV. As President, Joe Biden provided access and rewards to his family’s benefactors, as
demonstrated by Hunter Biden’s sale of amateur art for exorbitant prices……………………….. 182
President Biden and The Biden-Harris Administration Obstructed Congress and the Criminal
Investigation of President Biden’s Son…………………………………………………………………………… 192
I. President Biden and the White House obstructed Congressional investigations…………. 192
A. President Biden’s White House obstructed Congress’s investigation of his mishandling
of classified materials. …………………………………………………………………………………………… 193
B. President Biden’s White House has obstructed Congress from receiving relevant
documents from the National Archives. …………………………………………………………………… 209
II. President Biden and the Biden-Harris Administration Obstructed the Criminal
Investigation of His Son and the Committees’ Impeachment Inquiry………………………………. 212
A. Federal law enforcement began investigating Hunter Biden nearly seven years ago. 213
B. The special treatment the Justice Department afforded Hunter Biden stemmed from the
politically “sensitive” and “significant” nature of the criminal investigation………………… 215
C. After the IRS whistleblowers came forward, the Biden Justice Department attempted to
cover-up its wrongdoing………………………………………………………………………………………… 254
D. President Biden had prior knowledge of Hunter Biden’s intent to defy two duly
authorized congressional subpoenas………………………………………………………………………… 270
E. Impeachment inquiry witnesses lied to the Committees to protect Joe Biden. ………. 273
F. The Biden Justice Department prevented the home confinement of Jason Galanis with
the explicit goal of stopping him from testifying to Congress about Hunter Biden’s most
serious crimes that implicated President Biden…………………………………………………………. 286
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 291
10
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Since the beginning of the 118th Congress, the Oversight Committee has conducted
legislative oversight investigations into allegations that President Biden aided his family in
peddling influence to foreign parties during President Biden’s tenure as Vice President. The
Oversight Committee gathered substantial evidence that during and after the Obama-Biden
Administration, multiple Biden family members leveraged Joe Biden’s official position as Vice
President (or anticipated position as President) for personal benefit of the Biden family and thenVice President Biden was complicit in this conspiracy.17 In the spring of 2023, two
whistleblowers disclosed to the Ways and Means Committee their concerns that the Biden-Harris
Administration had been obstructing a criminal investigation into President Biden’s son, Hunter
Biden, relating to his foreign business dealing. The two whistleblowers, who were closely
involved in that investigation, detailed several ways the Department of Justice deviated from its
standard processes in a way that afforded Hunter Biden special treatment, including allowing the
statute of limitations to lapse on serious felony charges, slow-walking the investigation,
informing defense counsel of future investigative actions, and preventing line investigators from
taking otherwise ordinary investigative steps.18 The Ways and Means Committee and the
Judiciary Committee began investigating these allegations.
In September 2023, based on evidence gathered to that point, Speaker of the House Kevin
McCarthy commenced an inquiry to examine whether sufficient grounds existed to draft articles
of impeachment.19 In December 2023, the House ratified the inquiry and authorized the
Committees to continue gathering evidence.20 In the course of the investigation, and despite
dilatory and obstructionist tactics of witnesses before the inquiry and the Biden-Harris White
House, the Committees have conducted over 30 transcribed interviews and depositions, issued
over 30 subpoenas, reviewed millions of pages of documents, and held 6 markups and hearings.
The evidence detailed in this report is drawn from this material.
17 See generally Memorandum from Maj. Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Comm.
Members. Re: New Evidence Resulting from the Oversight Committee’s Investigation into the Biden Family’s
Influence Peddling and Business Schemes (Mar. 16, 2023) [hereinafter “First Bank Memo”]; Memorandum from
Maj. Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Comm. Members. Re: Second Bank Records
Memorandum from the Oversight Committee’s Investigation into the Biden Family’s Influence Peddling and
Business Schemes (May 10, 2023) [hereinafter “Second Bank Memo”]; Memorandum from Maj. Comm. Staff, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Comm. Members. Re: Third Bank Records Memorandum from the
Oversight Committee’s Investigation into the Biden Family’s Influence Peddling and Business Schemes (Aug. 9,
2023) [hereinafter “Third Bank Memo”]; Memorandum from Maj. Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability, to Comm. Members. Re: Fourth Bank Records Memorandum from the Oversight Committee’s
Investigation into the Biden Family’s Influence Peddling and Business Schemes (Nov. 1, 2023) [hereinafter “Fourth
Bank Memo”]. 18 See Transcribed Interview of Gary A. Shapley, JR., H. Comm. on Ways & Means (May 26, 2023) [hereinafter
“Shapley Interview”]; see also Transcribed Interview of Joseph Ziegler, H. Comm. on Ways & Means (June 1, 2023)
[hereinafter “Ziegler Interview”].
19 Press Release, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the H. of Reps., Speaker McCarthy Opens an Impeachment
Inquiry (Sept. 12, 2023).
20 H. Res. 918, 118th Cong. (2023); H. Res. 917, 118th Cong. (2023).
11
THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT
The Constitution grants the House of Representatives “the sole Power of
Impeachment.”21 In 2019, during the impeachment of President Donald Trump, House
Democrats asserted that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are primarily defined by three types
of misconduct: “(1) abuse of power, (2) betrayal of the national interest through foreign
entanglements, and (3) corruption of office and elections,” any one of which constitutes an
impeachable offense.22 This definition is highly relevant to the current impeachment inquiry into
President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
I. Abuse of power.
Abuse of power is unquestionably an impeachable offense, and one that constitutional
law professor Jonathan Turley described as “encompass[ing] a wide range of self-dealing,
obstruction, and misuse of federal authority maneuvers,” and may “include the use of federal
staff to obstruct or frustrate efforts to investigate corruption or abuse.”23 House Democrats in the
2019 impeachment of President Trump described abuse of power as “the exercise of official
power to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest.”24
In testimony to the Oversight Committee, Professor Jonathan Turley explained that it is not
necessary for the improper benefit to be received directly by the President.
25 As he explained,
“[t]o say that millions of dollars going to his family would not be considered a benefit to Joe
Biden is legally and logically absurd.”26
Clearly, it would be an abuse of power, and thus an impeachable offense, if President
Biden participated in his family’s influence peddling scheme.27 An abuse of power may also be
present even if, as some claim, the Biden family was only selling the “illusion” of influence and
access to President Biden.28 In other words, as Professor Turley explained, it is not necessary for
the House of Representatives to show that the dealings involved a quid pro quo to rise to the
level of an impeachable offense.29 Quite simply, it is not necessary for any of the Biden family’s
21 U.S. CONST. Art. 1, § 2. 22 H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 4 (2019). 23 The Basis for the Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph R. Biden: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight
& Accountability, 118th Cong., at 23 (2023) (written testimony of Jonathan Turley, Professor, Geo. Wash. Univ. L.
Sch.) [hereinafter “Turley Testimony”]. 24 H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 44 (2019). 25 Turley Testimony at 15, 26. 26 Id. at 15. 27 See id. at 12 (“If President Biden was engaged in selling access or influence, it is clearly a corrupt scheme that
could qualify as impeachable conduct.”); id. at 15 (“If President Biden was aware of money going to his family in
exchange for influence or access, it would constitute an impeachable offense.”).
28 See id. at 25-26 (rebutting “the oft–quoted ‘illusion’ defense to influence peddling allegations”); see also Jonathan
Turley, “illusion of Influence”: The Media Moves the Goalpost Again on Biden Corruption Coverage, RES IPSA
LOQUITUR (Aug. 11, 2023) (asserting that the “illusion” defense relies on ignoring significant evidence of the Biden
family’s corrupt dealings and demanding evidence of corruption, such as direct payments to President Biden, that is
unlikely to exist in any corruption case due to its obviously incriminating nature). 29 Turley Testimony at 25. Professor Turley offered his personal view that a quid pro quo is “a touchstone for a
bribery-based article of impeachment,” but did not say the same for any of the other impeachable offenses he
discussed.
12
business partners to have actually received influence or access to President Biden (though
evidence supports they did in fact receive both).
30 The question, then, that the House must
answer is whether President Biden was aware of his family’s influence peddling scheme,
31 and
participated in it. If the answer is yes, that is clearly an abuse of power and an impeachable
offense.
As House Democrats defined abuse of power in 2019, it may also encompass the betrayal
of the national interest through foreign entanglements.32 Betrayal of the national interest through
foreign entanglements is an impeachable offense, they explained then, wherein the President or
Vice President “uses his foreign affairs power in ways that betray the national interest for his
own benefit, or harm national security for equally corrupt reasons[.]”33 To the extent the
questionable conduct occurred prior to the President assuming office, Professor Turley explained
that the House has previously included pre-office conduct in articles of impeachment.34 For
example, in 1912, the House impeached Judge Robert Archbald, who was a federal district court
judge and then a federal circuit court judge. When the House adopted thirteen articles of
impeachment against him, Archbald was a federal circuit court judge, but six articles were based
solely on his conduct as a district court judge, and another was based on his conduct both as a
district court judge and as a circuit court judge. More recently, in 2010, the House impeached
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., who was a state court judge before being appointed to the federal
bench. One of the articles of impeachment that the House adopted against him was based solely
on events that occurred while Porteous was still a state court judge, and a separate article was
based on his conduct both while a state court judge and while a federal judge. Additionally, in
2021, House Democrats “created precedent for impeaching a former president in a retroactive
action.”35 Based on this precedent, Professor Turley correctly concluded that “the House could
impeach Joe Biden from his prior office as Vice President over these allegations[.]”36
Another way in which the President may commit impeachable abuse of power is by
maintaining false denials of his misconduct or using “White House staff to maintain false claims
or resist disclosures.”37 Professor Turley testified that “lying to the public for years in denying
knowledge of his son’s business dealings” may constitute such an offense.38 While presidents
30 See id. at 25-26. 31 See id. at 25 (“[T]he question is whether President Biden was entirely unaware of this massive and lucrative
enrichment scheme.”). 32 See H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 79-81 (2019). 33 Id.at 50. 34 Turley Testimony at 30-31. 35 Id. at 29. Similarly, in 1876, the House impeached Secretary of War William Belknap shortly after he resigned
from office. The House and Senate both expressly determined after debating the matter that they could respectively
impeach and try a former federal officer. JARED P. COLE & TODD GARVEY, CONG. RSCH. SERV., LSB10565, THE
IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF A FORMER PRESIDENT, at 4 (2021). 36 Turley Testimony at 29; see generally Brian C. Kalt, The Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former
Federal Officials: An Analysis of the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment, 6 TEX. REV. L. & POL. 13
(2001) (arguing that former federal officials may be impeached).
37 Turley Testimony at 21, 25. 38 Id. at 25. Professor Turley also suggested that President Biden’s and White House staff’s false statements may be
charged as obstruction. See id. at 21 (stating that impeachable obstruction “may also encompass efforts by President
Biden to maintain false accounts of his lack of knowledge or involvement in the alleged influence peddling efforts
by his son and his associates”); id. at 30 (“White House staff is now actively engaged in denying allegations raised
13
may have some “leeway” in denying allegations of corruption, “[t]he issue is whether a president
fostered a false narrative in the knowing[] denial of key facts, particularly in relation to
Congress, investigators or sworn proceedings.”39 Such an allegation was included in the articles
of impeachment filed against President Nixon.40
Finally, in the House’s consideration of potential impeachment articles, whether the
President’s conduct constitutes a criminal offense is not dispositive. In 2019, House Democrats
asserted that impeachable offenses need not rise to the level of criminal conduct, noting that
Congress reached the same conclusion during the impeachments of President Nixon and
President Clinton.41 Although the matter remains unsettled, most scholars agree that criminal
conduct is not needed under the constitutional standard for impeachment.42 Historical precedent
also supports the position that criminality is not required for conduct to rise to the level of an
impeachable offense.43 The House may therefore impeach President Biden for non-criminal
conduct that significantly impairs the political system or betrays the public trust.44
II. Obstruction of justice or obstruction of Congress.
Obstruction of justice or of Congress is another impeachable offense encompassing a
wide range of potential misconduct.45 Generally, obstruction occurs when an individual,
including the President, “‘corruptly’ endeavors to impede or influence an investigation or other
proceeding, and the word ‘corruptly’ is understood to mean ‘with an improper purpose.’”46
While there is room for debate as to what may constitute an “improper purpose,” it is apparent
that, at the very least, “if the president interferes with an investigation because he worries that it
might bring to light criminal activity that he, his family, or his top aides committed . . . then he
acts corruptly, and thus criminally.”47 Additionally, the House need not find that President
Biden’s misconduct met the standard for obstruction of justice provided in federal statutes
by the House Committees and a ‘war room’ has reportedly been established within the White House. Such measures
can lead to the very same allegations raised against prior presidents in efforts to obstruct investigations or mislead
the public and Congress.”). 39 Id. at 21 n.70. 40 H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, H.R.
REP. NO. 93-1305, at 2 (1974) (alleging that President Nixon made “false or misleading public statements for the
purpose of deceiving the people of the United States . . .”).
41 H.R. REP. NO. 116–346, at 56–62 (2019). 42 See, e.g., James C. Phillips & John C. Yoo, You’re Fired: The Original Meaning of Presidential Impeachment, 94
S. CAL. L. REV. 1191, 1196 (2021); Keith E. Whittington, A Formidable Weapon of Faction? The Law and Politics
of Impeachment, 55 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 381, 403–04 (2020). 43 See, e.g., JARED P. COLE & TODD GARVEY, CONG. RSCH. SERV., R46013, IMPEACHMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION,
at 42 (2023) (“[T]he notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not . .
. track historical practice.”). 44 See H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 37 (2019) (“Impeachment is reserved for offenses against our political system.”);
Alan Z. Rozenshtein, The Virtuous Executive, 108 MINN. L. REV. 605, 668 (2023) (“[C]riminal conduct is not
required for impeachment, as long as the President’s actions constitute a sufficient serious abuse of power or breach
of public trust.”); THE FEDERALIST NO. 65, at 338 (Alexander Hamilton) (George W. Carey & James McClellan
eds., 2001) (stating that impeachment applies to “offenses which proceed from . . . the abuse or violation of some
public trust”). 45 See Turley Testimony at 19-22; H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 145-48 (2019). 46 Daniel J. Hemel & Eric A. Posner, Presidential Obstruction of Justice, 106 CALIF. L. REV. 1277, 1282 (2018)
(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b)).
47 Id.
14
regarding obstruction of justice.
48 Instead, it is enough to show that “the president’s actions
constitute the kind of wanton constitutional dereliction captured by the phrase ‘high Crimes and
Misdemeanors[.]’”49 As such, any attempt by the President to “distort an otherwise valid
[government] investigation . . . is a basis for impeachment that is affirmed by the precedent of
[President] Nixon’s impeachment.”50
Likewise, following the standard set by House Democrats in the impeachment of
President Trump, impeding an impeachment inquiry may amount to impeachable obstruction.
51
In 2019, House Democrats explained that:
[W]hen a President abuses his office to defy House investigators on
matters that they deem pertinent to their inquiry, and does so without
lawful cause or excuse, his conduct may constitute an
unconstitutional effort to seize and break the impeachment power
vested solely in the House. In that respect, obstruction of Congress
involves “the exercise of official power in a way that, on its very
face, grossly exceeds the President’s constitutional authority or
violates legal limits on that authority.”52
Importantly, again according to House Democrats in 2019, “[a]s a matter of constitutional law,
the House may properly conclude that a President’s obstruction of Congress is relevant to
assessing the evidentiary record in an impeachment inquiry,” meaning that “[w]here the
President illegally seeks to obstruct such an inquiry, the House is free to infer that evidence
blocked from its view is harmful to the President’s position.”53
48 See H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, H.R. REP. NO. 105-830, at 181 (1998) (“[T]he actions of the President do not have to rise to the level of
violating the federal statute regarding obstruction of justice in order to justify impeachment[.]”); Philip C. Bobbitt,
Impeachment: A Handbook, 128 YALE L.J. FORUM 515, 581 (2018) (“The standards of a criminal statute, which are
supposed to be quite rigorous in our system, and which generally require scienter, or knowledge of wrongdoing, on
the part of the defendant, cannot substitute for the standards of impeachment by the House and conviction by the
Senate. The standards for impeachment need not depend upon the president’s actual intent to commit a crime,
constitutional or otherwise.”). 49 Philip C. Bobbitt, Impeachment: A Handbook, 128 YALE L.J. FORUM 515, 581 (2018). 50 Id. 51 H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 145-48 (2019). 52 Id. at 145-46 (quoting MAJORITY STAFF OF H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 116TH CONG., CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, at 18 (Comm. Print 2019)). 53 Id. at 67-68.
15
PRESIDENT BIDEN ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY ENGAGING IN A CONSPIRACY TO PEDDLE
INFLUENCE
Bank records, witness testimony, and contemporaneous communications between and
among the Biden family and their business associates expose a years-long pattern of influence
peddling and grift centered around and facilitated by Joe Biden. President Biden knowingly
participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family.
Abuse of power “encompass[es] a wide range of self-dealing, obstruction, and misuse of
federal authority maneuvers.”54 Under the standard articulated by House Democrats in 2019,
impeachable abuse of power occurs when the President exercises “official power to obtain an
improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest.”55 President Biden’s
actions are consistent with this standard. Joe Biden allowed his family to monetize his political
influence and access by selling it to foreign actors. President Biden participated in a scheme in
which foreign business interests were led to believe that they would gain access to him if they
were to pay substantial amounts of money to his family. The payments—amounting to millions
of dollars—from foreign and domestic sources to Biden family members coincided with Joe
Biden’s actions to further this conspiracy. Joe Biden repeatedly demonstrated to his family’s
business partners that his family had access to the Vice President or, later, the Democratic
frontrunner for President.
While defenders of Joe Biden have sought to characterize these activities as mere
“illusions” of access to Joe Biden, this is wrong. Foreign business associates of the Biden family
in fact received actual access to Joe Biden in private settings that were never meant to be
uncovered, as is demonstrated by a shifting series of stories to deny and then minimize Joe
Biden’s centrality to the influence peddling schemes. Joe Biden knew about and participated in
this conspiracy to prioritize the Bidens’ personal interests above Joe Biden’s oath to well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the offices he has held or would hold, demonstrating a profound
selfishness and greed at the expense of the nation’s future and welfare.
Joe Biden’s actions to facilitate his family’s enrichment schemes not only meet the
threshold for impeachable conduct; his actions exceed it. In testimony to the Oversight
Committee as part of the impeachment inquiry, Professor Jonathan Turley explained that: “If
President Biden was aware of money going to his family in exchange for influence or access, it
would constitute an impeachable offense.”56 The evidence presented in this section demonstrates
not only Joe Biden’s knowledge of his family’s influence peddling, but his facilitation and
participation in it. This influence peddling took several forms: money paid to Biden family
members by foreign individuals or entities seeking access to or influence over the Vice President;
millions of dollars paid to Biden family members in the form of forgivable “loans” seeking to
remove a political liability for Joe Biden; and, in its most recent form, the sale of art by Hunter
Biden for exorbitant prices to Democratic donors, one of whom received a political appointment.
54 Turley Testimony at 23. 55 H.R. REP. NO. 116-346 at 44 (2019). 56 See Turley Testimony at 15; id. at 12 (“If President Biden was engaged in selling access or influence, it is clearly
a corrupt scheme that could qualify as impeachable conduct.”).
16
The Committees reviewed the Biden family’s financial practices and sources of income
from 2009 to the present. This was a complex process, as members of the Biden family—
particularly Hunter Biden and James Biden—often used a complicated system of third parties’
limited liability companies, delayed transfers of incremental payments, and categorized certain
financial transactions as “loans” to seemingly obfuscate the source and nature of the payments to
Biden family members, including Joe Biden. Additionally, the parties to various business
contracts or agreement often did not memorialize the Bidens’ value to any particular transaction
with any degree of specificity—a fact certain witnesses explained was intentional.57 The
Committees have established a consistent pattern of behavior by President Biden and his family,
which is based not on speculation or any singular piece of evidence but, instead, thousands of
pages of bank records and multiple witnesses’ accounts of a conspiracy to use America’s high
offices to reap millions of dollars for the Biden family. Although the President is now 81 years
old and appears to suffer from diminished mental capacity,58 it is important to note that much of
the President’s wrongful conduct occurred while he was lucid and during the peak of his political
career. This section of the report evaluates his state of mind at the time of the offenses.
The Biden family business model centered on Joe Biden’s influence and positions of
power in the federal government; Biden family members did not provide services or value of any
discernible type other than access to Joe Biden. There is no business. There is no product. The
Bidens sold “the brand.”59 That brand was Joe Biden. President Biden inappropriately wielded
the power of the Office of the Vice President to influence potential business deals that financially
benefited his family by repeatedly meeting, talking, and interacting with his family’s business
associates at dinners, on the golf course, over the phone, and at the White House.60 A Biden
business associate, Devon Archer, testified how the Biden “brand” was used to retain business
and how Joe Biden met privately with many of the business associates who paid his family
millions of dollars.
61
The Bidens did not have a golf course, real property, a clothing line, or media business.
They sold political influence, and their business included “consulting” without being lobbyists.
The Committees have traced wires from foreign sources to Hunter Biden with Joe Biden’s home
address and money from the Biden family’s transaction with a Chinese conglomerate going to
Joe Biden’s personal bank account.
62 But to be clear, that is unnecessary. The law contemplates
and the Justice Department has initiated prosecutions for payments to family members who agree
to or accept payments in relation to corrupt acts (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 201).
63 Payments to
family or their companies can be akin to payments to the public official.
57 See Galanis, Interview at 120. 58 Stephen Collinson, Biden’s disastrous debate pitches his reelection bid into crisis, CNN (June 28, 2024). 59 See generally Archer Interview at 27-28, 29-30, 53-55, 85-88, 97-98. 60 See id. at 41-42, 51-52, 80; Galanis Interview at 10; Transcribed Interview of Tony Bobulinski, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on the Judiciary at 262 (Feb. 13, 2024) [hereinafter “Bobulinski
Interview”]; Deposition of Robert Hunter Biden, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on the
Judiciary at 18-19 (Feb. 28, 2024) [hereinafter “Hunter Biden Deposition”]; Transcribed Interview of Eric Schwerin,
H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on the Judiciary at 131-32 (Jan. 30, 2024) [hereinafter
“Schwerin Interview”]. 61 See generally Archer Interview. 62 Fourth Bank Memo at 5-10. 63 18 U.S.C. § 201.
17
Subpoenaed bank records revealed Hunter Biden, James Biden, their associated
companies, and certain other Biden family members received over $18 million from foreign
sources.64 Additionally, bank records establish that, when also including Biden business
associates and their companies, the international influence peddling schemes totaled over $27
million from foreign sources during the same time period from 2014 to 2023.
65 The Bidens, their
business associates, and their related companies received funds from individuals and entities
associated with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, China, Romania, and Panama. These figures do not
include the approximately $8 million in loans Hunter Biden and James Biden received from
Democratic benefactors such as Kevin Morris, Joey Langston, and John Hynansky.66 Those loans
are discussed in detail further below. The amount of money Hunter Biden, James Biden, and
even Joe Biden sourced from foreign and domestic companies and then later described as a
“loan,” often without documentation to show the terms of the loan and much of which was never
repaid, is alarming.
In total, the Committees have accounted for over $35 million sent to Biden family
members, their companies, and business associates since 2013.
67 However, the Committees have
not identified legitimate services warranting such lucrative payments. No one has been able to
assert any plausible reason for the Bidens receiving this much money from foreign sources and
Democratic benefactors. And to the extent that reasons were provided, the witnesses’
descriptions of the purported services provided do not justify the amount of money paid to them.
Moreover, Joe Biden was involved in nearly every foreign business deal identified by the
Committees.
While the Biden family’s influence peddling racket involved a wide range of corrupt
dealings across multiple countries, their various endeavors all fundamentally represent an
attempt to profit from President Biden’s office and the power entrusted to him by the American
public.68 Joe Biden’s years-long acquiescence to and participation in this conspiracy is described
in this section.
64 Robert Hunter Biden and James Biden Criminal Referral ¶ 4 [hereinafter “Referral”]. 65 Id.; see also id. ¶ 7. 66 See Letter from Kevin Morris’s counsel to General Counsel, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Jan. 25,
2024); see Transcribed Interview of James Brian Biden, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on
the Judiciary at 171, 174-75 (Feb. 21, 2024) [hereinafter “James Biden Interview”]. This is a conservative estimate
as there are additional, significant “loans” James Biden received from Americore and Michael Lewitt.
67 See Referral ¶¶ 6-7; Letter from Kevin Morris’s counsel to General Counsel, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability (Jan. 25, 2024); see generally First Bank Memo; Second Bank Memo; Third Bank Memo; Fourth
Bank Memo. Note, this is a conservative estimate as there are additional, significant “loans” James Biden received
from Americore and Michael Lewitt.
68 Cf. Turley Testimony at 25 (“Just as influence peddling is a form of corruption that the United States has sought
to combat on a global scale, it is still corrupt if you have no plans to fulfill the deal. You are still turning an office
into a commodity for corruption.”).
18
I. The financial analysis of the Biden family’s business activities reflects a pattern of
leveraging Joe Biden’s office and hiding Joe Biden’s involvement, but Joe Biden
played a critical role in nearly every foreign transaction investigated by the
Committees.
Joe Biden’s participation in his family’s influence peddling represents—as quantified by
sheer dollar amounts flowing to a public official’s personal interests—one of the most egregious
abuses of power uncovered in the history of the United States. The Biden family relied on Joe
Biden and his access to political power while courting business with foreign business partners.
Joe Biden knew this, participated in it, and received money sourced from it. To adequately assess
the Biden family’s influence-peddling operation, it is necessary to understand how it worked.
A. Evidence shows that President Biden was essential to the Biden family influencepeddling operation as the “brand.”
Evidence obtained during the Committees’ impeachment inquiry shows that despite
President Biden’s claim that he “did not” interact with his family’s foreign business associates,69
Joe Biden frequently called into or attended meetings with his family’s business associates. In
testimony to the Oversight Committee, Mr. Archer explained that he personally witnessed Hunter
Biden put his dad on speaker phone when he was interacting with business associates “maybe 20
times.” 70 He testified:
Q. How many times would you say that Hunter Biden put his
father on speakerphone or referenced his father being on the
phone in front of others who were either foreign investors or
foreign nationals who he was soliciting business with or
working with, approximately?
A. Approximately? The differentiation between investor and
normal course of day . . . that’s a very hard thing to speculate
on. But . . . they spoke every day. He acknowledged that they
spoke every day. And he would . . . sometimes make it
apparent that he spoke to his dad, and sometimes he put him
on speaker.
But as far as quantifying the number, you know, relative to
investors, I don’t know.
Q. Not necessarily investors but with people who Hunter Biden
was trying to either get business with or make contacts with
or add value to?
69 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Joe Biden Met Nearly Every Foreign Associate
Funneling His Family Millions (Feb. 14, 2024).
70 Archer Interview at 51.
19
A. In my . . . whole partnership, maybe 20 times.71
When asked to expand on his account of Hunter Biden calling his father in the middle of
business meetings, Mr. Archer stated that the value of putting Joe Biden on speaker phone was to
showcase the “brand being delivered.” 72 Mr. Archer explained:
Q. But if I were to just call my dad right now and put him on
speakerphone and we’re in a professional business meeting
here, would that be odd to you?
A. Would that be odd to me?
Q. Yes.
A. That would be odd, if you called your dad right now.
Q. So there is a time and a place when . . . you’re in a personal
meeting and you may call your dad or a family member if
you’re with family. But if you’re in a professional meeting
and you’re meeting foreign business leaders or whoever it
may be and you just place your dad on speakerphone on the
table, that’s a little odd, isn’t it?
A. That is a little odd. I mean, it’s not odd – I mean, it’s quite
obvious what we’re talking around.
Q. So what are we talking about? You are talking around it, and
so I’d like to get out, what are we talking about here?
A. That, I think, at the end of the day, part of what was delivered
is the brand. I mean, it’s like . . . if you’re Jamie Dimon’s son
or any CEO. You know, I think that that’s what we’re talking
about, is that there was brand being delivered along with
other capabilities and reach.73
The Oversight Committee sought to understand the “brand” as described by Mr. Archer.
Mr. Archer explained the Biden “brand” was Joe Biden. He testified:
Q. You keep saying “the brand,” but by “brand” you mean the
Biden family, correct?
A. Correct.
71 Id. 72 Id. at 52-53. 73 Id.
20
Q. And that brand is what, in your opinion, was the majority of
what the value that was delivered from Hunter Biden to
Burisma?
A. I didn’t say majority, but I wouldn’t speculate on
percentages. But I do think that that was an element of it.
Q. When you say “Biden family” . . . [y]ou aren’t talking
about Dr. Jill or anybody else. You’re talking about Joe
Biden. Is that fair to say?
A. Yeah, that’s fair to say. Listen, I think it’s – I don’t think
about it as, you know, Joe directly, but it’s fair. That’s fair to
say. Obviously, that brought the most value to the brand.74
Jason Galanis, a former business associate of Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer, explained Joe
Biden’s value to his family’s business dealings as the Biden “lift.”75 Mr. Galanis stated:
Q. Can you just go back to the Biden lift real quick. You talked
about leveraging Hunter Biden and inducing companies to
gain investment. Can you . . . just spell it out for us what the
Biden lift did to induce companies to want to be able to do
these transactions? What was it? What was the Biden lift?
A. I think it’s situation specific. Foreign investors would have a
view of political access to the most powerful, admired
country in the world, leadership in the most powerful,
admired country in the world. . . .
That’s the kind of access and influence, sort of as an example
of the kind of access that that would provide. In other words,
contacts we wouldn’t be able to get on our own but for the
Biden lift.76
The Biden “brand” was also referenced by other Biden associates in documents obtained
by the Committees. In a text message between two Biden family associates, Tony Bobulinski and
James Gilliar, Mr. Gilliar wrote, “[a]s for Hunter, I’m gonna kick his arse if he no shows, but in
brand he’s imperative, but right now he’s not essential for adding input to business.”77 In his
transcribed interview, Mr. Bobulinski confirmed Joe Biden’s significance to the brand: “I want to
be crystal-clear: From my direct personal experience and what I’ve subsequently come to learn,
it is clear to me that Joe Biden was the brand being sold by the Biden family.”78 Hunter Biden
74 Archer Interview at 29-30. 75 Galanis Interview at 24. 76 Galanis Interview at 24. 77 Text from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski (Mar. 9, 2017); Bobulinski Interview at 43. 78 Bobulinski Interview at 12.
21
even used the term himself, explaining to James Biden, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Gilliar in a text
message about his “willing[ness] to sign over my family’s brand.” 79 He wrote:
Explain to me one thing Tony brings to MY table that I so
desperately need that I’m willing to sign over my family’s brand and
pretty much the rest of my business life? Read the fucking
documents people. It’s plane [sic] fucking English. Why in gods
name would I give this marginal bully the keys [to] my family’s only
asset?80
In an email produced to the Committees by Mr. Galanis, Mr. Archer memorialized the
“Biden lift” by forwarding a draft email to Mr. Galanis, intended to be sent by Hunter Biden to a
Chinese executive, stating “Michael, please also remind Henry of our conversation about a board
seat for a certain relation of mine. Devon and I golfed with that relation earlier last week and we
discussed this very idea again and as always he remains very very keen on the opportunity.”81
According to Mr. Galanis’s testimony provided during the impeachment inquiry, this message
reflects Hunter Biden’s attempts to place his father on the board of a Chinese state-connected
entity in exchange for an investment desired by Hunter Biden.82
79 H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Exhibit 801: Chat 70: WhatsApp Message Chat between Hunter Biden, James
Gilliar, Rob Walker, and James Biden at 623 (May 22, 2024) [hereinafter “Exhibit 801: Chat 70”].
80 Exhibit 801: Chat 70. 81 Email from Michael Leonard to Jim Bulger (Aug. 23, 2014); Email from Devon Archer to Jason Galanis (Aug.
23, 2014, 8:25 AM). 82 See Galanis Interview at 9-10.
22
23
B. Biden family members and business associates repeatedly used code and secrecy
to hide Joe Biden’s participation in the Biden family influence-peddling
operation.
Evidence provided to the Committees also demonstrates the lengths to which Joe Biden’s
family members and their business associates went to hide Joe Biden’s connections to the
business dealings of his family, especially in writing. Mr. Galanis described this “protocol” as
“Say it, forget it. Write it, regret it.” 83 In his transcribed interview, he testified:
I think internally we would speak openly. Externally, protocol, I
guess that’s not the term we used but, you know, convention and sort
of our practice. The practice was a term we repeated, half jokingly
but quite seriously, which was, “Say it, forget it.” “Write it, regret
it.”84
Contemporaneous documents produced to the Committees support Mr. Galanis’s
testimony about secrecy and anonymity. In a text message exchange, Mr. Gilliar instructed Mr.
Bobulinski: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know
that but they are paranoid[.]”85 In an email to Mr. Bobulinski, Mr. Gilliar referenced “the big
guy”—identified by Mr. Bobulinski as Joe Biden—as receiving equity in a joint venture with the
Chinese entity CEFC.86
Other evidence gathered by investigators working the criminal investigation of Hunter
Biden shows that Joe Biden played a substantive role in reviewing specifics of the deals
involving the Biden family and their business associates. Consistent with Mr. Gilliar’s instruction
to never “mention Joe being involved,” Joe Biden is referred to in code in these communications.
For example, in May 2017, Mr. Bobulinski sought additional board seats in the business he, Mr.
Gilliar, Mr. Walker, Hunter Biden, and James Biden sought to create with CEFC.
87 Hunter Biden
refused this request, explaining that his “chairman gave an emphatic NO.”88 In a subsequent
message, Mr. Walker told Mr. Bobulinski that “When [Hunter Biden] said his chairman, he was
talking about his dad . . . .”89
83 Id. at 120. 84 Id. 85 Text from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski (May 20, 2017). 86 Bobulinski Interview at 114-16; Email from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski et al. (May 13, 2017, 5:48 AM). 87 Bobulinski Interview at 125-27. 88 Text from Hunter Biden to Tony Bobulinski (May 9, 2017). 89 Text from Rob Walker to Tony Bobulinski (May 19, 2017); Bobulinski Interview at 129-30.
24
During depositions and transcribed interviews, witnesses sought to explain away these
candid communications. When the Committees asked Mr. Walker about the explanation to Mr.
During depositions and transcribed interviews, witnesses sought to explain away these candid
25
communications. When the Committees asked Mr. Walker about the explanation to Mr.
Bobulinski that Hunter Biden’s reference to his “chairman” referenced Joe Biden, Mr. Walker
merely said Hunter Biden was not healthy at the time due to drug abuse.
90 Mr. Walker’s
explanation does not address why Mr. Walker himself was under the impression that Hunter
Biden was speaking about his father’s involvement in this transaction. Importantly, the
“emphatic NO” delivered by Hunter Biden on behalf of his “chairman”—Joe Biden, according to
Mr. Walker and Mr. Bobulinski—involved the particulars of the Chinese deal that Mr. Gilliar,
Mr. Walker, Mr. Bobulinski, and Hunter and James Biden were forming. As Mr. Bobulinski
explained:
So I was one of five members. That means they could outvote me
in almost any scenario [. . .] And so I had proposed that the board be
structured that I had three board votes and each one of them had one
board vote [. . .] And this is Hunter, who went, for lack of a better
word, apeshit sideways over this, like, screaming in the phone and
all this. He’s saying, James’s lawyers don’t even agree with this; my
father doesn’t agree with this. Remember, he doesn’t say “and the
chairman of CEFC.”91
During the Committees’ deposition of Hunter Biden, he stated that the “chairman” was
not Joe Biden, but was, instead, one of two CEFC executives who were both referred to as
“chairman.”92 However, no other witness’s testimony or any contemporaneous communication
supports this interpretation. In fact, two witnesses—Mr. Bobulinski93 and Mr. Walker94—directly
contradicted this account.
The pattern of hiding Joe Biden’s role in these schemes continued, often by Hunter Biden
himself. Later in 2017, Hunter Biden would message his Chinese business partners
(capitalization is included in the original message):
Where is luncheon Kevin? My uncle will be here with his
BROTHER who would like to say hello to the Chairman. He is here
to visit my daughter. . . So please give me location and time. Jim’s
BROTHER if he is coming just wants to say hello he will not be
stopping for lunch.95
Despite efforts by his family members to conceal his involvement, it is evident that Joe
Biden was in fact involved in his family’s business. Mr. Bobulinski explained: “Joe Biden was
more than a participant in and a beneficiary of his family’s business; he was an enabler, despite
being buffered by a complex scheme to maintain plausible deniability.”96 According to Mr.
90 Transcribed Interview of John Robinson Walker, at 138-39 (Jan. 26, 2024) [hereinafter “Walker Interview”]. 91 Bobulinski Interview at 127-28. 92 Hunter Biden Deposition at 133. 93 Bobulinski Interview at 128, 134. 94 Walker Interview at 24-25. 95 H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Exhibit 300: Relevant Backup Messages at 9 (Sept. 27, 2023) [hereinafter “Ziegler
Exhibit 300”] (emphasis in original). 96 Bobulinski Interview at 12, 53.
34
In addition, Mr. Walker stated that he sent separate wires to Hunter Biden instead of sending one
larger payment because “that’s how he wanted it.”120 Mr. Walker testified:
Q. Why is it that you didn’t send $1,065,000 on the same day
to Hunter Biden? Why did you only send it—a larger amount
to James Gilliar but not a large amount to Hunter Biden?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you have discussions with Hunter Biden about how the
payments would be structured to him?
A. Did not have that conversation, no.
Q. Then, what we’ve been able to trace is, on March 6th of
2017, payments begin to start going out to “Biden” account.
A. Right.
Q. I think we have a chart. So, within a week, money starts
going to Hunter Biden. . . .
A. That’s correct. . . .
Q. So why were there amounts sent, like 5,000, 25,000, 50,000,
in the same month? Like, why not just send him the
$1,065,000 that he was owed at that point?
A. I don’t recall specifically, but the way I viewed it at the time,
it was his money, and that’s how he wanted it.
Q. All right. So that’s how he wanted it? He wanted the money
sent to him in this particular manner?
A. That’s correct.121
Hunter Biden instructed Mr. Walker to send the wires in this manner.
122 It is highly
unlikely that Mr. Walker and Hunter Biden did not discuss the process and purpose behind
sending 16 wires to companies and individuals who performed no services for Robinson Walker,
LLC, such as JBBSR Inc. and Hallie Biden.
120 Id. at 82-83. 121 Id. 122 See id.
35
Hunter Biden’s explanation for receiving these 16 separate wires was also not believable.
During his deposition, he stated that he asked Mr. Walker to structure the payments in that way to
“save” on wire transfer fees.123 Hunter Bidden testified:
Q. Why didn’t you . . . receive . . . the $1 million into your
Owasco PC account or another account instead of sending
out individual wires from the Robinson Walker, LLC,
account to Hallie Biden and to James Biden?
A. A real easy answer: Because, despite the fact that I certainly
didn’t look like it, is that I sometimes can be oxymoronically
cheap. It’s to save on two wire transfers.124
Hunter Biden’s claim that he wanted to save money on wire fees given his lavish lifestyle,
multiple sports cars, foreign travel, and expensive schools is incredible. In reality, it appears that
by arranging for 16 separate smaller wires instead of one, Hunter Biden was seeking to hide his
income and conceal the source of the funds from China.
Evidence also shows that during Joe Biden’s tenure as Vice President, Hunter Biden
directed suspicious payments from foreign interests through Rosemont Seneca Bohai. Although
Mr. Archer was the named person on the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account, evidence shows
that Hunter Biden exerted control and authority over this bank account.125 As discussed further
below, Joe Biden met with Hunter Biden’s foreign business associates while he served as Vice
President.126 Shortly before or after Joe Biden would meet with the foreign associates, they or
their companies would often send Hunter Biden lucrative wires to the Rosemont Seneca Bohai
bank account. The Oversight Committee determined that Hunter Biden used the Rosemont
Seneca Bohai bank account to receive these wires despite having his own companies in
Washington, D.C. and Delaware that could receive the funds.
The Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account was a key piece of evidence in the
Committees’ investigation. It was proof that Hunter Biden’s and his business associates’ foreign
partners paid huge sums of money to them after introductions to Joe Biden. According to Mr.
Archer, the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account was opened to hold the equity of a Chinese
investment fund, Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), for which Jonathan Li was the CEO.127 In addition
to holding equity for BHR, Mr. Archer confirmed that the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account
received Hunter Biden’s payments from Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, and other
foreign companies and that the money was then disbursed to Hunter Biden or reinvested into
other companies. During his transcribed interview, Mr. Archer testified:
123 Hunter Biden Deposition at 52. 124 Id. 125 See H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Exhibit 901: Email from Hunter Biden to Vadim Pozharskyi, cc’ing Sebastian
Momtazi and Devon Archer (May 14-15, 2014) [hereinafter “Exhibit 901”]; H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Exhibit
902 [hereinafter “Exhibit 902”]; Galanis Interview at 109; Archer Interview at 64. 126 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Joe Biden Met Nearly Every Foreign Associate
Funneling His Family Millions (Feb. 14, 2024).
127 Archer Interview at 14-15, 68.
36
[W]e were running it [Rosemont Seneca Bohai] as a business, so it
was—it was to Rosemont Seneca Bohai for—there were other
investments that were made. There were, you know, investments on
behalf of the business. So . . . as the business was capitalized, we did
other things with it.128
Subpoenaed bank records corroborated Mr. Archer’s testimony and prove that Hunter
Biden significantly benefited from the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account and a Rosemont
Seneca Bohai credit card (subpoenaed documents from a credit card company show purchases
for Hunter Biden’s expenses, including his travel, totaling approximately $47,133 from the
corporate credit card).
129 Mr. Archer informed the Oversight Committee that when the bank
records for the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account show two Burisma payments in the same
month for the same amount ($83,333.33), one of the payments was for Mr. Archer and the other
was for Hunter Biden.130 Although Hunter Biden falsely denied his affiliation with Rosemont
Seneca Bohai during his deposition, 131 in total, the Oversight Committee has identified
approximately over $2 million in payments for Hunter Biden’s benefit to the Rosemont Seneca
Bohai bank account.132
E. The Biden family used a network of close associates to entangle their financial
interests with Joe Biden’s.
Evidence suggests that the Biden family business arrangements were organized in such a
way that even close associates were not permitted complete visibility into the full picture of the
Bidens’ financial activity. For example, Eric Schwerin, Hunter Biden’s business partner in
Rosemont Seneca Advisors and manager of Joe Biden’s finances, admitted he had no visibility
into the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account—an account that was the primary recipient of
Hunter Biden’s foreign money.
133 According to Mr. Schwerin, he had access to other bank
accounts for both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.134 While Mr. Schwerin had a window into many
bank accounts involving Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, he was not given access to the Rosemont
Seneca Bohai bank account until federal authorities began investigating Mr. Archer.135 Although
Mr. Schwerin oversaw many of the administrative banking duties related to their companies,
wires sent to Hunter Biden and his associates from foreign entities—often sent after Joe Biden
met with these foreign individuals—were often diverted into the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank
account to which Eric Schwerin did not have access.
136 The Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank
account was used to conceal and hide money that involved foreign businesses and individuals
who met with Joe Biden while he held public office.
128 Id. at 24. 129 Records on File with Comm. Staff; Referral ¶ 49. 130 Archer Interview at 24. 131 Referral ¶¶ 19-64. 132 Id. ¶ 26. 133 Schwerin Interview at 100-101; see generally Third Bank Memo. 134 Schwerin Interview at 10, 15-16, 126-128, 143-144. 135 Id. at 17-18, 33-34. 136 Id. at 10, 16-18, 53-55, 126-128; see generally Third Bank Memo.
37
This close group of individuals used Joe Biden’s attorney to form and run their corporate
entities.
137 The Bidens used these corporate entities for limited purposes and to move the money
from foreign sources.138 For example, both Hallie Biden and James Biden’s JBBSR Inc.
performed no services for Robinson Walker, LLC but received approximately $385,000 sourced
from State Energy HK.139 James Biden testified that he used JSBBR Inc. “very, very, very little.”
140 He testified:
Q. Moving on to JBBSR Inc.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your company as well?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of work—
A. I don’t know if that’s still in existence. But Sara, my wife,
formed that company along with my agreeing to it. But it
was set up just as another vehicle where we could—it was
an LLC, and it was set up for that reason. It has been used
very, very, very little.141
The registered agent for JBBSR Inc. was Monzack, Mersky, McLaughlin, and Brower,
P.A.142 This law firm was the registered agent for other Biden related entities, including Mr.
Walker’s, Hunter Biden’s, Jill Biden’s, and Joe Biden’s companies. They are the listed agent for
the following entities: Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC and Owasco LLC, Rob
Walker’s Robinson Walker, LLC, Jill Biden’s Giacoppa Corp., and Joe Biden’s CelticCapri
Corp.143 JBBSR Inc.’s business address was James Biden’s previous home address.144 Although
James Biden represented that he used JBBSR Inc. “very, very, very little,”145 it received
$360,000 from Robinson Walker LLC in a two-month period.146 James Biden received the
money into a company that had no business operations, insignificant assets, and performed no
services for Robinson Walker, LLC or CEFC at that time.147
137 James Biden Interview at 14; Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC; Robinson Walker, LLC; CelticCapri Corp.;
Giacoppa Corp.; and Owasco LLC available at OpenCorporates.com. 138 See generally First Bank Memo, Second Bank Memo, Third Bank Memo, Fourth Bank Memo, and Referral. 139 See First Bank Memo at 2; see generally Second Bank Memo at 10-11, 13, 16-17. 140 James Biden Interview at 13. 141 Id. 142 Id. at 14. 143 Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC; Robinson Walker, LLC; CelticCapri Corp.; Giacoppa Corp.; and Owasco LLC
available at OpenCorporates.com. 144 James Biden Interview at 14. 145 Id. at 13. 146 Second Bank Memo at 31-32. 147 See generally Fourth Bank Memo.
39
F. The Biden family did not provide services to merit the millions of dollars paid to
them.
Hunter Biden and James Biden provided vague descriptions of the value they provided to
their business partners. For instance, James Biden vaguely stated that he “consult[ed] in many
different areas.”149 He testified:
Q. What I’d like to understand is what kind of services and
businesses did the Lion Hall Group and JBBSR Inc. provide?
A. Consulting in many different areas. The list is incorporated
in the documents that I provided you. I mean, too many for
me to mention off the top of my head. But . . . clearly the
insurance business, the liquid natural gas.
You know, as I said, I had my securities license, I had my
real estate license, and I did that in conjunction with a couple
of my earlier enterprises in the food and beverage business.
And just, you know, there was a lot of different corporations
and a lot of different business entities that I was involved in.
Q. Are you a registered lobbyist?
A. No, sir.150
While an ordinary consulting business would produce reams of contracts, agreements,
invoices, documented transactions and other evidence of legitimate services, the record of James
Biden’s and Hunter Biden’s documented services provided to high paying clients is scant. For
instance, the Committees interviewed Carol Fox, the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee for Americore
Health, LLC (Americore), a company that operates rural hospitals and was involved in
bankruptcy proceedings.
151 As part of the impeachment inquiry, the Committees obtained bank
records related to James and Sara Biden, and an entity associated with them. According to these
bank records, Joe Biden received a $200,000 check from James Biden dated March 1, 2018.152
James Biden issued the check to Joe Biden from his personal bank account on the same day he
received a $200,000 wire from Americore.153
According to Ms. Fox’s testimony, she could not identify services that James Biden
rendered to the company for this money. She testified:
149 James Biden Interview at 14-15. 150 Id. 151 Transcribed Interview of Carol Fox, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability at 10-11, 64 (Dec. 18, 2023)
[hereinafter “Fox Interview”]; James Biden Interview at 37. 152 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Comer Releases Evidence of Direct Payment to Joe
Biden (Oct. 20, 2023). 153 Id.
40
Q. As part of being a trustee and filing this lawsuit, did you
investigate or take any steps to try and find out what he did
at the company?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. So I do know that, through Mr. Biden’s consulting company,
Lion Hall, he purportedly provided consulting services to the
debtor, or to the debtors. But what those services were, yeah,
I don’t . . . I can’t say specifically.
Q. Is it fair to say that you weren’t able to identify any services
that he provided to Americore?
A. Well, that’s why I sued him. . . .154
Similarly, Mervyn Yan, a business partner of Hunter Biden, could not explain why his
company, Hudson West III, paid James Biden’s consulting firm, Lion Hall Group, tens of
thousands of dollars. In a letter transmitted prior to his interview with the Committees and during
the interview, Mr. Yan asserted that he “has no direct contact with Lion Hall Group.”155
However, despite Mr. Yan’s representations to the Committees, subpoenaed bank records show
that Hudson West III made significant payments to the Lion Hall Group.156 Mr. Yan testified that
the purpose of these payments were to “reimburse” “Lion Hall’s business expenses.” 157 He
stated:
Q. . . . There are additional Cathay Bank records that show
additional wires out to the Lion Hall Group. I think this
provides enough examples for you to review.
But at this point, on March 31st of 2018, you were a
signatory on the account, but your footnote says you had no
direct contact with the Lion Hall Group.
A. That’s correct.
Q. So you’re paying money to the Lion Hall Group, but you’ve
had no contact with any[one] at the Lion Hall Group?
154 Fox Interview at 18-19. 155 Letter from Mervyn Yan’s Counsel to James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and
Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Jan. 24, 2024) [hereinafter “Jan. 24 Letter from Yan’s
Counsel”]; Transcribed Interview of Mervyn Yan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on the
Judiciary at 12 (Jan. 25, 2024) [hereinafter “Yan Interview”].
156 Yan Interview at 12-13. 157 Id. at 13.
41
A. So during the course of those periods, I believe that’s Lion
Hall’s business expenses submitted to Hudson West III, and
. . . I reimburse it as when they submit it. So I would consider
that that’s . . . the equivalent of the Owasco payment.
Q. But you did have contact with the Lion Hall Group if you’re
talking with them about expenses.
A. I have no business dealing[s] with the Lion Hall Group.158
Mr. Yan’s statements are inconsistent with the evidence. Mr. Yan paid the Lion Hall
Group, but he could not, with any specificity, articulate the services that the Lion Hall Group
rendered to Hudson West III. Instead, he provided a convoluted explanation about business
expenses, testifying:
Q. But why was . . . Lion Hall Group getting any money from
[Hudson West III]—
A. I don’t know.
Q. What services were Lion Hall Group providing?
A. I think that’s primarily for all the . . . number[s] that they
submit. I—presumably, that’s a business expense related to
Hudson West III business.159
Despite being in business with the Biden family, Mr. Yan could not identify the services
that the Biden family provided to clients or why the Bidens were paid even when deals fell apart.
Mr. Yan told the Committees about different energy projects the Bidens pitched to their Chinese
business associates, but none of them—not one—was successful.160 Hunter Biden and James
Biden have a long history of failed business endeavors. The Bidens and their business associates
were even paid millions of dollars for “access” to projects. Rob Walker told the FBI that CEFC
paid himself, Hunter Biden, and Mr. Gilliar as a “thank you[.]”161 In his transcribed interview, he
elaborated:
Q. What did you mean when you said the $3 million was more
of a “thank you”?
A. I think we put them [CEFC] together with a bunch of
qualified projects. They may have been skeptical at first, but
we opened the door to some potential business that they
158 Id. 159 Id. at 82. 160 Id. at 77-78. 161 Rob Walker FD-302 at 7; Walker Interview at 80.
42
would not normally have access to, I guess. Or “access” may
be the wrong word, but . . . they were kind of impressed at
what we were showing them, in my opinion.162
In a letter that Mr. Yan submitted to the Committees, he also asserted he had no
relationship with Sara Biden, James Biden’s wife.163 Mr. Yan’s Chinese affiliated company,
however, gave Sara Biden a credit card allowing the Bidens to spend lavishly.164 Mr. Yan told the
Committees that he obtained a company credit card for Sara Biden—even though he did not have
a business relationship with her—because it was “part of . . . the ask.” 165 He testified:
Q. Who received those credit cards?
A. I think Hunter, James Biden, and Sara Biden.
Q. So going back to your letter, where you say you have no
relationship with Sara Biden, but then the company, where I
understand you’re going through invoices—that’s my
understanding of part of your role. You’re going through
invoices and expense reports—she gets a credit card?
A. As part of . . . the ask, they asked for it. I ha[d] no reason to
say no.
Q. What types of expenses was she looking forward to making
. . . on the credit card?
A. I don’t know.
Q. But didn’t you ask?
A. I don’t control her spending. . . .
166
According to Mr. Yan, Sara Biden did not have a role in the Chinese joint venture
Hudson West III, but she had a credit card for the company despite providing no services.167
Despite these failures, the Bidens received millions of dollars in payments and forgiven loans
from various domestic and foreign companies and individuals.168 After interviewing several of
the Biden family’s business associates, the Committees identified no substantive value provided
by the Bidens other than access to or influence over Joe Biden.
162 Walker Interview at 80. 163 Jan. 24 Letter from Yan’s Counsel. 164 See Yan Interview at 89-91. 165 Id. at 89. 166 Id. 167 Id. at 89-90. 168 Referral ¶¶ 1-10.
43
II. The Biden family and business associates leveraged Joe Biden’s official position for
financial benefit with Joe Biden’s awareness and participation.
The influence peddling schemes described in this section represent repeated abuses of
office by then-Vice President Biden, and compounding the corruption are the lengths to which
Joe Biden has gone to cover up his actions. The Committees have obtained evidence of how the
Biden family leveraged Joe Biden’s official position for financial gain. Indeed, in many ways, the
entire business of Hunter Biden and James Biden centered around hinting at, alluding to, or
outright promising what Joe Biden’s power could do for certain foreign interests.
Joe Biden allowed his family to monetize his political influence and access by selling it
to foreign actors. He participated in a scheme in which foreign business interests were led to
believe that they would gain access to him in his official capacity if they were to pay substantial
amounts of money to his family. While the Biden family’s influence peddling scheme involved a
wide range of corrupt dealings across multiple countries, their various endeavors all
fundamentally represent an attempt to commodify President Biden’s office and the power
entrusted to him by the American public.169
A. In April 2014, a Kazakhstani oligarch wired $142,300—the exact price of Hunter
Biden’s sportscar—to a bank account used by Mr. Archer and Hunter Biden.
On February 5, 2014, Hunter Biden met Kenes Rakishev, a Kazakhstani oligarch, at the
Hay-Adams hotel in Washington, D.C.170 According to Mr. Archer, Mr. Rakishev “is a prominent
businessman in Kazakhstan [and] Europe” who maintained close ties to Karim Massimov, who
became Prime Minister of Kazakhstan in April 2014.171 Mr. Rakishev was also a director at
Kazakhstan’s state-owned oil company, KazMunayGas.172 In email correspondence with Mr.
Archer surrounding the D.C. meeting, Mr. Rakishev asked that then-Secretary of State John
Kerry visit Kazakhstan.173 Mr. Archer replied approvingly, “if we have some business started as
planned I will ensure its [sic] planned soonest.”174
Mr. Archer initially met Mr. Rakishev in an attempt to raise capital for Rosemont Realty,
a real estate company run by Mr. Archer.
175 Mr. Archer acknowledged that Hunter Biden briefly
served on Rosemont Realty’s board of directors and received a financial distribution when the
firm was sold, but otherwise claimed that Hunter Biden’s involvement in Rosemont Realty was
“[m]inimal.” 176 He testified:
169 Cf. Turley Testimony at 25 (“Just as influence peddling is a form of corruption that the United States has sought
to combat on a global scale, it is still corrupt if you have no plans to fulfill the deal. You are still turning an office
into a commodity for corruption.”). 170 Third Bank Memo at 11. 171 See Archer Interview at 63; Third Bank Memo at 11. 172 Third Bank Memo at 11. 173 Id. 174 Email from Devon Archer to Kenes Rakishev & Hunter Biden (Feb. 5, 2014). 175 Archer Interview at 79. 176 Id. at 63-64.
44
Q. But [Kenes Rakishev and Yelena Baturina] are people who
you and Hunter Biden are in business with, correct?
A. Correct. Well . . . Kenes was pitched . . . to Rosemont Realty,
but I don’t think he ever—he never—the only thing that I
think ever transacted was a car.
Q. Well, why did he send—
Atty. And what was Hunter’s connection to Rosemont Realty?
A. Minimal.
Q. Right. So was he in business with . . . investors in Rosemont
Realty?
A. No. Hunter we put on the board of Rosemont Realty for a
very short period of time.177
Fellow Biden business associate Jason Galanis provided a more expansive account of
Hunter Biden’s involvement in Rosemont Realty, stating that while it was “materially accurate to
say that he was not a core partner of Rosemont Realty. . . . It would be inaccurate to say he was
completely detached.”178 Mr. Galanis explained that Hunter Biden’s “RSP Investments due
diligence documents that he provided us, which were his internal accounts, had payments from
Rosemont Realty to Hunter.”179 RSP Investments was an SEC-registered broker-dealer “owned
by Hunter [Biden] and run by Eric Schwerin.”180 Mr. Galanis added that “Rosemont Realty in a
way was a fiction, used to raise money from oligarchs.”181
The day before Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer met Mr. Rakishev at the Hay-Adams in
Washington, the group dined with then-Vice President Biden at Café Milano in D.C. as part of
Hunter Biden’s birthday celebration.
182 Mr. Massimov and Yelena Baturina, a Russian oligarch
and friend of Mr. Rakishev, also attended the dinner.183 According to Hunter Biden, Mr. Rakishev
met his father at the Café Milano dinner.184 Mr. Archer testified:
Q. . . . Going back to this, it would be, spring of 2014 Café
Milano dinner . . . . Can you just say again who was there?
177 Id. 178 Galanis Interview at 72. 179 Id. 180 Id. at 30-31. 181 Id. at 121. 182 Third Bank Memo at 12; Archer Interview at 57. Although Mr. Archer testified that the dinner occurred in spring
2014, Hunter Biden clarified that it occurred on his birthday, February 4, 2014. See Hunter Biden Deposition at 76. 183 Archer Interview at 46. 184 Hunter Biden Deposition at 40.
45
A. Sure. Kenes Rakishev, Karim Massimov, Yelena Baturina,
possibly Yury, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, possibly Eric
Schwerin.
Q. The duration of time that Joe Biden stayed there you said
you couldn’t recall. But you do recall whether he had dinner
. . . .
A. He had dinner, yeah. I recall that he had dinner.185
Hunter Biden’s former wife, Kathleen Buhle, told the Justice Department and IRS
investigators that “more than one Kazakhstani individual” attended the 2014 Café Milano
dinner,” though she could not recall their names.186 Ms. Buhle also told investigators that “it was
strange for these Kazakhstani individuals to show up to this dinner” because “it was unusual for
[Hunter Biden] to have his clients show up to a family / birthday dinner.”187 According to Ms.
Buhle, during the dinner, “the Kazakhstani individuals gave [Hunter Biden] a framed photo of a
car that she understood they were going to give to [Hunter Biden]” as a gift.188
185 Archer Interview at 57. 186 H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Exhibit 903: IRS CI Memorandum of Interview for Kathleen Buhle at 4 (May 7,
2021) [hereinafter “Exhibit 903”]. 187 Id. 188 Id.
47
from Rosemont Seneca Bohai, I assume, as you’re showing
me in this document.
Q. Are you saying that all the money in Rosemont Seneca Bohai
is Devon Archer’s money?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who gave—who sent the $142,300 in the
Rosemont Seneca Bohai account the exact same amount that
purchased the car?
A. I do not know exactly how . . . it was purchased, but the car
was purchased. I took possession of a car.
Q. Who sent the money for $142,300 into the Rosemont Seneca
Bohai account?
A. As far as I knew, Devon.
Q. Who sent the money from Novatus into the Rosemont
Seneca Bohai account that was $142,300?
A Again, I don’t know what Novatus is, but I believe that the
money for the car was sent to Devon; then ultimately Devon
purchased the car for me.
Q And Devon never told you who was providing the money for
the car?
A. No, I didn’t say that. I’m saying to you . . . I don’t know
technically who Novatus is, so I can’t answer . . . your
question other than to say, my belief was that, but I do not
know exactly who Novatus is. If you tell me Novatus is
connected to Kenes Rakishev, then I accept that to be the
fact. I have no issue with this.
They’re telling you, is that I received a car and I know why
I received a car. I received a car because I was helping, what
I—my understanding was is that I was engaged with Devon .
. . to help with his Rosemont Realty. It was payment. It was
a cockamamie way to do it, but that’s what my understanding
was.191
191 Hunter Biden Deposition at 38-40.
48
Mr. Archer, however, confirmed in his transcribed interview that Novatus “is associated
[with] Kenes Raskishev,”192 and that Rosemont Seneca Bohai received the $142,000 payment
from Mr. Rakishev “[f]or Hunter’s car.”193 Mr. Archer testified that he did not know why Mr.
Rakishev paid for Hunter Biden’s sports car;
194 what services, if any, Hunter Biden provided Mr.
Rakishev in exchange for the car; or why the money was transferred to Devon Archer’s
Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account—which Hunter Biden does not have access to—instead of
Owasco or one of his other accounts.195
The extent to which Hunter Biden provided legitimate services to Mr. Rakishev is unclear
from witness testimony. Mr. Archer testified to the Committees that he did not know why Mr.
Rakishev purchased a sports car for Hunter Biden. As he explained:
A. It was—that’s a business matter between them.
Q. “Them” being who?
A. Hunter and Kenes. . . . That’s why I clarified the point, like,
I wasn’t, like, doing this banking. Hunter was a corporate
secretary of RSB. We had a handshake 50-50 ownership.
And he conducted, you know, banking business with the
COO.
Q. So you’re telling us here today that you don’t know why this
expensive car was purchased through Rakishev.
A. No, I don’t know why…196
In his deposition, Hunter Biden conceded he provided no services to Mr. Rakishev.197 Hunter
Biden stated, “I never did anything on behalf of Kenes Rakishev or asked anyone to do anything
on behalf of Kenes Rakishev.”198 The value Hunter Biden provided to Mr. Rakishev, then,
appears to be limited to his introduction to Joe Biden, who was present at the Café Milano dinner
where Mr. Rakishev presented to Hunter Biden a picture of the payment—a sports car.
199
192 Archer Interview at 62. 193 Id. 194 Id. at 64-65. 195 Id. at 64-65, 67-68. 196 Id. at 64-65. 197 Hunter Biden Deposition at 198. 198 Id. 199 See Exhibit 903.
49
B. Hunter Biden peddled Vice President Joe Biden’s political influence to benefit
monetarily from Russian business associates.
In early 2014, Vice President Biden attended Hunter Biden’s birthday dinner with several
foreign officials, including a Russian oligarch, Yelena Baturina.200 In 2010, Ms. Baturina’s
husband Yuri Luzhkov—the mayor of Moscow at that time—was accused by then U.S.
Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle of heading a “pyramid of corruption” involving the Kremlin,
Russia’s police force, its security service, political parties, and crime groups.201 Specifically,
according to one contemporaneous news source:
After Luzhkov entered office, his wife became Russia’s wealthiest
woman, amassing a fortune put at $1.8 [billion]. Since her husband’s
sacking she has spent most of her time abroad, with the couple’s
teenage daughters moving to London. Luzhkov’s dubious friends
and associates, the US alleged, included Vyacheslav Ivankov—a
recently murdered and notorious Russian mafia boss known as
Yaponchik—and other “reputedly corrupt” Duma deputies.
“[Source removed] said that the Moscow government has links to
many different criminal groups and it regularly takes cash bribes
from businesses.”202
Ten days after attending the dinner with Vice President Biden, on February 14, 2014, Ms.
Baturina transferred $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton.203 Approximately $2.75 million
was later transferred to the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account, which Mr. Archer and Hunter
Biden used to receive other foreign wire transfers.204 The timing of Ms. Baturina’s investment in
Rosemont Seneca Thornton is suspect and raises concerns that Vice President Biden played an
important role in convincing her to buy into his son’s foreign business dealings. According to Mr.
Archer, Hunter Biden did not provide services to Ms. Baturina to merit this payment prior to the
February 2014 dinner that the Vice President attended. Mr. Archer testified:
Hunter met Yelena once. . . . But . . . he was not involved. I think
we put him on the advisory board for a minute. And he was really—
Rosemont Realty was completely out of his, kind of, portfolio.205
On May 4, 2014, Mr. Galanis attended a party during which Hunter Biden put his father
on speakerphone with Ms. Baturina.206 Hunter Biden and his family stood to gain a significant
sum of money if the business deal with Ms. Baturina went well. During Mr. Galanis’s interview
200 Archer Interview at 57, 66; Hunter Biden Deposition at 76. 201 Luke Harding, WikiLeaks cables: Moscow mayor presided over ‘pyramid of corruption’, THE GUARDIAN (Dec. 1,
2010).
202 Id. (“[Source removed]” is part of a direct quote from the cited source). 203 Third Bank Memo at 2, 8; STAFF REPORT, S. COMM. ON HOMELAND SEC. & GOVERNMENTAL AFFS. & S. COMM.
ON FIN., HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA, AND CORRUPTION: THE IMPACT ON U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY AND RELATED
CONCERNS, at 69 (2020). 204 Third Bank Memo at 8-9. 205 Archer Interview at 61. 206 Galanis Interview at 10-12.
50
with the Committees, he explained his role in helping Ms. Baturina bring her wealth into a “safe
jurisdiction” in the hopes that she would make investments that would garner great gains for the
business associates.207 Mr. Galanis testified:
Q. You alluded to this, but what was the work that you were
doing for Ms. Baturina that precipitated this get-together?
A. Well, I described the bank account. So what I characterize
the work as, getting her access. My role was helping to get
her access to the U.S. financial system. . . . [I]n prior periods,
she invested money in a private equity fund. At that time,
private equity funds were not required to report suspicious
activity and money laundering. . . . So she had access only
by way of a workaround, and I was charged with trying to
get her direct access.
Q. And what was your understanding of why Ms. Baturina
wanted access to the U.S. market?
A. The conversations were what we would call in my former
life in finance, flight capital. And what flight capital means
is high net worth, international people, moving capital from
high risk jurisdictions where there is a risk of government
confiscation of wealth, especially politically exposed
people, to get it to what they deemed to be [a] safe
jurisdiction.
And the U.S. is deemed as a place that is less likely to
confiscate your wealth, and I think that changed for them for
the Russians, in particular, after the invasion of Crimea. I
think it was limiting her exposure and risk management were
the discussions we had.208
Mr. Galanis testified that in exchange for helping Ms. Baturina obtain a bank account
with a U.S. financial institution, the business partners hoped she would invest in their joint
venture, Burnham.209 Mr. Galanis explained:
A. Our ambition in earning money with her was to have her
invest with us, use that money to build a bigger Burnham,
and ultimately to have that long term Burnham franchise,
possibly to sell it, possibly to take it public.
207 Id. at 78-79. 208 Id. at 77-79. 209 Id. at 11.
51
That was the ambition, to build a business from 17 billion
into something that could be 100, 200, $300 billion asset
management firm. And the fuel for that were relationships,
access to relationships, and capital.
Q. What did Hunter Biden have to gain from that kind of
investment?
A. A billion dollars.
Q. How?
A. He owned equity in the business.
Q. In Burnham?
A. Burnham.210
According to evidence obtained by the Committees, Hunter Biden was able to transact
with Ms. Baturina by appealing to his most powerful asset: his father. Regarding the May 4,
2014, call between Hunter Biden, Ms. Baturina, and Vice President Biden, Mr. Galanis testified
that “[i]t was clear to me this was a pre-arranged call with his father meant to impress the
Russian investors. . . .”211 Mr. Galanis testified:
I was present when Hunter called his father on a cell phone and put
the call on speaker. Present for the call were Yelena Baturina, an
investor in Rosemont projects; her husband Yuri, and the former
mayor of Moscow; and Devon Archer.
This call took place on May 4, 2014, during a gathering hosted by
[a] Ukrainian associate of Ms. Baturina and a business partner of
ours at Romanoff, a restaurant in Brooklyn, New York.
During the May 4th party, we were told to go to an area of the
restaurant to gather because Hunter was going to call his father.
Hunter called his father, said, “Hello,” and “Hold on, Pops,” then
put the call on speaker phone and said, “I’m here with our friends I
told you were coming to town, and we wanted to say hello.”
210 Id. at 79-80. 211 Id. at 12.
54
Q. So this [presentation about Burnham to Harvest Group]216
lists three individuals, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden, and
Jason Sugarman as the executive management team. What
were these individuals responsible for doing? What was
Hunter Biden, specifically, responsible for doing, as
presented or as presented in this slide deck?
A. Well, specific to the slide deck, he’s characterized as
leadership, so a position of authority. He’s further
characterized in his bio that he included in here as vice
chairman of Burnham. In his bio, it’s disclosed that Burnham
acquired his Washington advisory firm. So this describes his
role at the top at a board level and the combination of his
business with Burnham.
Q. So this reflects what we were just talking about, how if Ms.
Baturina made Burnham wealthy, Hunter Biden would profit
as well?
A. Yes.217
Notably, neither the Obama nor Biden Administrations placed Ms. Baturina on the
sanctions list even though both administrations substantially increased sanctions against Russian
oligarchs due largely to Russia’s invasions of Crimea and Ukraine during their respective
terms.218 The Trump Administration identified Ms. Baturina as a Russian oligarch.
219 The Biden
Administration has refused to answer why Ms. Baturina was left off the sanctions list despite her
sharing similar characteristics with other sanctioned Russian oligarchs.220
C. Hunter Biden and his business associates leveraged Vice President Biden’s
political power to obtain millions of dollars from a corrupt Romanian
businessman.
In 2015, Rob Walker—Hunter Biden’s business associate—introduced Hunter Biden to
James Gilliar.221 Mr. Gilliar would work on two deals with Hunter Biden for which they would
receive a seven-figure compensation from foreign sources: the handling of the Romanian
criminal case against Gabriel Popoviciu and a deal with the Chinese entity CEFC.
216 Id. at 80. 217 Id. at 81. 218 See Letter from Rep. James Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, to Janet Yellen, Sec’y,
U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (Apr. 21, 2022).; see, e.g., Third Bank Memo. 219 U.S. DEP’T OF THE TREASURY, REPORT TO CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTION 241 OF THE COUNTERING
AMERICA’S ADVERSARIES THROUGH SANCTIONS ACT OF 2017 REGARDING SENIOR FOREIGN POLITICAL FIGURES AND
OLIGARCHS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND RUSSIAN PARASTATAL ENTITIES (2018). 220 See Letter from Rep. James Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, to Janet Yellen, Sec’y,
U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (Apr. 21, 2022).
221 Email from Rob Walker to Hunter Biden (Feb. 26, 2015) (on file with the Committees).
55
The backdrop for Hunter Biden and his business associates’ business dealings in Romania
is important. On May 21, 2014, Vice President Biden visited Romania and delivered a speech
addressed to the Romanian Prime Minister, judges, prosecutors, and leaders of the parliament.222
During his speech, Vice President Biden stated the following:
Corruption is a cancer, a cancer that eats away at a citizen’s faith in
democracy, diminishes the instinct for innovation and creativity;
already-tight national budgets, crowding out important national
investments. It wastes the talent of entire generations. It scares away
investments and jobs. And most importantly it denies the people
their dignity. It saps the collective strength and resolve of a nation.
Corruption is just another form of tyranny.
And corruption can represent a clear and present danger not only to
a nation’s economy, but to its very national security.
223
At the time of Vice President Biden’s speech, one of the most high-profile corruption
cases in Romania concerned Gabriel Popoviciu.224 Romanian prosecutors had charged Mr.
Popoviciu with a bribery-related offense.225
On September 28, 2015, Vice President Biden met with Romanian President Klaus
Iohannis in the White House.226 A readout of the meeting stated, “[t]he Vice President welcomed
President Iohannis’ focus on anti-corruption efforts and rule of law as a means to strengthen
national security and promote greater investment and economic growth.”227 President Iohannis
said the Vice President “voice[d] satisfaction over Romania’s fight against corruption.”228
Within five weeks of this meeting, Bladon Enterprises Limited (Bladon Enterprises)—
one of Mr. Popoviciu’s companies—began making deposits into Mr. Walker’s Robinson Walker,
LLC’s bank account.229 These payments were the result of a business arrangement between
Hunter Biden, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Popoviciu, who was under investigation by the Romanian
government for abuse of power, during the second term of the Obama-Biden Administration.230
The nature of the work performed by Hunter Biden, Mr. Gilliar, and Mr. Walker is vague,
but it was connected to Mr. Popoviciu’s criminal matter in Romania. Mr. Popoviciu was one of
the owners of a mall complex in Northern Bucharest, and government investigators alleged that
222 Remarks by Vice President Joe Biden to Romanian Civil Society Groups and Students (Cotroceni Palace,
Bucharest, Romania), The White House (May 21, 2014).
223 Id. 224 Walker Interview at 20-21; see, e.g., Laura Strickler & Rich Schapiro, Hunter Biden’s legal work in Romania
raises new questions about his overseas dealings, NBC NEWS (Oct. 24, 2019). 225 See, e.g., id. 226 The White House, Office of the Vice President, Readout of the Vice President’s Meeting with Romanian
President Klaus Iohannis (Sept. 28, 2015). 227 Id. 228 U.S. Vice President Biden Receives President Iohannis, Voices Satisfaction over Romania’s Fight against
Corruption, Nine O’Clock (Sept. 29, 2015).
229 Second Bank Memo at 12. 230 Walker Interview at 21, 89, 176-78.
56
he received the land on which he built the complex through corrupt means.231 Mr. Walker
testified:
Q. . . . [W]hat was the purpose of why you were being
introduced to [Gabriel Popoviciu]?
A. He was having a problem in Romania where he had a
property. It was called Baneasa, and . . . he had to stop
developing because there were some legal matters that he
was having to deal with.
Q. And when you say “legal matters,” he was charged with
allegations in Romania by Romanian prosecutors for abuse
of power, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What was going to be your role with this property that he
was having an issue with in Romania?
A. At first, I didn’t know. . . . I don’t know if I met him in the
United States first or in Romania first. But he was having
these issues, and he wasn’t sure why, and he was trying to
figure it out, and . . . I believe I told him I was going to start
looking into it for him.232
Mr. Walker explained that he began receiving payments from Mr. Popoviciu to “shed
light” in America against “overzealous” Romanian authorities’ prosecutions of wealthy
Romanians, including Mr. Popoviciu:
Q. . . . I’m not asking you to go back and remember the exact
dates, but just—do you know why you started to get
payments? What . . . were you getting paid to do?
A. . . . [Mr. Popoviciu] told me the story. I told him I would start
looking into it and trying to devise a plan. The reason that
the United States was . . . interesting for him is because he
was under the impression that . . . the United States
Government . . . had given money to the Romanians to train
prosecutors to build up their anticorruption unit and to train
their equivalent of the FBI to fight corruption in Romania.
Q. What about that made him retain Robinson Walker LLC?
231 Update: Powerful Romanian investor sent to jail for 220–ha real estate fraud, wanted by police, ROMANIA
INSIDER (Aug. 2, 2017). 232 Walker Interview at 174-75.
57
A. I was talking to him about what we could do. One would be
to try to shed some light on the situation in the United States,
try to figure out and really get down to the bottom of what
was going on because I think he was a little confused on what
was happening also because he thought that the partnership
with the university was a really good partnership, and he
didn’t understand what he was being prosecuted for, I
believe.
And I was just trying to shed some light on it because the
United States was quick to pat the Romanians on the back
for every prosecution of a wealthy individual over there, and
. . . it seemed to become quite overzealous, and we’re just
chalking up a lot of prosecutions, and people were cheering
him on really not understanding what was happening in the
court cases, from what I understand.233
Because Mr. Popoviciu would transfer money from Bladon Enterprises to Mr. Walker’s
account for Robinson Walker, LLC, it does not appear that he was aware that Mr. Walker was
paying Mr. Gilliar a third of the total Mr. Popoviciu was paying to him. Mr. Bobulinski, who was
introduced to Mr. Popoviciu by Mr. Gilliar, explained:
So I asked James Gilliar, what is – like, what’s all the anger? How
much have you guys been paid? Who is getting paid? Why are they
getting paid? Do you have a contractual obligation? Can I see the
contract? You’re asking me to step into the middle of this. Hunter
is livid over it. Like, what does he owe you? Hunter is acting like
he is owed millions of dollars. Gabriel Popoviciu is acting like he
owed you nothing.
And so, in that call – right – James Gilliar told me how much they
had been getting paid per month over the prior years, and he
referenced that he didn’t have the contract but that Rob Walker had
the contract. And that contract outlined that, if, in fact, they were
successful in getting Gabriel off in Romania, that they stood to make
potentially millions or tens of millions of dollars based on this
contract.234
Bladon Enterprises sent Robinson Walker, LLC a monthly sum of approximately
$180,000 on seventeen occasions in payment for Hunter Biden’s, Mr. Walker’s, and Mr. Gilliar’s
services on Mr. Popoviciu’s corruption case.
235 However, the three men lacked any distinct skill
set to justify this generous payment structure. Although Hunter Biden is an attorney by training,
233 Id. at 176-77. 234 Bobulinski Interview at 221. 235 Second Bank Memo at 16-17; Walker Interview at 89.
58
the Committees have found no evidence that he had any subject matter expertise in Romanian
legal standards that would have been of value to Mr. Popoviciu. In a private text message to his
then-business partner, Mr. Bobulinski, Hunter Biden described his role in the Popoviciu matter as
“an advisor and pseudo legal counsel.”236
Mr. Walker testified that he was hired to “shine some light” on the criminal case against
Mr. Popoviciu, but Mr. Walker is not a lawyer and had no business experience in Romania that
would have aided him in helping Mr. Popoviciu with his legal case.237 In his transcribed
interview, Mr. Walker stated that the group organized meetings with the Obama-Biden State
Department and the former and then-current U.S. Ambassador to Romania to aid in Mr.
Popoviciu’s defense.238
Of the $180,000 monthly fees paid by Blandon Enterprises, Hunter Biden or his entities
received approximately $60,000 a month from Robinson Walker, LLC.239 Hunter Biden’s
involvement in this prominent corruption matter in Romania while then-Vice President Biden
held a prominent position leading the White House’s fight against corruption in Romania mirrors
Hunter Biden’s taking a position on a Ukrainian board, where his father again would take an
236 Text from Hunter Biden to Tony Bobulinski (May 26, 2017). 237 Walker Interview at 180. 238 See id. at 185-88. 239 Id. at 191.
59
outsized role in combatting corruption in that country. Vice President Biden was already heavily
involved in corruption reform in Romania, as evidenced by his speech to combat corruption in
2014 and his comments made to the Romanian President in 2015. Additionally, the payments that
Mr. Popoviciu made to Hunter Biden—through Robinson Walker, LLC—largely coincided with
Joe Biden’s remaining time as Vice President. Payments from Mr. Popoviciu into the Robinson
Walker, LLC account began only five weeks after then-Vice President Joe Biden met with the
President of Romania at the White House. Mr. Popoviciu’s payments to Hunter Biden and his
business associates ended abruptly after Joe Biden left office as Vice President.240 Mr. Walker
testified:
Q. All of them except for one payment occur while Vice
President Joe Biden was in office.
A. That’s right.
Q. When he steps out of office, the payments stop. But Gabriel
Popoviciu’s case continues. So why is it that you all have
stopped getting paid the same time that Joe Biden stepped
out of office?
A. I don’t know. Gabriel had the opportunity to stop payments,
I believe, at any time in the contract.
Q. So, just so I understand it, Mr. Popoviciu decided to stop
making payments to you, Hunter Biden, and James Gilliar
once Joe Biden left office?
A. If you say so.241
Mr. Bobulinski provided additional context regarding the end of these payments. Mr.
Bobulinski, who first met Mr. Popoviciu in 2016 before he ever met Hunter Biden, interacted
with Mr. Popoviciu over money that Hunter Biden believed Mr. Popoviciu owed to Mr. Gilliar,
Mr. Walker, and Hunter Biden.
242 According to Mr. Bobulinski, he was able to convince Mr.
Popoviciu to provide one final payment to Mr. Walker’s Robinson Walker LLC in May 2017.243
Mr. Bobulinski explained:
But, when I met with Gabriel Popoviciu, he was very vocal about
the fact that he had stopped paying Robinson Walker when Joe
Biden left the White House, and the reason why he had stopped
paying them—and the reason was because he viewed that he no
240 Id. at 197-98. 241 Id. 242 Bobulinski Interview at 31-32, 204-05, 218-21. 243 See generally Second Bank Memo; Walker Interview at 197-98.
61
The Committees do not understand Mr. Gilliar to have had any sort of business with the
White House prior to this email. The Committees have found no plausible explanation for why
Mr. Gilliar would be provided information to contact the Vice President’s scheduler and the Vice
President’s National Security Advisor other than to provide access to the Vice President or White
House officials to discuss Mr. Popoviciu’s criminal case in Romania.
Hunter Biden’s business engagement with Mr. Popoviciu would not have occurred
without the influence of then-Vice President Biden. The Biden family and Hunter Biden’s
business associates made millions of dollars assisting a Romanian business official due to Joe
Biden’s position of authority. Joe Biden was actively involved in policy reforms targeting
corruption in Romania, and his son secured a lucrative contract with Mr. Popoviciu relating to
Mr. Popoviciu’s prosecution for corruption. Hunter Biden’s activity in Romania was just one part
of a greater foreign influence peddling scheme that allowed the Biden family to reap millions of
dollars by aligning their influence peddling with Joe Biden’s responsibilities as Vice President.
D. Evidence suggests Vice President Biden changed official U.S. policy to produce a
positive outcome for Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company implicated in a
years-long corruption investigation.
The Committees have developed a significant body of evidence to suggest the Biden
family used Joe Biden’s position as Vice President to produce a positive outcome for Burisma, a
Ukrainian natural gas company then implicated in a years-long corruption investigation
conducted by then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.246 Hunter Biden served on
Burisma’s board of directors from April 2014 until April 2019,247 which aligns with the part of
his father’s tenure as Vice President when Joe Biden spearheaded anticorruption reform efforts in
Ukraine.248
Throughout Vice President Biden’s tenure in the Obama-Biden Administration, Hunter
Biden’s business encounters with Burisma involved his father. For example, on April 16, 2015,
Vice President Joe Biden attended a dinner with his son and Burisma officials, including Devon
Archer and Burisma’s corporate secretary, Vadym Pozharsky, at Café Milano in Washington
D.C.249 The following day, Mr. Pozharsky thanked Hunter Biden for giving him “an opportunity
to meet your father and spen[d] some time together.”250 Throughout his tenure on the Burisma
board, Hunter Biden also met with several Obama-Biden Adminstration State Department
246 Impeachment Inquiry Memo at 6-11. 247 Press Release, George Mesires, Counsel to Hunter Biden, A Statement on behalf of Hunter Biden (Oct. 13,
2019), https://medium.com/@george.mesires/a-statement-on-behalf-of-hunter-biden-dated-october-13-2019-
d80bc11087ab.
248 See Transcribed Interview of George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Eastern Eur. and the Caucuses, Dep’t
of State, by S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Aff. and S. Comm. on Fin. at 21 (Sept. 24, 2020) (claiming that
Vice President Biden was “leading the policy charge”) [hereinafter, “Kent Interview”]; see also Transcribed
Interview of Victoria Nuland, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Aff. and S. Comm. on Fin. at 70 (Sept. 3,
2020) (Nuland referred to Vice President Biden as the “warrior” who was spearheading anticorruption reform in
Ukraine.).
249 Archer Interview at 65-66. 250 Email from Vadym Pozharsky to Hunter Biden (Apr. 17, 2015, 6:00 AM).
63
i. Soon after President Obama designated Vice President Biden as his “point
man” on anti-corruption reform in Ukraine, Hunter Biden was appointed to
Burisma’s board of directors.
In late February 2014, President Obama appointed Vice President Biden as the “point
man” on U.S. policy efforts in Ukraine.
254 On April 3, 2014, Hunter Biden met with Burisma
executives Mykola Zlochevsky and Vadym Pozharsky during a conference at Lake Como,
Italy.255 At this time, Mr. Zlochevsky and Mr. Pozharsky asked Hunter Biden to join the Burisma
board of directors.256 Mr. Archer detailed the Lake Como meeting in his transcribed interview.
He testified:
Q. How is it that Hunter Biden became a board member of
Burisma?
A. . . . Hunter Biden became a board member because, when I .
. . . started my tenure there and . . . we hired him . . . as
counsel, quite frankly. And then he was counsel and . . . that
went on for, I don’t know, maybe 2 months.
And he developed a relationship with Vadym and Mykola,
and they—I think they had a different design. There was a
meeting in Lake Como at an economic conference.
Q. What do you know about that meeting?
A. . . . I was there at the conference. I was not . . . involved in
the conversation that they had. But out of that—that meeting,
it was decided that he was going to move into a board role.257
Later in April 2014, Hunter Biden’s appointment became official.258 On April 22, 2014,
Burisma announced Mr. Archer’s appointment to the board of directors.259 Shortly before Vice
President Biden traveled to Ukraine in April 2014, Mr. Archer visited the White House with
Hunter Biden.260 According to Hunter Biden, however, he did not inform his father that he had
joined Burisma’s board of directors.261 Hunter Biden claims his father called only after Burisma
254 Greg Myre, What were the Bidens doing in Ukraine? 5 questions answers, NPR (Sept. 24, 2019); see also Alan
Cullison, Bidens in Ukraine: An Explainer, WALL ST. J. (Sept. 22, 2019). 255 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Comer Releases Third Bank Memo Detailing
Payments to the Bidens from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine (Aug. 9, 2023); Archer Interview at 16–17. 256 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Comer Releases Third Bank Memo Detailing
Payments to the Bidens from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine (Aug. 9, 2023); Archer Interview at 16–17. 257 Archer Interview at 16-17. 258 Press Release, George Mesires, Counsel to Hunter Biden, A Statement on behalf of Hunter Biden (Oct. 13,
2019), https://medium.com/@george.mesires/a-statement-on-behalf-of-hunter-biden-dated-october-13-2019-
d80bc11087ab.
259 See Press Release, Burisma, American financier Devon Archer joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings
(Apr. 22, 2014).
260 See Archer at 77-78. 261 See HUNTER BIDEN, BEAUTIFUL THINGS: A MEMOIR, at 131 (2021).
64
put out a press release of the appointment, telling Hunter Biden, “I hope you know what you’re
doing.”262
Burisma agreed to pay both Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer $1 million annually, and bank
records obtained by the Oversight Committee show that that these payments were wired monthly
to Rosemont Seneca Bohai until October 2015, when the payments were then directed to Owasco
PC.263
On April 22, 2014, shortly after Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer received their first payment
from Burisma, Vice President Biden gave a speech to Ukrainian legislators and Prime Minister
Arseniy Yatsenyuk condemning corruption.264 Vice President Biden stated, “I’m of the view that
Ukrainians east, west, north, and south are just sick and tired of the corruption . . . . The United
States is ready to help Ukraine take further steps to build transparent institutions, to win back the
trust of the people.”265 In response, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk thanked the U.S. government for
allocating a previous $1 billion loan to Ukraine and stated that the Ukrainian government
“understands and is conscious that the money is given only to those countries that actually
overcome and fight corruption.”266 Vice President Biden also discussed Ukraine’s dependence on
Russia for energy, stating: “With the right investments and the right choices, Ukraine can reduce
its energy dependence and increase its energy security.”267
On the same day that Vice President Biden spoke with Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, Hunter
Biden emailed Mr. Archer a summary of his father’s speech.268 Mr. Archer replied, “Wow. We
need to make sure this rag tag temporary Government in the Ukraine understands the value of
Burisma to its very existence.”269 Hunter Biden then replied, “You should send to Vadim- makes
it look like we are adding value.”270 During his transcribed interview with the Oversight
Committee, Mr. Archer testified that Hunter Biden often talked about “bringing his dad to
Ukraine” and using his status as Vice President to “add value in the eyes of Burisma officials.”271
ii. Evidence suggests Hunter Biden called his father to help alleviate the
pressure that Burisma faced from Prosecutor General Shokin’s investigation.
Evidence demonstrates that Hunter Biden called his father, then-Vice President Biden, to
help alleviate the pressure that Burisma and its owner Mykola Zlochevsky faced from Prosecutor
General Viktor Shokin’s investigation into the company. This phone call appears to have sparked
Vice President Biden to condition a third $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee on Prosecutor General
Shokin’s firing.
262 See id. 263 Third Bank Memo at 13-16. 264 Press Release, The White House, Off. of the Vice President, Remarks to the Press by Vice President Joe Biden
and Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk (Apr. 22, 2014). 265 Id. 266 Id. 267 Id. 268 Email from Hunter Biden to Devon Archer (Apr. 22, 2014, 7:14 PM). 269 Email from Devon Archer to Hunter Biden (Apr. 22, 2014, 7:29 PM). 270 Email from Hunter Biden to Devon Archer (Apr. 22, 2014, 7:31 PM). 271 Archer Interview at 27.
65
On April 28, 2014, British authorities froze $23 million in Mr. Zlochevsky’s assets in
London bank accounts for suspected money laundering.272 Months after the Ukrainian
Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) opened its own “unlawful enrichment” investigation into Mr.
Zlochevsky in August 2014,273 the PGO, under the direction of then-Prosecutor General Vitaly
Yarema, issued a letter to the U.K. court that Mr. Zlochevsky was not under investigation in
Ukraine.274 According to testimony from George Kent, who at the time was the Senior AntiCorruption Coordinator for Department of State’s European Bureau, Prosecutor General Yarema
had his office issue the letter and close its office’s case after Mr. Zlochevsky allegedly paid $7
million to one of the prosecutors to “shut the case” down against him.275 On January 22, 2015,
after receiving the PGO’s letter, the U.K. court dropped the money-laundering charges against
Mr. Zlochevsky and unfroze his $23 million in assets.276 In February 2015, Ukrainian President
Petro Poroshenko dismissed Prosecutor General Yarema.277
This letter from the Ukrainian PGO eventually became a point of contention for U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. On September 24, 2015, Ambassador Pyatt spoke at the
Odesa Financial Forum where he called attention to the U.K. court’s ruling with respect to Mr.
Zlochevsky.278 As an example of how the Ukrainian PGO did not support investigations into
corruption, Ambassador Pyatt brought up Mr. Zlochevsky’s case and criticized the PGO for
helping to unseize the “23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian
people.”279 Ambassador Pyatt’s speech brought extra scrutiny and unwanted attention to Burisma
and Mr. Zlochevsky’s corruption case. Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin—who became the new
Ukrainian prosecutor general on February 10, 2015—was not in charge of the investigation at the
time Mr. Zlochevsky allegedly bribed the PGO to eliminate the prosecution threat.
280
In March 2015, Hunter Biden began to plan another dinner at Café Milano with his father
and several of his close foreign business associates. Hunter Biden told the Committees during his
deposition the dinner was for the World Food Program USA, where he served on the board of
272 Press Release, Serious Fraud Off. of United Kingdom, Money laundering investigation opened (Apr. 28, 2014);
see also Betsy Woodruff Swan & Daniel Lippman, Sources: Dem lobbying firm under federal investigation for
Burisma work, POLITICO (June 3, 2021). 273 Approved Judgment as Revised, Serious Fraud Office and Mykola Zlochevskyi, Central Criminal Court, Case
No: RSTO/7/2014 at 21 (Jan. 21, 2015), https://antac.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/London-Criminal-CourtJudgment-in-the-Case-NoRSTO72014.pdf. 274 Id. 275 Kent Interview at 80-82, 174. 276 Id. at 81-82; Ilya Timtchenko, British court unfreezes accounts of Yanukovych–era ecology minister Zlochevsky,
KYIV POST (Jan. 23, 2015). 277 Ukraine parliament agrees to dismissal of top prosecutor, REUTERS (Feb. 10, 2015). 278 Geoffrey Pyatt, Ambassador to Ukraine, Remarks by US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt at the Odesa Financial
Forum (Sept. 24, 2015). 279 Id. 280 Kent Interview at 24 (“President Poroshenko . . . dismissed his first general prosecutor, [Vitaly] Yarema, whose
team had failed to bring a single prosecution over a seven–month period, and which allegedly took a bribe from
Zlochevsky to close the case against him and collapse our effort to recover the $23 million frozen in the United
Kingdom.”); see also id. at 71 (“[I]n January/February 2015, when, allegedly, the case against [Zlochevsky] for
money–laundering was closed, the Prosecutor General was Yarema.”).
66
directors.281 He also told the Committees that the Vice President’s appearance at the event was
merely because the Vice President “stopped by to say hello”282 and “sat next to Father Alex
[Karloutsos].”283
However, email traffic between Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer make clear that Vice
President Biden’s attendance at the dinner was planned weeks in advance. In an email on March
20, with the subject “Guest list for 16th,” Hunter Biden provided the following list:
3 seats for our KZ friends.
2 seats for Yelana [sic] and husband.
2 you and me.
3 seats for WFPUSA people
Vadym
3 Ambassadors (MX, ?, ?)
Total 14
RHB284
Mr. Archer responded to this email from Hunter Biden the same day providing further
input on the guest list for this dinner. Mr. Archer wrote:
Awesome!
Vuk’s in Europe at the time and cannot attend.
We should invite Vadim though?
Also, Yelena doesn’t want to steal Yuri’s Thunder so she’ll be in
town to meet with us but doesn’t want to come to dinner. That was
just her thoughts. We could insist.
Obviously save a seat for your guy (and mine if he’s in town.)285
Mr. Archer made a point of adding a seat for Hunter Biden’s “guy”—a reference to then-Vice
President Biden, as evidenced by an email that Hunter Biden sent six days later. On March 26,
Hunter Biden emailed Michael Karloutsos, the son of Father Karloutsos. Hunter Biden informed
Michael Karloutsos that “Dad will be there but keep that [between] us for now.”286
By the time of this dinner—on April 16, 2015—Hunter Biden had sat on Burisma’s board
of directors for approximately one year; Burisma and its owner, Mr. Zlochevsky, had been under
281 Hunter Biden Deposition at 40. But see Email from Hunter Biden to Michael Karloutsos (Mar. 26, 2015) (“[T]he
reason for the dinner is ostensibly to discuss food security.” (emphasis added)). 282 Hunter Biden Deposition at 42. 283 Id. 284 Email from Hunter Biden to Devon Archer (Mar. 20, 2015, 10:57 AM). 285 Id. 286 Email from Hunter Biden to Michael Karloutsos (Mar. 26, 2015).
67
investigation for at least ten months by Ukrainian, British, and American authorities. George
Kent, a high ranking official in the State Department, had confronted the deputy prosecutor
general about a bribe that had been paid to drop the case against Burisma in December 2014.
287
Mr. Kent had also raised the issue of a conflict of interest regarding Hunter Biden sitting on the
board of directors of Burisma with the Vice President’s staff in February 2015.288 Despite this,
Vice President Biden shared dinner with Hunter Biden’s corrupt company’s official in April
2015.
Evidence shows Hunter Biden later called his father, Vice President Biden, after Burisma
executives, Mr. Zlochevsky and Mr. Pozharsky, asked Hunter Biden if he could help them with
the pressure that they faced from Mr. Shokin’s investigation. According to Mr. Archer, during a
meeting in Dubai at the Four Seasons hotel on December 4, 2015, Mr. Zlochevsky and Mr.
Pozharsky requested that Hunter Biden involve D.C. to alleviate the “government pressure” from
Mr. Shokin’s investigation.289 Mr. Archer testified:
Q. Did . . . Mykola Zlochevsky or Vadym ask Hunter Biden to
make any phone calls?
A. Yes, though I was not party to that phone call.
Q. What was the request?
A. The request was I think they were getting pressure and they
requested Hunter . . . help them with some of that pressure.
Q. What pressure?
A. Government. Government pressure . . . from Ukrainian
Government investigations into Mykola, et cetera . . . .
Q. The request from . . . Mykola Zlochevsky and Vadym to Mr.
Biden and/or if you said it was to you, the request for help
from whom to deal with what pressure?
A. The request . . . is like, can D.C. help? But . . . it wasn’t like
. . . can the big guy help? It was . . . always this amorphous,
[“]can we get help in D.C.?[”]
Q. The request was help from the United States Government to
deal with the pressure they were under from their prosecutor,
287 See Transcribed Interview of George Kent, S. Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs at 16 (July
24, 2020).
288 Id. 289 Archer Interview at 33-34.
68
and that entailed the freezing of assets at the London bank
and other things that were going on in Ukraine?
A. Correct.290
Mr. Archer’s testimony confirms that Mr. Zlochevsky and Mr. Pozharsky asked Hunter
Biden to request help from the U.S government to deal with the pressure from Mr. Shokin’s
investigation. In addition, when the Oversight Committee asked what Hunter Biden did after this
request, Mr. Archer testified that he “called his dad.”291 Mr. Archer explained:
Q. What did Hunter Biden do after he was given that request?
A. Listen, I did not hear this phone call, but . . . he called his
dad.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because . . . I think Vadym told me. But, again, it’s
unclear. I just know that there was a call that happened
there and I was not privy to it.292
Later in the interview, Mr. Archer clarified that Mr. Pozharsky had only told Mr. Archer that
Hunter Biden had called “D.C.,” but Mr. Archer’s testimony suggests Hunter Biden entangled his
father, then-Vice President Biden, into his foreign business with Burisma. In addition, Mr.
Archer’s testimony confirms that this foreign interference was to help stop Mr. Shokin’s
investigation into Burisma.
Three days after this December phone call from Dubai, on December 7, 2015, Vice
President Biden “called an audible”293 on the plane to Kyiv. Rather than concurrently signing a
loan guarantee as planned by the State Department,294 Vice President Biden unilaterally decided
to condition the release of a third $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee on the firing of Mr. Shokin. As
recounted by The Washington Post:
Under a tactical policy known inside the Obama administrations as
“big hugs and little punches,” U.S. officials originally planned to
have Biden urge Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin,
but at the same time sign a renewal of a $1 billion loan guarantee.
On the plane, according to a person who participated in the
conversation, Biden “called an audible”—he changed the plan. It
was time for a bigger punch: The loan guarantee was the main point
290 Id. at 33-35, 37. 291 Id. at 36. 292 Id. (Mr. Archer’s counsel intervened to clarify that Mr. Archer was told Hunter Biden called “D.C.”). 293 Glenn Kessler, Inside VP Biden’s linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor’s ouster, WASH. POST (Sept. 15,
2023).
294 Memorandum, Vice President Biden’s Meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko December 7–8 (Nov.
22, 2015) [hereinafter “2015 Ukraine Memo”].
69
of leverage with Ukraine, the vice president declared, so he instead
should tell Poroshenko the loan would not be forthcoming until
Shokin was gone. . . .295
As Vice President Biden later bragged, he told Ukrainian President Poroshenko and
Prime Minster Yatsenyuk “you’re not getting the billion… I’m leaving in six hours. If the
prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.”296 Before Vice President Biden’s threat,
there was no prior indication that he or anyone in the U.S. government would condition the loan
guarantee on Mr. Shokin’s firing. In fact, withholding the loan guarantee was inconsistent with
the praise the Obama Administration had previously given Prosecutor General Shokin only
months before.
297
During the interim period between Vice President Biden telling Ukrainian officials he
would not sign the loan guarantee and Mr. Shokin’s firing, Vice President Biden kept up the
pressure campaign on senior Ukrainian officials. On February 11, 2016, Vice President Biden
called President Poroshenko, where they discussed “continu[ing] to take action to root out
corruption and implement reforms.”298 A week later, on February 18, 2016, Vice President Biden
called President Poroshenko to “commend[]” his “decision to replace Prosecutor General
Shokin.”299 Then on a separate call occurring the following day, Vice President Biden “urged”
President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk “to accelerate Ukraine’s efforts to fight
corruption.”300 Finally, at the urging of President Poroshenko, the Ukrainian parliament officially
fired Shokin on March 29, 2016.
301
On May 12, 2016, Ukraine appointed Yuriy Lutsenko as the new prosecutor general,302
despite the fact that he was known to be corrupt and lacked both “the necessary experience [and]
295 Glenn Kessler, Inside VP Biden’s linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor’s ouster, WASH. POST (Sept. 15,
2023).
296 Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN REL. (Jan. 23, 2018). 297 Letter from Victoria Nuland, Assistant Sec’y, Eur. & Eurasian Affs., U.S. Dep’t of State, to Viktor Shokin,
Prosecutor Gen., Ukraine (June 9, 2015); Email from Christina Segal–Knowles, Special Assistant for Int’l Econ.,
Exec. Off. of the Pres., to Members of the Interagency Policy Comm. (Oct. 1, 2015, 8:05 AM); Ukraine Reform
Monitor Team, Ukraine Reform Monitor: August 2015, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INT’L PEACE (Aug. 19, 2015);
EUR. COMM’N, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: SIXTH
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION BY UKRAINE OF THE ACTION PLAN ON VISA LIBERALISATION, at 6–8
(2015).
298 Press Release, The White House, Off. of the Vice President, Readout of Vice President Biden’s Call with
President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine (Feb. 11, 2016).
299 Press Release, The White House, Off. of the Vice President, Readout of Vice President Biden’s Call with
President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine (Feb. 18, 2016).
300 Press Release, The White House, Off. of the Vice President, Readout of Vice President Biden’s Calls with Prime
Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine (Feb. 19, 2016).
301 Jan Wolfe, Timeline: Key dates in the U.S. political controversy over Ukraine, REUTERS (Sept. 23, 2019);
Andrew Kramer, Ukraine ousts Viktor Shokin, top prosecutor, and political stability hangs in the balance, N.Y.
TIMES (Mar. 29, 2016). 302 Matthias Williams, Ukraine appoints Poroshenko ally with no legal experience as top prosecutor, REUTERS (May
12, 2016).
70
a law degree.”303 The day after Mr. Lutsenko’s appointment, Vice President Biden informed
President Poroshenko that he would release the hold on the loan guarantee.304 During this phone
call, Vice President Biden “welcomed the appointment of [Mr. Lutsenko] as an important first
step to bringing much-needed reform to the Office of the Prosecutor General.”305
iii. Prior to the phone call from his son, there was no prior indication that Vice
President Biden would condition the loan guarantee on Prosecutor General
Shokin’s firing.
The loan guarantee was significant to Ukraine’s solvency, and the funding that it provided
was important for instituting necessary corruption reforms. Vice President Biden’s intervention
in Prosecutor General Shokin’s investigation into Burisma is just another example of how the
Biden family used the Biden name to benefit business associates. During his transcribed
interview with the Oversight Committee, Mr. Archer explained that Vice President Biden
provided value to his family’s business associates by protecting them. Specifically, he testified
that “people would be intimidated to mess with [Burisma] . . . legally” because of the Biden
“brand.”306 In this case, Hunter Biden leveraged the Biden “brand” by prompting his father to
take official action to benefit his business partner—Burisma.307
Evidence corroborates Mr. Archer’s testimony that Mr. Shokin led an active and ongoing
investigation into Burisma, which put pressure on Hunter Biden and his business associates.
Further evidence also suggests that the Obama Administration, and other international
counterparts associated with Ukraine’s anticorruption efforts, believed that Ukraine made
sufficient progress with its anticorruption efforts under Mr. Shokin. It was not until Hunter Biden
made a telephone call on December 4, 2015, that Joe Biden appears to have deviated from this
trajectory.
- Prosecutor General Shokin led an active and ongoing investigation into
Burisma, which put pressure on Hunter Biden and his business
associates.
Evidence indicates that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Shokin had an active and ongoing
investigation of Burisma when Vice President Biden demanded his removal.308 For example, on
February 27, 2015, one of Mr. Shokin’s deputy prosecutors sent a letter to a Ukrainian legislator
303 Daryna Krasnolutska, Where’s Ukraine Headed? Watch Who Gets the Prosecutor’s Job, BLOOMBERG (last
updated Apr. 22, 2016). A few hours before confirming Lutsenko as prosecutor general, Ukraine’s parliament
“passed a bill tightly tailored to let Lutsenko become prosecutor general by abolishing requirements for
prosecutorial experience and a law degree.” Oleg Sukhov, Updates: Poroshenko appoints Lutsenko as prosecutor
general, KYIV POST (last updated Nov. 24, 2016). 304 Press Release, The White House, Readout of Vice President Biden’s Call with President Petro Poroshenko of
Ukraine (May 13, 2016).
305 Id. 306 Archer Interview at 105. 307 Id. at 34–36. 308 See, e.g., Letter from Oleksiy Bahanets, Deputy Prosecutor Gen., Ukraine, to Serhiy Anatoliyovych, People’s
Deputy, Ukraine (Mar. 12, 2015); Memorandum from Blue Star Strategies, LLC, to Burisma Holdings Ltd. (Oct. 30,
2015) (Ziegler Exhibit 305B); Archer Interview at 34; Cravath, Swain & Moore LLP, Exhibit A/B to Registration
Statement Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended (Jan. 4, 2024).
71
stating that “the pretrial investigations in the criminal proceedings [against Mr. Zlochevsky] are
ongoing.”309 Then later that year, Burisma hired Blue Star Strategies—a Democrat lobbying
firm—to quell the Ukrainian investigation of Burisma.310
In addition, there is evidence that Burisma hired a U.S.-based law firm to assist in
defending against “governmental investigations in Ukraine.”311 Specifically, on January 4, 2024,
Cravath, Swain & Moore LLP retroactively registered as a foreign agent for its representation of
Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky in 2016 and 2017.312 As part of the filing, the firm explained that in
January 2016, it was “retained to represent Mykola Zlochevsky in connection with possible
investigations by governmental authorities in the United States. The representation thereafter
broadened to include Burisma Holdings Limited, as well as governmental investigations in
Ukraine, and continued until April 2017.”313 - The Obama-Biden Administration and international community believed
that Ukraine made progress with its anticorruption efforts under
Prosecutor General Shokin.
Withholding the loan guarantee was contrary to the policy previously expressed by the
Obama-Biden Administration, which believed that Ukraine’s anticorruption progress warranted
the loan guarantee. On June 9, 2015, Victoria Nuland, then-Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs, sent a letter to Mr. Shokin stating that the State Department was
“impressed” by his office’s anticorruption efforts.314
309 Letter from Oleksiy Bahanets, Deputy Prosecutor Gen., Ukraine, to Serhiy Anatoliyovych, People’s Deputy,
Ukraine (Mar. 12, 2015).
310 Memorandum from Blue Star Strategies, LLC, to Burisma Holdings Ltd. (Oct. 30, 2015) (Ziegler Exhibit 305B). 311 Cravath, Swain & Moore LLP, Exhibit A/B to Registration Statement Pursuant to the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938, as amended (Jan. 4, 2024), https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7358-Registration-Statement20240104-1.pdf. 312 Mike Scarcella, Law firm Cravath registers as foreign agent 8 years after Burisma work, REUTERS (Jan. 5, 2024). 313 Cravath, Swain & Moore LLP, Exhibit A/B to Registration Statement Pursuant to the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938, as amended (Jan. 4, 2024), https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7358-Registration-Statement20240104-1.pdf. 314 Letter from Victoria Nuland, Assistant Sec’y, Eur. & Eurasian Affs., U.S. Dep’t of State, to Viktor Shokin,
Prosecutor Gen., Ukraine (June. 9, 2015).
73
We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only
did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined
prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.
For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola
Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in
illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the
PGO’s office were asked by the U.K. to send documents supporting
the seizure.
Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that
there was no case against him. As a result the money was freed by
the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to
Cyprus.
. . . We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the
[Prosecutor General’s Office] is leading the fight against
corruption.315
Days later, on September 30, 2015, members of the Interagency Policy Committee (IPC)
met to discuss its position on the third Ukraine loan guarantee.316 Following the meeting, in an
October 1, 2015 email, the IPC concluded that Ukraine had made “sufficient progress” to
warrant a third loan guarantee, and “recommend[ed]” that the U.S. move forward with it.317 The
IPC explained that “it is in [America’s] strategic interest to provide” the loan guarantee.318
315 Remarks by US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt at the Odesa Financial Forum (Sept. 24, 2015),
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Remarks-by-US-Ambassador-Geoffrey-Pyatt-at-theOdesa-Financial-Forum-on-September-24-2015-ukraine.pdf. 316 Email from Christina Segal-Knowles, Special Assistant for Int’l Econ., Exec. Off. of the Pres., to Members of the
Interagency Policy Comm. (Oct. 1, 2015, 8:05 AM).
317 Id. 318 Id.
75
similarly determined on December 18, 2015, that Ukraine, under Mr. Shokin’s tenure as
prosecutor general, had been successful at achieving anticorruption goals and praised its
commitment to continue implementing anticorruption reforms.320 The Commission concluded
that “the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved.”321
As described above, days before Vice President Biden delivered his speech before the
Rada and told the Ukrainian President that he would not sign the third loan guarantee unless the
President fired Shokin, Hunter Biden “called D.C.” with Mr. Zlochevsky and Vadym Pozharsky
(the latter of whom Joe Biden had dined with earlier that year) from Dubai following a Burisma
board of directors meeting.322
The Committees found the timing of Hunter Biden’s telephone call to “D.C.”—which Mr.
Archer initially characterized as a call to Hunter Biden’s father323—suspicious given then-Vice
President Biden’s actions days afterward, when he traveled to Ukraine and delivered a speech to
the Ukrainian Parliament speaking out against corruption in Ukraine. Then, as described above,
Vice President Biden “called an audible” regarding U.S. official policy and linked the delivery of
a loan guarantee to the firing of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, placing significant financial
pressure on the Ukrainian government to accede to his demand.324 Prosecutor General Shokin,
the official in Ukraine charged with investigating corrupt companies like Burisma, was singled
out by then-Vice President Biden during his discussions with Ukraine’s leaders, when he told
them that unless they fired Prosecutor General Shokin, they “weren’t getting the money.”325
Prosecutor General Shokin was pressured to resign shortly thereafter. Subsequent to that, the
case against Mr. Zlochevsky was dropped.326
The Oversight Committee sought to understand what, if any, changes had been made to
the drafts of the Vice President’s speech to the Ukrainian Parliament in the days prior to his
arrival in Ukraine in December 2015, and therefore requested the drafts of these speeches. The
National Archives and Records Administration was able to compile all the drafts of the speech
within a week of receiving the letter from the Oversight Committee, indicating a small universe
of documents.327 For over ten months, however, the White House has refused to permit the
National Archives to release these drafts.
In 2019, House Democrats asserted that “[a]s a matter of constitutional law, the House
may properly conclude that a President’s obstruction of Congress is relevant to assessing the
evidentiary record in an impeachment inquiry,” and “[w]here the President illegally seeks to
320 EUR. COMM’N, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: SIXTH
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION BY UKRAINE OF THE ACTION PLAN ON VISA LIBERALISATION, at 6–8
(2015).
321 Id. at 8. 322 Archer Interview at 32-36, 43. 323 Id. at 36. 324 Glenn Kessler, Inside VP Biden’s linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor’s ouster, WASH. POST (Sept. 15,
2023).
325 Former Vice President Biden on U.S.-Russia Relations, Council on Foreign Relations (Jan. 23, 2018). 326 See, e.g., Email from Sally Painter to Eric Schwerin, Oct. 11, 2016 (Subject: Zlochevsky article in UKR press)
(including an article with headline “The Interior Ministry confirmed that Zlochevskiy is no longer wanted,” to which
Ms. Painter writes to Mr. Schwerin: “We won and in less than a year. Yea!!!!”). 327 Email from NARA representatives to Oversight Comm. staff (Jan. 30, 2024).
76
obstruct such an inquiry, the House is free to infer that evidence blocked from its view is harmful
to the President’s position.”328 The Committees choose to do so again. In this case, the House
should infer that the drafts of the speech the White House refuses to produce to the Oversight
Committee are harmful to the President’s position—which is, generally, well known (in 2019, for
example, Joe Biden said regarding Hunter Biden’s role on the Burisma board of directors, “My
son did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong.”).329 The Committees may infer, then, that the
speeches withheld by the White House reflect a change in Joe Biden’s message to the Ukrainian
Parliament in the days leading up to his travel to Ukraine, on or around the time of Hunter
Biden’s phone call from Dubai with Mr. Zlochevsky and Mr. Pozharsky. The Committees may
infer, too then, that then-Vice President Biden changed the speech to comport with his son’s
interests: the firing of the Prosecutor General who was investigating the company paying Hunter
Biden $1 million per year.
E. The Biden family earned millions of dollars from numerous business deals with
Chinese companies closely tied to the Chinese Community Party by selling
access to Joe Biden while he was Vice President and later preparing to run for
President.
During the second and final Presidential debate of the 2020 election cycle on October 22,
2020—less the two weeks before the 2020 Presidential election—Joe Biden announced to the
American people that his family did not take money from China. He stated unequivocally: “My
son has not made money, in terms of thing about, what are you talking about—China. The only
guy who made money in China is [President Trump].”330 This was not true, and evidence
suggests that Joe Biden knew it was not true. At the time of this statement, Joe Biden had met
with his family’s Chinese business partners and received thousands of dollars from one of these
Chinese business partner’s entities through his son and brother. He was aware that his family had
been in business with certain Chinese entities since 2014 and in fact made millions of dollars
from China.
The Bidens had two main sources of income from China: (1) BHR—which was
accompanied with an offshoot transaction between Hunter Biden’s Burnham Group and the
Harvest Fund331—and (2) CEFC.332 Then-Vice President Biden knew about BHR because he had
a relationship with the CEO of BHR, Jonathan Li. He knew about the CEFC deal because he met
with the Chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, and his American counterpart, Tony Bobulinski, and
received a portion of the payment from CEFC.333
328 H.R. REP. NO. 116–346, at 67-68 (2019). 329 See Abbey Marshall, Biden defends Hunter: ‘My son did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong.’, Politico (Oct. 15,
2019).
330 Presidential Debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, COMM’N ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES (Oct.
22, 2020).
331 Hunter Biden Deposition at 20; Galanis Interview at 8-9 (“As part of the evolving and deepening partnership,
Hunter served as vice chairman to Burnham and brought strategic relationships to the venture, including from
Kazakhstan, Russia, and China.”).
332 Fourth Bank Memo at 2. 333 Id.; Hunter Biden Deposition at 141-42; Walker Interview at 41-42.
77
As Hunter Biden and his business associates were clearly aware, the Chinese businesses
with which they partnered—each of which was closely connected to the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP)—were only interested in partnering with them due to the Biden name and the
promise of access to Joe Biden.334
While the Biden Administration has attempted to discredit these allegations, its
unsupported assertions cannot stand up to the voluminous array of evidence the Committees
have assembled showing that President Biden was aware of and involved in his family’s
influence peddling racket in China.335 In short, evidence shows that President Biden knowingly
collaborated with, and enabled his family to collaborate with, companies acting at the behest of a
powerful geopolitical foe in exchange for Biden family personal profit.336
i. The financial relationship between the Biden family and the Chinese
Communist Party-backed firms of BHR, Bohai, and Harvest was only
finalized after Joe Biden’s 2013 visit to Beijing.
On December 1, 2013, Hunter Biden traveled with Vice President Biden to Japan, China,
and South Korea as a part of the Vice President’s official travel to Asia.337 In Beijing, Hunter
Biden attended an event with his father and the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi
Jinping.338 In a December 5, 2013, email to Mr. Archer, Hunter Biden said “Dinner w/ Xi was
pretty amazing. They (Xi and JRB) were supposed to spend 2hrs together. It stretched to 7hrs. I
think they are in love with each other. They all most [sic] kissed on departure.”339 This email
came in response to Mr. Archer asking Hunter Biden if he was able to meet with Jonathan Li, a
prominent businessman in China, to which Hunter Biden responded: “Yes- and they got to meet
Dad. All very good. Talk later.”340
334 See infra Section II.E.i-vii. 335 See generally Section II.E.iv-v. 336 Id. 337 Archives, The Vice President’s 2013 Asia Trip: Japan, China and the Republic of Korea, The White House,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/foreign-policy/asia-trip-2013 (last visited June 5, 2024). 338 Email from Hunter Biden to Devon Archer (Dec. 5, 2013); see John Solomon & Steven Richards, Exclusive:
Feds secretly knew for years Joe Biden met with son’s Chinese partners on official trip, Just the News (May 23,
2024). 339 Id. (parenthetical in original). 340 Id.
79
A. He was also kind of the—you know, the founder.
He left—he was the CEO of Bohai Sea Industrial Fund, and
he wanted to get out of, you know, kind of government
private equity fund. And so he had the entrepreneurial spirit
to, you know, come to the States.
343
Mr. Li’s new fund, BHR, maintained a relationship with the Chinese government.
According to the BHR website, it is a “state-backed”344 firm, and, according to an interview with
a BHR executive, Bohai Capital “has a state-owned background, with the likes of Bank of China
– which is still the largest indirect shareholder in BHR – and China Development Bank
Capital[.]”345 At the time of the December 2013 meeting between Mr. Li and then-Vice President
Biden, Hunter Biden was “working with [Mr. Li] on a potential . . . . idea for creating a private
equity fund based in China to do cross-border investments”— this idea would become BHR.346
In his deposition with the Committees, Hunter Biden testified:
343 Archer Interview at 68. 344 China’s BHR Partners Aims to Complete $3 Billion of Investments, BHR PARTNERS (Nov. 13, 2015),
https://www.bhrpe.com/show.php?catid=42&id=129.
345 Q&A: BHR Partners’ Jonathan Li and Xin Wang, BHR PARTNERS (Mar. 4, 2016),
https://www.bhrpe.com/show.php?catid=42&id=112.
346 Hunter Biden Deposition at 19, 30-31.
80
Q. At the time that you did introduce your father to Jonathan Li,
did you or any of your business associates have any potential
business with Jonathan Li?
A. I was working with Jonathan on a potential that he had an
idea for creating a private equity fund based in China to do
cross-border investments.
Q. Was the company that was being thought of or being formed,
the investment fund, was that BHR Partners?
A. Yes, ultimately it became BHR Partners. Jonathan’s original
fund was called Bohai. He had been in private equity with
one of the first privately held private equity firms in
China.347
On December 16, 2013, twelve days after Vice President Biden met Mr. Li, Chinese
authorities approved and registered BHR to conduct business348 and Hunter Biden and his
associates were allowed to—and did—purchase equity in BHR in 2014.349
Hunter Biden, Mr. Archer, and Mr. Bulger, the third American partner and relative of
organized crime boss James “Whitey” Bulger, formed Rosemont Seneca Thorton in 2013 to
pursue the deal with Mr. Li of Bohai and Henry Zhao of Harvest; this new entity would “be the
equity shareholder of BHR.”350 Hunter Biden confirmed the breakdown in ownership of
Rosemont Seneca Thornton:
Q. And Rosemont Seneca Thornton, just so the committee
understands, Rosemont would’ve been Devon Archer,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Seneca would’ve been you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then Thornton would’ve been Jimmy Bulger, correct?
347 Id. at 19-20. 348 National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity Statement, Bohai Huamei (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund
Management Co., Ltd. (archived Oct. 17, 2019), https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BohaiHarvest-RST-Chinese-Registration-Page-2-ENGLISH-10-17-19.pdf. 349 Records on file with Committees; Archer Interview at 70-71. 350 Archer Interview at 58-59; see also General Information Name Search, DEL. DEP’T OF STATE, DIV. OF CORPS.,
https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx (search entity name “Rosemont Seneca
Thornton”) (last visited July 29, 2024) (listing Rosemont Seneca Thornton’s formation date as May 28, 2013).
81
A. Yep, James Bulger.351
Bohai, Harvest, and Mr. Archer, Hunter Biden and Mr. Bulger, through Rosemont Seneca
Thornton, formed the partnership—the BHR partnership— in December of 2013.352 Hunter
Biden confirmed the participants in the deal:
Q. And the “B” in BHR Partners stood for Bohai, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the “H” in BHR Partners stood for Harvest? Do I have
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that’s related to who? Who was associated with
Harvest?
A. I believe that the principal for Harvest was Henry Zhao.
Q. And the “R” in BHR was Rosemont Seneca. Is that correct?
A. No. It was Rosemont Seneca Thornton.353
Mr. Li “conceived the idea for BHR” in 2011, “anticipating a big wave of cross-border
M&A by Chinese enterprises.”354 Mr. Li viewed BHR Partners “as an extension of Bohai
Industrial Investment Fund to support Chinese companies going overseas” and wanted
“diversified ownership, including both Chinese and foreign partners, to make the firm more
international.”355
Mr. Li sought—and received—access to Vice President Biden’s political power,356
including, for example, preferential access to then-U.S. Ambassador to China Max Baucus.357
Jason Galanis testified that Mr. Li made access to Vice President Biden and his political
influence a condition of Hunter Biden and his associates participating in the BHR deal.
358 In his
transcribed interview, Mr. Galanis explained:
351 Hunter Biden Deposition at 20. 352 National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity Statement, Bohai Huamei (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund
Management Co., Ltd. (archived Oct. 17, 2019), https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BohaiHarvest-RST-Chinese-Registration-Page-2-ENGLISH-10-17-19.pdf. 353 Hunter Biden Deposition at 20. 354 Firm Announcement, Q&A: BHR Partner’s Jonathan Li & Xin Wang, BHR PARTNERS (Apr. 3, 2016)
https://www.bhrpe.com/show.php?catid=42&id=112.
355 Id. 356 See Galanis Interview at 37. 357 See id. at 101. 358 Id. at 36-37.
82
A. . . . In terms of other influence on BHR, I can’t speak to it
other than emails that I have seen and been provided by
Devon Archer, particularly. In the early days, there was an
email from Jonathan Li. I think it was to Devon and Hunter.
It was requesting –
Q. Jonathan Li of Bohai?
A. Bohai, the “B” in the BHR. It was requesting the partners’
political muscle, was the quote. Political muscle was
Hunter’s access to his father, and that was what was
requested prior to having gotten Chinese approval to form
BHR.359
Former Ambassador Baucus was “solicited to set up a meeting at the Embassy for
BHR.”360 Mr. Galanis recalled “an email saying that it’s very highly unusual to host a financial
company at the U.S. Embassy but [Baucus]” “agreed to the meeting based on the
relationships.”361 Mr. Galanis told the Committees BHR sought “power and political influence”
from its American partners.
362 He testified:
Q. I just want to go back. You talked about a meeting at an
Ambassador’s place in China or U.S. Ambassador. Do you
remember talking about that earlier?
A. I do.
Q. Could you describe that meeting? Who was there? Where
was it?
A. I wasn’t there.
Q. Okay.
A. My—so back up. A dear friend of mine, who’s recently
passed, has been friends with Max Baucus, ex-Senator Max
Baucus who became U.S. Ambassador to China. The
Ambassador was solicited to set up a meeting at the Embassy
for BHR.
359 Id. (emphasis added). 360 Id. at 101. 361 Id. 362 Id. at 100-01.
83
And the point of the meeting was to show – this was what
was said between everybody. I was helpful in setting that
meeting up.
. . . Ambassador Baucus agreed to the meeting based on the
relationships. I remember there was an email saying that it’s
very highly unusual to host a financial company at the U.S.
Embassy but [Baucus] was doing it for them on the basis was
relationship.
So the point was to project power and political influence to
the Chinese.
363
Influence was provided, too, by Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer sitting on the board of
BHR. Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer sat the board of BHR in 2014 while Joe Biden was Vice
President.
364 Hunter Biden did not step down from his position on the board of BHR until
October 2019—months after Joe Biden announced his candidacy for President of the United
States.365 Mr. Archer testified:
Q. Okay. And so you sat on the board of BHR?
A. I did.
Q. From when to when?
A. I sat on the board from the beginning—I was the vice
chairman—until I had my legal issues.
Q. Okay. So that was early 2014 to mid-2016?
A. I think—well, it was under—yeah…
Q. No, no, I’m asking you. When you were on the board in 2014
at BHR, was Hunter on the board? I mean, he was invested
in the company with you, right, in 2014?
A. I think initially was on the board, yes.366
363 Id. (emphasis added). 364 Archer Interview at 73-74. 365 Press Release, George Mesires, A Statement on behalf of Hunter Biden (Oct. 13, 2019),
https://medium.com/@george.mesires/a-statement-on-behalf-of-hunter-biden-dated-october-13-2019-
d80bc11087ab; Marc Caputo & Natasha Korecki, Joe Biden dives into 2020 race, POLITICO (Apr. 25, 2019) (Joe
Biden announced his candidacy for President of the United States in April of 2019).
366 Archer Interview at 73-74.
84
Joe Biden maintained contact with Mr. Li. According to Mr. Archer, outside his 2013
meeting with Mr. Li, Hunter Biden placed then-Vice President Joe Biden on a phone call with
Mr. Li in Mr. Archer’s presence while at a dinner in China and Mr. Li “had coffee” with Joe
Biden.
367 Mr. Archer explained:
Q. Jonathan Li—
A. Yes.
Q. —that call, was that an inbound call, an outbound call? To
the extent you remember.
A. Yeah, to the extent I remember, that—I don’t know, but I
know there was a “hello.” There was, like—you know, they
ended up having coffee, I think, so he might’ve known him.
Q. Jonathan—
A. Jonathan Li and President Biden had coffee. So it might’ve
been, like, after they had coffee, and he was saying hello, so
there was, like, some familiarity.368
Joe Biden gave Mr. Li other favors. During Mr. Archer’s interview with the Committee,
Mr. Archer explained that Joe Biden wrote a college letter of recommendation for Mr. Li’s
daughter:
Q. Was there any—did you ever witness Hunter Biden asking
Joe Biden to do something for—you know, to help BHR or
help out Jonathan Li?
A. A college recommendation. She didn’t get in.
Q. For who?
A. I think for his daughter, to Georgetown. It didn’t work.369
Emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop show Vice President Biden also wrote a college letter
of recommendation for Mr. Li’s son in February of 2017.
370 Hunter Biden described a “rule.” Joe
Biden would only be asked to write letters of recommendation for people particularly close to the
family:
367 Id. at 124. 368 Id. 369 Id. at 125. 370 Email from Eric Schwerin to Jonathan Li (Feb. 18, 2017) (“Jonathan, Hunter asked me to send you a copy of the
recommendation letter that he asked his father to write on behalf of [Mr. Li’s son] for Brown University.”); see also
Brooke Singman & Peter Hasson, Biden wrote college recommendation letter for son of Hunter’s Chinese business
partner, emails reveal, FOX NEWS (Apr. 6, 2022).
85
Q. Other things you don’t mention in your book are that your
father actually wrote a college recommendation for one of
Jonathan Li’s children. Isn’t that correct?
A. I believe that he did, yes. And as I—I don’t remember the
exact date, but I will say this, is Jonathan, as I said before,
was a very close friend, became a close friend of mine. And
although I have not had any contact with Jonathan for a long
time, I still consider he and his family to be near to my heart.
They have – and I knew his son.
And there was a rule in my family, my dad was often asked
to write recommendations for hundreds of people that—I’m
sure over the course of the last 50 years. But the rule was is
that, if you were going to ask, that they had to be close
friends; you had to know them well. And I knew both
Jonathan, and I knew his son, who was applying to
universities here in the United States.371
Two days after Vice President Biden met with Mr. Li, on December 6, 2013, Rosemont
Seneca Thornton—the “R” in BHR—opened a bank account, listing Devon Archer and
Rosemont Seneca Partners—Hunter Biden’s primary business—as beneficiaries.372
371 Hunter Biden Deposition at 34. 372 Third Bank Memo at 6.
87
that equity and operate the, you know, what we thought was
going to be a successful fund . . . .
375
According to Hunter Biden, BHR sought to raise $4.2 million in total equity stake from
the partners:
Q. And the idea for this equity fund that the business associates
were going to invest in is that it had raised approximately
$4.2 million. Do I have that number correct?
A. I think from the equity stake from the partners.
Q. And so, in order to purchase a 10 percent share of this equity
to get – to receive equity in BHR Partners, each individual
partner had to put up approximately $420,000. Is that
correct?
A. Yes.376
The Wall Street Journal reported in December of 2020 that “the cost for Mr. Biden’s
10% stake, at $420,000, was based on BHR’s startup value in 2013 . . . Of that, at least a third
was provided in the form of loans from other BHR principals.”377 Despite these reports, the
Committees found that two entities owned, controlled or to the benefit of Hunter Biden owned
10 percent equity in BHR.
Hunter Biden claimed he did not purchase equity in BHR until 2017.378 In a 2019
statement by Hunter Biden’s lawyer, George Mesires, Hunter Biden claimed he did not own “any
equity in [BHR] while his father was Vice President.”379 The record, however, demonstrates
Hunter Biden held equity in BHR while Joe Biden was Vice President. On January 23, 2014,
Rosemont Seneca Thornton, which—as demonstrated—existed for the benefit of Hunter Biden’s
Rosemont Seneca Partners, wired a BHR-associated account $167,000.380 Then, on January 29,
2014, Rosemont Seneca Thornton wired another BHR-associated account $247,800, totaling
$414,800.381 This was the first 10 percent purchased by Hunter Biden through one of his entities.
Then, the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account was used by Hunter Biden and Mr.
Archer to purchase another 10 percent in equity of BHR in December of 2014.382 Rosemont
375 Id. at 14-15. 376 Hunter Biden Deposition at 21. 377 James T. Areddy & Andrew Duehren, Hunter Biden’s Family Name Aided Deals With Foreign Tycoons, WALL
ST. J. (Dec. 22, 2020). 378 Hunter Biden Deposition at 29. 379 Press Release, George Mesires, A Statement on behalf of Hunter Biden (Oct. 13, 2019)
https://medium.com/@george.mesires/a-statement-on-behalf-of-hunter-biden-dated-october-13-2019-
d80bc11087ab.
380 Record on file with Committee Staff. 381 Record on file with Committee Staff. 382 Record on file with Committee Staff.
88
Seneca Bohai was owned “50-50” by Mr. Archer and Hunter Biden,383 and Hunter Biden was the
“corporate secretary” and “beneficial owner” of Rosemont Seneca Bohai.
384 Entities controlled,
owned, or organized for the benefit of Hunter Biden collectively held 20 percent equity in BHR
while Joe Biden was Vice President. While Hunter Biden’s entities held at least 20 percent in
BHR, the Committees note that the deal struck between Mr. Li, Mr. Zhao, and Hunter and his
American partners, indicates Hunter Biden likely held 10 percent equity in BHR in 2014 while
Joe Biden was Vice President. Biden family business associate Kevin Morris, as is discussed
further below, still owns Hunter Biden’s 10 percent equity in BHR to this day.385
The Biden family benefitted from their business dealings with BHR, contrary to
candidate-Joe Biden’s claim that Hunter Biden did not receive money from China.386 On July 26,
2019, Hunter Biden received a $10,000 wire from BHR’s Xin Wang.387 Hunter Biden then
received a $250,000 wire from BHR’s Mr. Li and BHR associate Tan Ling on August 2, 2019.
388
Both wires originated in Beijing.389 Joe Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home was listed as the
beneficiary address for both wires.390 Hunter Biden characterized the $250,000 payment from
Mr. Li as a loan.
391 In his deposition to the Committees, he testified:
Q. . . .you did get money from Jonathan Li, didn’t you?
A. I believe ultimately—no, I did not get money from Jonathan
Li.
Q. I’d now like to show to show you bank records.
A. I was loaned my—money against my equity stake in the
company of which Jonathan Li was a majority partner of.
Q. So, in this, when you say collected no money in your book,
the reality is that, just the year earlier, in 2019, you had
received a $250,000 wire from Jonathan Li. Isn’t that
correct?
A. To send back to him for the equity stake in the fund.
383 See Archer Interview at 64. 384 Id.; Exhibit 902; Exhibit 901. 385 Transcribed Interview of Kevin Morris, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on the Judiciary
at 149 (Jan. 18, 2024) [hereinafter “Morris Interview”].
386 Glenn Kessler, Biden said his son earned no money from China. His son says otherwise, The Washington Post
(Aug. 1, 2023).
387 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Comer Reveals Wires from China Have Joe Biden’s
Wilmington Home as the Beneficiary Address (Sept. 26, 2023).
388 Id. 389 Id. 390 Id. 391 Hunter Biden Deposition at 31-33.
89
Q. You never repaid the loan to Jonathan Li. Isn’t that correct?
A. Did I repay the loan?
Q. Correct.
A. I sold my equity interest in it, and part of that is the
assumption of the loan.
Q. You never paid any money back to Jonathan Li, did you?
A. What I’m telling you is that I sold my equity interest in BHR,
and part of that arm’s length transaction is the assumption of
the loan, and that is between Jonathan Li and the equity
holder.
Q. And that equity holder is Kevin Morris, correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What you did is in 2017 you took your BHR equity, which
was being held by Devon Archer in the Rosemont Seneca
Bohai account, and you transferred it into Skaneateles. Isn’t
that correct?
A. I don’t know how exactly that – the transactions worked, but
I do know that Skaneateles was the holder of the equity.
Q. And you sold Skaneateles to Kevin Morris, correct?
A. Yes, I did.392
Hunter Biden held 10 percent equity in BHR until 2021, when Kevin Morris, Hunter
Biden’s benefactor, purchased Hunter Biden’s entity, Skaneateles. At the time of the exchange—
and apparently until the present—Skaneateles, one of Hunter Biden’s holding companies,
393 held
Hunter Biden’s BHR equity. Mr. Morris still holds Skaneateles and, through it, Hunter Biden’s
original equity in BHR. Mr. Morris testified:
A. The way I think it was, counsel, that I acquired, I acquired
Skaneateles, which as I understand it owned the BHR piece.
392 Id. 393 Schwerin Interview at 15-16, 138.
90
Q. And does it sound right to say that Skaneateles held a 10
percent stake in BHR?
A. It sounds right.
Q. So you currently own that 10 percent stake in BHR?
A. Correct, through one of my corporate entities.
Q. Do you know when you—when did you purchase
Skaneateles?
A. Was it—I—you know in 2021.394
On November 17, 2021, Mr. Morris acquired Skaneateles from Hunter Biden and
assumed its remaining debt of $157,729.69.395 Other than admitting that he bought the company
from Hunter Biden and that it owned a share of BHR, Mr. Morris had minimal knowledge of
what services Skaneateles provides:
396
Q. . . . [W]hen did you become aware of Skaneateles, LLC?
A. I think I had a generalsense of [Hunter Biden’s] corporations
and corporate structure in the early days, in the first couple
of months. I mean, that’s a – you know, that’s a piece of
perspective that you have to have in representing someone.
Q. What kind of company was Skaneateles?
A. I mean, I don’t know. An LLC, I think.
Q. But did it sell shirts? What was it? I mean, what was the
purpose of the company?
A. I think it’s—again . . . I’m not to the point sure, but it was an
LLC and—you know, I think it – Hunter actually had a very
simple corporate structure personally. I think this was one
that was for some purpose that I can’t remember. . . .
Q. Do you know what Hunter Biden’s role was with
Skaneateles?
394 Morris Interview at 149. 395 See Letter from Counsel to Kevin Morris to Oversight Committee staff (Jan. 25, 2024). 396 Morris Interview at 147-50.
91
A. No. I think he was the sole, sole member of an LLC.
Q. And are you aware of an investment fund Bohai Harvest?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. It’s a Chinese – it’s a hedge fund of Chinese Nationals, I
believe, that raise money to make investments in publicprivate, and infrastructure programs.
Q. And have you heard of Jonathan [Li], the CEO of BHR?
A. I’ve heard of him, yeah.
Q. You never met with him?
A. No.
Q. And do you know what kind of investments BHR makes?
A. I knew better at one time. I remember going through them. I
don’t remember exactly what they were. I think they were –
I don’t know. I think they were infrastructure.397
Mr. Morris would not tell the Committees why he purchased Skaneateles from Hunter
Biden in the first place, claiming that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege.398 Mr.
Morris then stated that he believed that purchasing the BHR equity by acquiring Skaneateles
would be a good investment:
Q: How did it come up that you were going to purchase
Skaneateles? Or why did you buy Skaneateles of all the
companies that Hunter Biden was involved with? Why that
one?
A. That’s privileged. I am not going to answer that because of
attorney-client privilege.
Atty. No, no, no, why did you buy it? Like what?
A. I’m not going to answer it.
397 Id. at 147-48. 398 Id. at 149-50.
92
Q. . . . Why did you buy BHR?
A. I did the transaction because, you know, I evaluated it as a
businessman, and I thought it was something that could be a
very successful investment. I – you know, but I did diligence
on the assets. I knew what – I knew what Hunter paid for it
in the beginning, and I saw, and I still see upside.399
Mr. Morris claimed that he did due diligence on Skaneateles,400 yet testified he was not
“to the point sure” of the company’s purpose.401 Mr. Morris continues to own Skaneateles and
therefore the equity in BHR. The possibility of the return of the BHR equity to the Bidens still
exists today; Mr. Morris can transfer the stake back if he chooses.
ii. Vice President Biden intended to join the board of Hunter Biden’s joint
venture with a CCP-linked Chinese company—Harvest Fund
Management—after leaving office.
In 2013, Hunter Biden became acquainted with businessman Jason Galanis through their
mutual acquaintance Mr. Archer.402 Mr. Galanis, Mr. Archer, and Hunter Biden worked with the
American-based Burnham Group while Joe Biden was Vice President and sought to form a
separate partnership with Henry Zhao’s Chinese entity, Harvest.403 According to Mr. Galanis,
Mr. Zhao “regularly sought reassurance” that Vice President Biden would be involved in the
potential Burnham Harvest deal.404 While Vice President, Joe Biden planned to sit on the board
of Harvest after his Vice Presidency.405
Toward late 2013, Mr. Archer suggested to Mr. Galanis that “it would be a good idea to
leverage Hunter more and include him in more business deals, [and] compensate him.”406 In
early 2014, Hunter Biden’s participation in the business arrangement with Mr. Galanis and Mr.
Archer “became formalized.”407 As part of their business arrangement, the trio partnered to
purchase a Wall Street firm known as Burnham & Company and combined it “with other
businesses in insurance and wealth management” they owned.408 Their goal was to build a
business that combined “a globally known Wall Street brand with a globally known political
name”—Biden.409 In doing so, they sought “to make billions, not millions.”410 Mr. Galanis
399 Id. at 149-50. 400 Id. at 150. 401 Id. at 148. 402 Galanis Interview at 22-23. 403 Id. at 9. 404 See id. at 10. 405 Id. at 9. 406 Id. at 23. 407 Id. 408 Id. at 7. 409 Id. 410 Id.
93
described Burnham as “the focal point for integrating a, quote, Biden family office into a largescale financial company with international influence.”411
According to Mr. Galanis, the only value Hunter Biden added to the business was his last
name and his access to Vice President Biden.412 Hunter Biden was not even required to put any
of his own money into the business, instead he provided “relationship capital.”413 Mr. Galanis
testified:
The entire value add of Hunter Biden to our business was his family
name and his access to his father, Vice President Joe Biden. Because
of this access, I agreed to contribute equity ownership to them,
Hunter and Devon, for no out-of-pocket cost to them in exchange
for their, quote, relationship capital.414
In 2014, Hunter Biden led an effort to arrange a partnership between Burnham and
Harvest Fund Management, “a $300 billion Chinese financial services company closely
connected to the Chinese Communist Party.”415 According to Mr. Galanis, Harvest’s chairman,
Mr. Zhao, “was interested in this partnership because of the game-changing value add of the
Biden family, including Joe Biden, who was to be a member of the Burnham-Harvest team postVice Presidency, providing political access to the United States and around the world.”416
Mr. Zhao was already involved with the Biden family through the BHR deal. Harvest
Fund Management is a “massive Chinese enterprise”417 and in 2014, Hunter Biden, Mr. Archer,
and Mr. Galanis agreed that Burnham Group “would be significantly enhanced by forming a
partnership” with Harvest.418 Mr. Galanis testified:
The partners wanted to expand this Chinese relationship through
Burnham and did so through a series of investment structures
intended to gain financial support.419
Mr. Zhao sought “continual reassurance” that Vice President Biden would be involved in
the Burnham Harvest deal.420 During his transcribed interview, Mr. Galanis testified:
Harvest was an important prospective partner from my point of
view, selfishly, looking after my own interests, as delineated from
other partners’ interest in the business. Harvest would have been
additive to my ambitions to also grow the business. Harvest made
411 Id. at 8. 412 Id. 413 Id. 414 Id. 415 Id. at 8-9. 416 Id. at 9. 417 Id. at 10. 418 Id. at 8-9. 419 Id. at 9. 420 Id. at 36.
94
very clear that, but for the Biden participation, that Harvest wasn’t
going to invest in the business as I had wanted them to and as the
other partners wanted them to. That was . . . explicit and implied in
a number of emails, as well. So that was kind of influence they
sought, and it was the kind of influence we were attempting to use
to induce this investment in this anchor investor, this stamp of
credibility, this institutional credibility to our small, growing
business.421
. . . [Mr. Zhao] wanted continual reassurance that the father was
going to be, the father, Joe Biden was going to be involved with
Harvest.422
According to Mr. Galanis, Vice President Biden “was aware” of their “business efforts on
the Burnham Harvest partnership.”423 He recalled at least one instance where Hunter Biden
spoke with Vice President Biden over the phone in front of Mr. Galanis. Mr. Galanis testified:
Further to that, I recall being with Hunter Biden and Devon Archer
at the Peninsula Bar in New York where Hunter took a call from his
father. He told his father things were going well with Henry [Zhao]
and Harvest and that he might need a little help getting across the
finish line.
Hunter did not put the call on speaker, as we were at this bar, but
I’m certain that Hunter was discussing our business efforts on the
Burnham Harvest partnership and that the Vice President was aware
of these efforts.424
While Vice President, Joe Biden planned to sit on the board of Harvest after leaving the
White House in 2017.
425 According to Mr. Galanis, this plan developed in 2014.426 He testified:
In 2014, I agreed with Hunter and Devon that the Burnham and
Company enterprise would be significantly enhanced by forming a
partnership with Harvest Fund Management, a $300 billion Chinese
financial services company closely connected to the Chinese
Communist Party. Harvest had already agreed to be a founding
partner of a newly established fund called BHR.
421 Id. at 34-35. 422 Id. at 36. 423 Id. at 10. 424 Id. 425 Id. at 43. 426 See id. at 9-10 (“And it was one of many conversations that I understood the Vice President had been expressing
his willingness to join the Harvest board after his Vice Presidency.”).
95
The partners wanted to expand this Chinese relationship through
Burnham and did so through a series of investment structures
intended to gain Chinese financial support. This effort was led by
Hunter Biden’s contact with Henery Zhao, the Harvest chairman.
Mr. Zhao was interested in this partnership because of the gamechanging value add of the Biden family, including Joe Biden, who
was to be a member of the Burnham Harvest team Post-Vice
Presidency, providing political access to the United States and
around the world.427
Mr. Galanis described the plan in detail in testimony to the Committee. He explained:
Q. Okay. James [Bulger] writes to Devon Archer that Henry
likes the, quote, “creative idea,” quote that you, Devon
Archer, came up with.
What is the creative idea in July 2014 that is being referenced
here, if you know?
A. My recollection was the creative idea was Joe Biden’s . . .
paid board seat post-Vice Presidency.
Q. Board seat on—
A. Harvest, the Chinese company.
Q. So Joe Biden was going to sit on the board of Harvest when
he left the Vice Presidency?
A. That was the proposal that was subsequently discussed. I
mentioned it in my opening statement.
And, to answer your question, sorry, yes, yes, that was . . .
the understanding. And that’s what this was referencing, to
my recollection.
Q. I believe you also mentioned in your opening statement
intangible goods, and that is also in this email.
Quote, “Henry understands the intangible goods that come
with the partnership,” quote.
Is that in the same vein?
427 Id. at 8-9.
96
A. It is.
Q. Okay. Did Devon Archer ever communicate to you that he
understood the creative idea and the intangible goods to be
Joe Biden eventually sitting on the board of Harvest?
A. Yes that’s my recollection.
Q. So, by July of 2014, it has been broached that Joe Biden
would sit on a board of a Chinese entity.
Q. Would Burnham receive anything in connection with
Harvest because of Joe Biden being promised to sit on the
board?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your understanding of that, what would that be?
A. Harvest was to . . . become an investor in Burnham. So it was
to receive money. The original proposal was $18 million.
There were different numbers discussed based on the
ongoing negotiations. And so that was—they were
connected, inextricably connected, events or proposals.428
The intention for Vice President Biden to serve on the board of Harvest post-Vice
Presidency was memorialized in an August 23, 2014, draft email from Hunter Biden to Michael
R. Leonard, a Biden family business associate and executive at the Thornton Group. In the draft
email, Hunter Biden asked Mr. Leonard to “please also remind Henry [Zhao] of our conversation
about a board seat for a certain relation of mine. Devon and I golfed with that relation earlier last
week and we discussed this very idea again and as always he remains very keen on the
opportunity.”429 In the forwarding email to Mr. Galanis, Mr. Archer wrote, “FYI…example of
lean in on Henry from Hunter…this is [an] email drafted for him to send [to] Henry…”430 Mr.
Galanis explained that Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer often used the term “lean-in” in their
business dealings “as a term for access to Vice President Biden’s political influence.”431
428 Id. at 40-42. 429 Email from Devon Archer to Jason Galanis (Aug. 23, 2014, 8:25 AM). 430 Id. (ellipses in original). 431 Galanis Interview at 9.
99
Although Vice President Biden did not end up formally joining the board of the joint
venture with Harvest Fund Management,433 his intent to do so shows that he was aware of the
venture. Evidence also shows that he directly discussed the venture with Hunter Biden.434
iii. The Biden family’s business relationship with Chinese conglomerate
CEFC began while Vice President Biden was still in office.
Between late 2015 and early 2018, the Biden family and their business associates
aggressively leveraged Joe Biden to enrich themselves through the Chinese entity CEFC. CEFC
was a Chinese company connected, through its founder Chairman Ye Jianming, to the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP),435 the People’s Liberation Army,436 and President Xi Jinping.437 Hunter
Biden described Chairman Ye to James Biden as a “protégé” of President Xi Jinping,
438 and Joe
Biden met with Chairman Ye at least once in 2017.
439 CEFC made headlines in 2017 when it
announced a $9 billion deal to acquire a 14.2 percent stake in the Russian state-owned oil giant
Rosneft.440 CEFC had also become notable for courting political leaders and purchasing assets in
countries around the world, particularly in Europe, as part of a government-led effort to expand
China’s political and economic influence abroad.441 In 2018, Chairman Ye was detained by
Chinese authorities in the wake of a U.S. prosecution of CEFC official Patrick Ho for bribery
and corruption.442
The Biden family’s business relationship with CEFC began when then-Vice President
Biden was still in office.443 As detailed in the December 2023 indictment filed against Hunter
Biden by Special Counsel David Weiss, “[i]n the late fall of 2015, [Hunter Biden], [Rob Walker],
and [James Gilliar] began to investigate potential infrastructure projects with individuals
associated with CEFC . . . .”444 On December 1, 2015, Serbian politician and former president of
the United Nations General Assembly Vuk Jeremic invited Hunter Biden to a “private dinner”
with Ye Jianming.
445 Later in December 2015, Hunter Biden met with CEFC Executive Director
433 Brooke Singman, Joe Biden allegedly considered joining board of CCP–linked company, witness testifies from
prison, FOX NEWS (Feb. 23, 2024). 434 See supra notes 423-424 and accompanying text. 435 Second Bank Memo at 19-22, 36. 436 Id. 437 See id. at 21. 438 H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Exhibit 401: IRS Criminal Investigation Memorandum of Interview of James
Biden at 7 (Sept. 29, 2022) [hereinafter “James Biden FD-302”]. 439 Walker Interview at 40-42. 440 Scott Patterson & James Marson, Glencore, Qatar Sell Rosneft Stake to Chinese Firm in $9 Billion Deal, WALL
ST. J. (Sept. 8, 2017). CEFC’s attempt to purchase a stake in Rosneft later fell through when CEFC, which had been
struggling with debt, “failed to raise the money to finance the deal after its chairman was detained by Chinese
officials.” Sale of Rosneft stake to CEFC cancelled, BANK OF FIN. INST. FOR EMERGING ECONOMIES (May 9, 2018). 441 David Barboza, et al., China Seeks Influence in Europe, One Business Deal at a Time, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 12,
2018).
442 Jenni Marsh, The rise and fall of a Belt and Road Billionaire, CNN (Dec. 5, 2018). 443 Fourth Bank Memo at 1-2. 444 Indictment at 4, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023). 445 Email from Vuk Jeremic to Eric Schwerin (Dec. 1, 2015).
101
Hunter Biden, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Gilliar “continued to meet with individuals associated
with CEFC” during the next two years.452 During this time, Hunter Biden, Mr. Gilliar, and Mr.
Walker were making “introductions on behalf of CEFC”453 and permitting CEFC to use “the
Biden family name to advance their business dealings.”454
The Bidens’ relationship with CEFC was highly valuable to CEFC and the CCP. Tony
Bobulinski, with whom Hunter Biden partnered in 2017 to form a joint venture, testified about
the motives of both the Bidens and CEFC in this joint venture. Mr. Bobulinski elaborated:
The Chinese Communist Party, through its surrogate, China Energy
Company Limited, or CEFC, a CCP-linked Chinese energy
conglomerate, successfully sought to infiltrate and compromise Joe
Biden and the Obama-Biden White House. This process started in
the fourth quarter of 2015 and continued through when Joe Biden
left office in January 2017, through March 2018, when CEFC
Chairman Ye was detained for corruption in China, never to be seen
again. . . . It is also not a coincidence that CEFC used the Biden
family’s weakest link, Hunter Biden, and the promise of large sums
of money, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars initially and
eventually the profits from investing billions of dollars in the United
States and around the world. 455
Mr. Bobulinski also testified: “I want to be crystal clear: From my direct personal experience and
what I’ve subsequently come to learn, it is clear to me that Joe Biden was the brand being sold
by the Biden family.”456
From the outset of their business relationship, Hunter Biden and his business associates
recognized that CEFC’s interest in working with them was due to Hunter Biden’s last name.
Throughout the duration of their business relationship, Hunter Biden was displayed as the
frontman of their group because he was the son of the Vice President.457 This is best exemplified
by a letter on Hunter Biden’s letterhead, and with his name in the signature block, addressed to
CEFC Executive Director Zang.458 The letter—which was dated March 22, 2016, about 10
months before Vice President Biden left office—expressed anticipation at “working together on a
number of opportunities in the US and abroad.”459
452 Indictment at 4, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023). 453 Rob Walker FD-302 at 7; see also Email from Hunter Biden to Gongwen Dong (Aug. 2, 2017) (Ziegler Exhibit
1I) (stating that CEFC had agreed to pay him $30 million for “introductions alone”).
454 Tony Bobulinski FD-302 at 4 (text changed to lowercase). 455 Bobulinski Interview at 13. 456 Id. at 12. 457 Walker Interview at 38. 458 Letter from Hunter Biden to Zang Jianjun (Mar. 22, 2016). 459 Id.
103
Q. But why use Hunter Biden to send the letter instead of Rob
Walker or James Gilliar, especially if James Gilliar had the
original relationship?
A. Hunter in our relationship was—everybody had different
roles. He was the one that I imagine Zang would expect it to
come from.
Q. Is it because he was the son of the Vice President at the time?
A. Well, I think in Zang’s eyes—that I worked for Hunter and
that James worked for us or for Hunter, and so that would
be—he was viewed as the principal of this organization by
Zang.
Q. And that’s because of his last name?
A. . . . I can’t answer for Zang, but, sure, he had an interesting
last name that would probably get people in the door.462
Additional evidence supports the fact that CEFC’s outreach to the Bidens began well
before Joe Biden left the Vice Presidency. On Christmas Eve in 2015, Mr. Gilliar, who was “in
D.C. to attend the Vice President’s Christmas party,”463 informed Mr. Bobulinski that he was
arranging a business deal between a Chinese company—which Mr. Bobulinski later learned to be
CEFC—and “one of the most prominent families from [the] US . . . .”464 That prominent family
was the Biden family.465
462 Id. at 37-38. 463 Bobulinski Interview at 30. 464 WhatsApp Message from James Gilliar to Anthony Bobulinski (Dec. 24, 2015). 465 Bobulinski Interview at 30.
106
HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN did not receive any
compensation [from CEFC] because JOSEPH BIDEN was still
VPOTUS during this time period. There was a concern it would be
improper for payments to be made to HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES
BIDEN by CEFC due to its close affiliation with the Chinese
government. HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN both wanted to
be compensated for the assistance they had provided to CEFC’s
ventures; in particular, they believed CEFC owed them money for
the benefits that accrued to CEFC through its use of the BIDEN
family name to advance their business dealings.471
Mr. Bobulinski also testified to the Committees that Hunter Biden “started doing material work
for CEFC around the world while Joe Biden was sitting in the White House” in 2015.472
Similarly, Mr. Walker told the FBI and IRS in a 2020 interview that he had heard Hunter Biden
was setting up a meeting between CEFC executives and Vice President Biden.473 He stated:
[FBI]: Any times when he was in office or did you hear
Hunter say that he was settin’ up a meeting with his
dad with [CEFC executives] while dad was still in
office?
Walker: Yeah.474
During his transcribed interview with the Committees, Mr. Walker attempted to walk
back this testimony, claiming that while he remembered being asked the question during his FBI
interview, he did not remember what he meant by “Yeah,” other than that it did not mean he was
answering the question in the affirmative.475 Mr. Walker sought to distance himself from his own
prior statement, first claiming that “nobody asked me anything after that,” but then contending
that he “remember[s] being prompted to speak more, and I didn’t have the opportunity.”476 Not
only are Mr. Walker’s claims directly contradicted by the transcript of his interview,477 they are
inconsistent and do not make sense.
By late February 2016, Hunter Biden and his business associates had a relationship with
CEFC.478 On February 23, 2016, Mr. Gilliar copied Hunter Biden and Mr. Walker on an email
titled “CEFC/Wetinghouse [sic].” Mr. Gilliar wrote, “further to our discussions we have
prepared a deck for my visit to CEFC board on Monday in Beijing, it has been made clear to me
that CEFC wish to engage in further business relations with our group and we will present a few
projects to them.”479 Mr. Gilliar also wrote, “P.S. I’m sure H can give you the heads up on the
471 Tony Bobulinski FD-302 at 4. 472 Bobulinski Interview at 113. 473 Interview of John Robinson Walker by FBI and IRS, at 82 (Dec. 8, 2020) (Ziegler Exhibit 401). 474 Id. 475 Walker Interview at 40. 476 Id. 477 See Interview of John Robinson Walker by FBI and IRS, at 82–83 (Dec. 8, 2020) (Ziegler Exhibit 401). 478 Walker Interview at 32-33. 479 Email from James Gilliar to Jim Bernhard (Feb. 23, 2016, 4:46 AM); Walker Interview at 31-33.
107
play if you need more details. Kindest, James Gilliar.”480 When questioned about Mr. Gilliar’s
email, Mr. Walker testified that the business associates were “still building” their relationship
with CEFC “at [that] point.”481 Mr. Walker stated:
Q. Then [Mr. Gilliar] continues, “. . . CEFC wish to engage in
further business relations with our group and we will present
a few projects to them. Since he says they wish to engage in
“further business relations,” I just want to understand what
business relations had preceded this email.
Atty. If any. If that’s accurate.
A. . . . [W]hen you’re referring to “business relations,” I think
it was just—we are still building our relationship with them
at this point.
Q. At this point, had you or James Gilliar or Hunter Biden
pitched any business ideas to CEFC?
A. I don’t know.
Q. But . . . in February of 2016, there was some sort of
relationship at least developing with CEFC. Do I have that
correct?
A. That is correct.482
With respect to the reference to “H” in Mr. Gilliar’s email, Mr. Walker confirmed that
“H” most likely referred to Hunter Biden. He testified:
Q. And this “P.S I’m sure H can give you the heads up on the
play if you need more details,” “H” refers to Hunter Biden,
correct?
Atty. If you know.
A. I don’t know, but he did commonly refer to Hunter as “H.”483
Hunter Biden and his business associates continued meeting with CEFC executives after
Vice President Biden left office.484 Hunter Biden told the Committees in his deposition that he
480 Email from James Gilliar to Jim Bernhard (Feb. 23, 2016, 4:46 AM); Walker Interview at 32. 481 Walker Interview at 34. 482 Id. at 33-34. 483 Id. at 34. 484 Indictment at 4, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023).
108
first met Chairman Ye in February 2017 at a meeting in Miami, Florida.485 Mr. Bobulinski, who
did not attend the meeting,486 later received a “very detailed brief of what occurred” at the
meeting from Hunter Biden, Mr. Gilliar, and Mr. Walker.487 Mr. Bobulinski was therefore able to
describe the meeting when the FBI later interviewed him as part of the criminal investigation of
Hunter Biden.488 As recounted in the FBI document memorializing Bobulinski’s interview, he
explained:
The work conducted by CEFC, GILLIAR, WALKER, HUNTER
BIDEN, JAMES BIDEN and YE over the preceding two years was
discussed in detail at the Miami meeting. In particular, CEFC was
closing significant investment deals in Poland, Kazakhstan,
Romania, Oman, and the Middle East during this period of time.
CEFC had used its relationship with HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES
BIDEN—and the influence attached to the BIDEN name—to
advance CEFC’s interests abroad. HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES
BIDEN did not receive any monetary compensation for their
assistance in these projects. HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN
did not receive any compensation because JOSEPH BIDEN was still
VPOTUS during this time period. There was a concern it would be
improper for payments to be made to HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES
BIDEN by CEFC due to its close affiliation with the Chinese
government. HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN both wanted to
be compensated for the assistance they had provided to CEFC’s
ventures; in particular, they believed CEFC owed them money for
the benefits that accrued to CEFC through its use of the BIDEN
family name to advance their business dealings.
An arrangement to provide compensation to HUNTER BIDEN and
JAMES BIDEN—in the form of payments and future investment
opportunities—was discussed at the Miami meeting. Specifically, a
new Joint Venture (JV) entity would be formed that would be owned
in equal portions by CEFC and companies owned by members of
485 Hunter Biden Deposition at 46. 486 The FBI incorrectly reported in an FD–302 form memorializing Mr. Bobulinski’s interview that Mr. Bobulinski
attended the meeting with CEFC in Miami. However, Mr. Bobulinski explained to the Committees that he told the
FBI that he was in Miami for other purposes but did not attend the meeting with CEFC and that the FBI incorrectly
reported his attendance in the FD–302 due to a “note–taking error by a junior FBI agent . . . .” Bobulinski Interview
at 15–16; see also id. at 40, 61–64, 174–75, 191. Mr. Bobulinski asked the FBI to record his interview on which the
FD–302 was based, but the FBI refused to do so. Id. at 61. Mr. Bobulinski pointed out the absurdity of suggesting
that he lied to the FBI while also voluntarily providing them evidence that he lied, stating, “So how absurd would it
have been for me voluntarily to walk into the FBI and lie to them and then give them thousands of documents
showing that I lied to them? That would be absurd.” Id.; cf. Mike Rappaport, The Corruption of the FBI, LAW &
LIBERTY (Dec. 20, 2018) (explaining that the FBI’s use of FBI–generated summaries of witness interviews such as
FD–302s combined with its policy of not recording most interviews enables the FBI “to offer a less than [] fully
accurate version of the interview so that they can convict interviewees”). 487 Bobulinski Interview at 175; see also id. at 206 (stating that he was told about the Miami meeting “in intimate
detail”).
488 See Tony Bobulinski FD-302.
109
the BIDEN family. Collectively, HUNTER BIDEN, JAMES
BIDEN, JOSEPH BIDEN, GILLIAR, and WALKER would own
50% of the JV.489
Hunter Biden believed that CEFC owed the Biden family $20 million for the work they
had done while Vice President Biden was still in office.490 In May 2017, during a meeting with
CEFC executives and his U.S. business partners at a restaurant in New York, Hunter Biden had
“a very aggressive conversation” with CEFC Director Zang about not receiving the money for
his work for CEFC the previous two years.491 According to Mr. Bobulinski, who attended the
meeting, “Hunter got extremely fired up, angry, and was yelling” at Zang that “you owe my
family money. Why haven’t you paid the $20 million we’ve discussed? When is it coming?”492
iv. The Biden family received over $1 million from State Energy HK, a
Chinese company closely affiliated with CEFC, shortly after Vice
President Biden met with CEFC’s top executives.
Shortly after meeting in Miami in February 2017, Hunter Biden, Mr. Gilliar, and Mr.
Walker had lunch with CEFC executives, including Chairman Ye, at the Four Seasons hotel in
Washington, D.C.493 Based on a text from Mr. Gilliar to Mr. Bobulinski, it appears that the
Chinese executives, together with Mr. Gilliar, flew directly from Miami to Washington, D.C. for
the event.494 According to Mr. Walker, the purpose of the lunch was to discuss how they were
“going to work together in the future[.]”495 During the lunch, former Vice President Biden—who
had left office a few weeks earlier—attended the meeting and spoke to the group.496 Hunter
Biden claimed during his deposition testimony to not remember this event, but he did not contest
that it happened or that his father attended and spoke to the group.497 Shortly after Vice President
Biden stopped by the Four Seasons lunch, the Biden family received over $1 million from State
Energy HK, a Chinese company closely affiliated with CEFC and Chairman Ye.
498 The
Oversight Committee explained that State Energy HK operated as “[Chairman] Ye’s vehicle, at
least in part, to launder money and purchase lucrative ‘gifts.’”499 Mr. Walker similarly
“understood that State Energy HK was an entity used by CEFC.”500
489 Id. at 4. 490 Bobulinski Interview at 113. 491 Id. at 109. 492 Id. 493 Walker Interview at 41-44. 494 Bobulinski Interview at 123 (“In my messages, James Gillar talks about how they flew from Miami to D.C. I
think James Gilliar flew with the Chinese from Miami to D.C., and that is when I believe Joe Biden met Chairman
Ye.”) (Mr. Gilliar wrote to Mr. Bobulinski, “Was there with the chairman of Chinese [Ye Jianming]. We flew to
D.C. then to New York City, then Dubai.”).
495 Walker Interview at 67. 496 Id. at 43-44. 497 Hunter Biden Deposition at 73-75 (“I do not recall this [lunch], but I don’t question Mr. Walker’s memory of it . .
. If Rob is certain of that, then it most likely happened”). 498 See First Bank Memo at 1-3; Second Bank Memo at 30-34; Walker Interview at 65–67. 499 Second Bank Memo at 27. 500 Rob Walker FD-302 at 7.
110
Joe Biden’s knowledge of the CEFC deal is clear; he met with the most important
individuals—Chinese and American—involved in creating the deal and, according to Mr.
Walker, was informed directly by his son that he was arranging the deal. During an interview
with FBI and IRS investigators, Mr. Walker stated, “Hunter said [to former Vice President Biden]
um.., I may be tryin’ to start a company, ah, or tried to do something with these guys and could
you.., and think he was like ‘if I’m around’…and he’d show up.”501 The FBI interviewer then
asked Mr. Walker whether he “definitely got the feeling that, that was orchestrated by Hunter []
to have like [] an appearance by his Dad at that meeting just to kind of . . . bolster your chances
at . . . makin’ a deal work out,” to which Mr. Walker concurred that he did get that feeling.502
On March 1, 2017, State Energy HK wired $3 million to Mr. Walker’s company,
Robinson Walker, LLC, for Hunter Biden’s, Mr. Walker’s, and Mr. Gilliar’s services.503 Mr.
Walker facilitated the transfer of his partners’ shares of the $3 million payment from his
company to Hunter Biden and Mr. Gilliar.504 Mr. Walker testified:
Q. . . . [So the] only time Joe Biden shows up in a meeting
[while you were present], he gives a 10-minute presentation
to the entire group, and a few days later, you get $3 million?
A. He’d had discussions beforehand with CEFC, meaning
James Gilliar had, and—but if that’s how it happened, yes.505
On March 2, 2017, Mr. Walker wired $1,065,000 to EEIG, a company controlled by Mr.
Gilliar.506 Between March 6 and May 18, 2017, Mr. Walker wired a total of $1,065,692 in
incremental payments to Beau Biden’s widow, whom Hunter Biden was dating at the time, Hallie
Biden; companies owned by Hunter and James Biden; and an account identified as “Biden.”507
Mr. Walker was not sure why some of the money was sent to Hallie Biden and James Biden,
stating, “That’s what Hunter wanted.”508 Mr. Walker also noted that at the time the money was
sent, “we were starting to have discussions with [President Biden’s brother, James Biden] about
joining our group,” and speculated that James Biden may have been having financial difficulties
because Hunter Biden told him that his uncle “needed” the money.509 Mr. Walker was similarly
unaware as to why Hunter Biden wanted the payments to Hallie Biden, James Biden, and himself
structured as multiple small payments rather than a lump sum.510 When asked about this, Mr.
Walker responded: “the way I viewed it at the time, it was his money, and that’s how he wanted
it.”511
501 Interview of John Robinson Walker, with FBI and IRS, at 82 (Dec. 8, 2020) (Ziegler Exhibit 401) (ellipses in
original).
502 Id. 503 First Bank Memo at 2; Second Bank Memo at 30. 504 First Bank Memo at 2–3; Second Bank Memo at 30–34. 505 Walker Interview at 66–67. 506 First Bank Memo at 2; Second Bank Memo at 10, 31; Walker Interview at 82. 507 First Bank Memo at 2–3; Second Bank Memo at 31–32; Walker Interview at 82–84. 508 Walker Interview at 84 509 Id. 510 Id. at 83. 511 Id.
111
Following the $3 million wire transfer, Mr. Gilliar reinforced the Biden family’s role as
“the brand” versus adding substance to a business venture with CEFC. Mr. Gilliar wrote to Mr.
Bobulinski, “would love to have you there for collective understanding” and “[a]s for Hunter,
I’m gonna kick his arse if he no shows, but in brand he’s imperative, but right now he’s not
essential for adding input to the business.”512
It is not clear what services, if any, Hunter Biden and his associates provided to State
Energy HK or CEFC in exchange for these payments.513 Special Counsel Weiss found that
Hunter Biden “performed very little actual work” in return for the millions of dollars he received
from CEFC and its affiliates between 2016 and 2019.514 Mr. Walker told the FBI and IRS that the
payments from State Energy HK were a “thank you” for making “introductions on behalf of
CEFC.”515 Conversely, a spokesperson for Hunter Biden claimed that the payments were “good
faith seed funds” for the joint venture with CEFC.516 However, the Oversight Committee
rebutted this claim, explaining:
[T]he payments that State Energy HK sent to the Biden family
through Robinson Walker, LLC do not appear to constitute “good
faith seed funds” because they were 1) sent to a third party
(Robinson Walker, LLC) instead of one of Hunter Biden’s
companies for no explicable legitimate reason, 2) sent to various
Biden accounts in smaller increments to reduce the amount of each
wire over the course of several months for no explicable legitimate
reason, and 3) nearly the identical total amount [was] previously
sent to James Gilliar’s EEIG, for which there is no indication it was
used as “good faith seed funds.”517
CEFC’s decision to send $3 million to Hunter Biden and his business associates, without
them providing any identifiable product or service of value in exchange, raises questions about
the true purpose of the payment. Further questions arise when considering that the payment
occurred shortly after former Vice President Biden spoke with CEFC executives which, as Mr.
Walker admitted, Hunter Biden organized as a way to impress the CEFC executives and bolster
his chances at securing a deal with them.518 In all likelihood, it appears that the purpose of the
payment was to purchase the only thing of value that Hunter Biden had to offer: access to his
father.
512 Bobulinski Interview at 43. 513 See Second Bank Memo at 18 (noting that “the purported services provided by Hunter Biden are inconsistent
with the bank records”).
514 Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution and Breach
of Separation of Powers at 3, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2024). 515 Rob Walker FD–302 at 7. 516 Second Bank Memo at 18, n.29; see also Seed Money, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (defining
“seed money” as “[s]tart–up money for a business venture”). 517 Second Bank Memo at 18, n.29. 518 See Interview of John Robinson Walker, with FBI and IRS, at 82 (Dec. 8, 2020) (Ziegler Exhibit 401).
112
v. Evidence suggests Joe Biden had a financial stake in a joint business
venture with CEFC.
In 2017, Hunter Biden and his business associates created a joint business venture with
CEFC known as SinoHawk Holdings.519 SinoHawk was co-owned in equal portions by Hudson
West IV and Oneida Holdings, LLC (Oneida).
520 Hudson West IV was “funded, financed, and
controlled by Chairman Ye,”521 and included Chairman Ye’s “CEFC emissary,”522 Gongwen
“Kevin” Dong, as one of its “signatories.”523 On paper, Oneida was co-owned in equal portions
by Hunter Biden, James Biden, Rob Walker, James Gilliar, and Tony Bobulinski.524 Other
evidence suggests, however, that then-former Vice President Biden also had equity in the
business.525
On May 1, 2017, Mr. Bobulinski met Hunter Biden at the Chateau Marmont hotel in Los
Angeles to discuss the CEFC deal and an upcoming meeting with CEFC executives.526 This was
the first time Mr. Bobulinski had “extensive discussions with Hunter Biden” about business.527
During the meeting, when Mr. Bobulinski asked about former Vice President Biden’s
“knowledge of this deal and other deals,” Hunter Biden responded by openly boasting about his
direct access to his father.528 Mr. Bobulinski testified:
And he’s sitting there telling me, as I ask him questions about his
interaction with his father and his father’s knowledge of this deal
and other deals, and Hunter Biden was not shy about saying, “My
father picks up the phone. I can call him from anywhere around the
world. Do you want me to get him on the phone now?”529
[Hunter Biden] was so adamant and empowered about how he could
get his father on the phone at any time, the gatekeepers that were
around his father just yielded to Hunter, if you needed to speak with
his father, if you needed to see his father and stuff like that . . . . And
519 Bobulinski Interview at 37. 520 Id. 521 Id. 522 Matt Viser et al., Inside Hunter Biden’s multimillion–dollar deals with a Chinese energy company, WASH. POST
(Mar. 30, 2022).
523 Bobulinski Interview at 37. 524 Id. at 37–38. Technically, Oneida was co-owned by entities which in turn were owned by each of the five
business partners: GK Temujin, LLC (Hunter Biden); Sino Atlantic Solutions, LLC (James Biden); Robinson
Walker, LLC (Rob Walker); 8 International Holdings, Limited (James Gilliar); and Global Investment Ventures,
LLC (Tony Bobulinski). For clarity, and since there is functionally no difference for present purposes, this report
will refer to the individuals themselves as the co-owners of Oneida Holdings. 525 Email from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski et al. (May 13, 2017, 5:48 AM). 526 Bobulinski Interview at 45-46; 213-16. 527 Id. at 213. 528 Id. at 45-46. 529 Id.
113
so that was a big part of the discussion, and he was just—he was sort
of nonchalant about it.530
Earlier that morning, Hunter Biden had informed Mr. Bobulinski that former Vice
President Biden would be speaking at the nearby Milken Institute Global Conference—an annual
conference in Beverly Hills attended by “billionaires and successful people in all kinds of walks
of life”531—in two days and he invited Mr. Bobulinski to meet Vice President Biden.532
Mr. Bobulinski personally spoke to former Vice President Biden about the business
venture with CEFC in May 2017. On May 2, 2017, the night before former Vice President Biden
was scheduled to speak at the Milken Conference, Mr. Bobulinski met with him, Hunter Biden,
and James Biden at a bar at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, where the conference was held.533 Shortly
before the former Vice President arrived at the meeting, Hunter Biden and James Biden
“coached” Mr. Bobulinski that “this is going to be a high-level meeting. We’re not going to go
into a lot of detail.”534 When former Vice President Biden entered the room, Hunter Biden
excused himself from the group for a couple minutes, explaining that he “need[ed] to read my
dad in on things.”535 Shortly thereafter, Hunter Biden brought his dad over to Mr. Bobulinski and
“set the stage for the meeting” by announcing “Dad, this is Tony who I’ve told you about, and
the stuff we’re working on with the Chinese.”536 Although Hunter Biden did not explicitly
mention CEFC, Mr. Bobulinski was aware that former Vice President Biden “knew exactly what
[Hunter Biden] was talking about” and that he “was clearly aware who the chairman was and
who CEFC was.”537 Indeed, Joe Biden met with Chairman Ye and CEFC two months earlier at
the Four Seasons in Washington, D.C.538 Mr. Bobulinski and former Vice President Biden then
spent the next “45 minutes to an hour” discussing, among other matters, Mr. Bobulinski’s
background.539 Mr. Bobulinski testified that he discussed, “the broad contours of business
dealings,” during that Los Angeles trip.540 These events are confirmed by text messages sent
between Hunter Biden and Mr. Bobulinski earlier that day. Hunter Biden told Mr. Bobulinski that
his dad would not get “in now until 11 – let’s me I and Jim meet at 10 at Beverly Hilton where
he’s staying.”541
530 Id. at 215-16. 531 Id. at 48. 532 See Text Message from Hunter Biden to Anthony Bobulinski (May 1, 2017, 8:43 AM) (“By the way my Dad’s
speaking Wednesday morning at Milken. You should come meet him if you can.”).
533 Bobulinski Interview at 14, 47-50, 269-71. 534 Id. at 49. 535 Id. at 49-50. 536 Id. at 50. 537 Id. at 270. 538 Walker Interview at 41-44. 539 Bobulinski Interview at 50-51. 540 Id. at 14; see also id. at 50-51, 269-71. 541 See Text Message from Hunter Biden to Anthony Bobulinski (May 2, 2017, 3:56 PM) (“Dad not in now until 11
– lets me I and Jim meet at 10 at Beverly Hilton where he’s staying”).
115
During his transcribed interview, James Biden denied that former Vice President Biden
ever met with Mr. Bobulinski at the Beverly Hilton in May 2017.547 He testified:
Q. I want to turn your attention to early May of 2017. Do you
recall a meeting in Los Angeles at the Beverly Hotel with
you, Hunter Biden, and Tony Bobulinski?
A. I remember that my brother had a speaking engagement at
the hotel. I don’t know what it was. And that we were in Los
Angeles, and I met—I was outside of the hotel. I never went
into the hotel with my brother. And it’s my recollection . . .
that my brother never came out and had any discussions.
May have came out to say hi. That’s all.
Q. Said hi to who?
A. Me.
Q. When you were at the hotel, do you recall having a meeting
with Hunter Biden and Tony Bobulinski and Joe Biden?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. It’s your testimony here today that meeting never took place?
A. Yes, sir.548
Q. Do you recall whether you were at the bar with Hunter
Biden, Tony Bobulinski, and Joe Biden?
A. That I know did not happen.
Q. Who were you at the bar with?
A. I could have been there just with Tony Bobulinski. I could
have been there with Hunter as well. But my brother was
never there.549
James Biden’s testimony is contradicted by other evidence available to the Committees.
Hunter Biden himself confirmed that former Vice President Biden met Mr. Bobulinski, along
547 James Biden Interview at 100, 103. 548 Id. at 100. 549 Id. at 103.
116
with Hunter Biden and James Biden, at the Beverly Hilton hotel bar in May 2017.550 Hunter
Biden testified:
Q. And did Mr. Bobulinski meet with your father during that
trip?
A. He met him in the lobby of the hotel of the . . . Beverly
Hilton. My dad’s flight arrived I think at . . . 11 p.m. We were
in the lobby bar with Mr. Bobulinski having coffee.
Q. And your uncle as well?
A. What?
Q. Was your uncle there too?
A. My uncle and myself. I think my uncle was also staying at
that hotel. And so yeah . . . anyway, my dad went and shook
hands with Tony. They talked about—I believe at that time,
I don’t know whether it was Tony’s father was suffering from
cancer, and his sister was suffering from cancer, and he
invited him to the speech at the Milken Conference.551
Additionally, Mr. Bobulinski provided contemporaneous messages corroborating his
testimony about meeting former Vice President Biden at the Beverly Hilton. On May 2, 2017, the
same day as the meeting at the Beverly Hilton bar, Mr. Bobulinski texted Mr. Gilliar, “Ab[ou]t to
meet hunter/jim and I guess Joe @ bev hilton.”552 Also on May 2, 2017, after the meeting with
former Vice President Biden had concluded, Mr. Bobulinski texted James Biden, “Great to meet
u and spend some time together, please thank Joe for his time, was great to talk . . . .”553
550 Hunter Biden Deposition at 141. 551 Id. at 141-42. 552 WhatsApp Message from Tony Bobulinski to James Gilliar (May 2, 2017). 553 Text Message from Tony Bobulinski to James Biden (May 2, 2017).
119
Later that day, Mr. Bobulinski had a private meeting with James Biden at the Peninsula
Hotel to discuss CEFC.557 Mr. Bobulinski testified that “Jim Biden gave me his version of the
Biden family, walking through his history, what he had done to get Joe elected in his first Senate
race, how he raised money, his relationships.”558 They also talked about the situation with the
Bidens, including then former-Vice President Biden and the Chinese.559 Mr. Bobulinski testified
that he asked James Biden a series of questions, including “just clarify for me, Jim, like, how are
you guys doing this” and “[a]ren’t you guys concerned that if Joe does run for President of the
United States in the future that you guys are doing business directly with the Chinese?”560
According to Mr. Bobulinski, James Biden chuckled and responded “Plausible deniability.”561
Mr. Bobulinski also testified that “Joe Biden was more than a participant in and a beneficiary of
his family’s business; he was an enabler, despite being buffered by a complex scheme to
maintain plausible deniability.’”562
Later that same week, Hunter Biden, James Biden, Mr. Bobulinski, Mr. Gilliar, and Mr.
Walker flew to New York to meet with CEFC executives and “memorialize the term sheet” for
the SinoHawk joint venture.563 During a meeting with CEFC officials, Hunter Biden became
aggressive, according to Mr. Walker and Mr. Bobulinski.564 According to Mr. Bobulinski, Hunter
Biden claimed CEFC owed the Biden family money for the work performed for CEFC in 2016,
while Joe Biden was Vice President. According to Mr. Bobulinski:
Q. [I]t appears that Mr. Walker, Mr. Gilliar . . . and Hunter Biden
were performing services for CEFC as early as March of
- And my question to you is, is that consistent with the
information that you know and that you have as well?
A. That is. I believe it started actually as early as 2015, possibly,
with James Gilliar . . . . And, just for the record – because
this is a thing that I’ve dealt with for the last 4 years where
people have argued, “Well, what’s the importance of
SinoHawk with Bobulinski? That deal never happened.” It
did. “The work was once Joe Biden was a private citizen.”
That’s a lie. This started back in 2015 . . . . Rob Walker stated
it himself. This email is a . . . justification and just supporting
that fact, that they had started doing material work for CEFC
around the world while Joe Biden was sitting in the White
House.
557 Bobulinski Interview at 52. 558 Id. at 52-53. 559 Id. 560 Id. at 53 (Mr. Bobulinski explained that his questions “were focused on political headlines” and “why would you
take this risk to yourself, to your family’s brand that Hunter screams about….”).
561 Id. 562 Id. at 12. 563 Id. at 105. 564 Id. at 109-10; see Walker Interview at 101-02.
121
Mr. Bobulinski, who served as CEO of Oneida and SinoHawk, informed the FBI and the
Committees that Joe Biden is “the big guy” mentioned in Mr. Gilliar’s email.569 Mr. Bobulinski
provided the same testimony to the Committees, stating:
And then [Mr. Gilliar’s email] says, “10 held for H for the big guy.”
The H in that message is Hunter Biden, and the big guy—100
percent—is Joe Biden. . . . It’s crystal clear. There’s nobody else who
they would be listing as the big guy. Remember, this email was
drafted to me with an expectation that no outside party—this
wouldn’t be part of congressional hearings. These guys are all lowkey. I was low-key. Well, why was he using code? Why is he calling
Hunter “H”? Why is he using “the big guy”? Well, because that’s the
way James Gilliar communicated because of his intel background
and the things he was doing around the world. But when he says “10
held by H for the big guy,” it’s Joe Biden. . . . The big guy was Joe
Biden. That’s who they were talking about.570
Mr. Bobulinski also asserted that Mr. Walker lied to the Committees when he claimed to not
know who “the big guy” was.571 Further, Mr. Bobulinski rebutted false statements from Hunter
Biden and Mr. Walker that no one responded to Mr. Gilliar’s email,572 stating:
And then the other lie that’s been told for the last 4 years, including
by Hunter Biden’s lawyers, was that nobody responded to this email.
. . . Hunter Biden responded to this email I think three-plus times
. . . . And what did he respond in those emails? He didn’t ask,
‘James, who the heck are you talking about? Who is the big guy?’573
Mr. Bobulinski provided to the Committees emails showing Hunter Biden responded
multiple times to Mr. Gilliar’s email about the equity split. Hunter Biden did not express surprise
or confusion about Mr. Gilliar’s reference to “the big guy,” suggesting he was aware of who the
term identified.574 Instead, in these communications, Hunter Biden complained about not being
paid enough money, griping that he “will need a hell of a lot more than 850 [thousand dollars]
p[er]/y[ear] on a monthly basis” due to his financial problems.575 Mr. Bobulinski then informed
569 See Tony Bobulinski FD-302 at 4-5 (“An additional 10% was to be held by HUNTER BIDEN for the ‘big guy,’
which was a reference to JOSEPH BIDEN. HUNTER BIDEN was going to hold JOSEPH BIDEN’s ownership
percentage on behalf of JOSEPH BIDEN.”); Bobulinski Interview at 115-16. 570 Bobulinski Interview at 116-17. 571 Id. at 117 (“I was surprised [Mr. Walker] would lie to you . . . and act like he didn’t know who the big guy
was.”).
572 See Hunter Biden Deposition at 127, 136; Walker Interview at 148, 151. 573 Bobulinski Interview at 116-17. 574 See id. at 117-18. 575 Email from Hunter Biden to James Gilliar et al. (May 16, 2017, 10:20 AM); see also Bobulinski Interview at
117-18 (“What did Hunter Biden scream about? Because if you read the emails . . . he is demanding getting paid
more money, talking about his divorce and alimony payments, and that $850,000 isn’t anywhere near enough. That
he’s going to have to . . . make at least $2 million.”).
129
used up, should CEFC keep lending more to the family?”601 Mr. Zhao also stressed that
“Chairman Ye and Director Zang fully support the framework of establishing the J[oint]
V[enture], based on their trust [in the Biden] family.”602 Ultimately, SinoHawk never received
the promised $10 million.603 Instead, CEFC sent $5 million to a different joint venture with the
Biden family after they cut Mr. Bobulinski, Mr. Gilliar, and Mr. Walker out of the deal.604
Mr. Bobulinski testified that Hunter Biden and James Biden “knowingly and aggressively
defrauded” him in late July 2017, though he did not know it at the time, by improperly cutting
him out of the joint venture with CEFC and stealing proprietary information.605 According to Mr.
Bobulinski, he was concerned about Hunter Biden and James Biden effectively controlling
Oneida without his input by voting together as a bloc, likely along with their close friend Mr.
Walker.606 Mr. Bobulinski was also concerned about statements from Hunter Biden indicating
that he intended to use the $10 million capitalization payment from CEFC as “his personal piggy
bank.”607 To protect his interests, Mr. Bobulinski proposed restructuring Oneida’s board.608
Hunter Biden and James Biden reportedly responded by moving ahead with the CEFC joint
venture without Mr. Bobulinski.609 Mr. Bobulinski testified that Hunter Biden and James Biden
used almost identical language from the SinoHawk agreement, but swapped out the business
entities named in the agreement with different entities Mr. Bobulinski was not affiliated with.610
In doing so, Hunter Biden allegedly “took proprietary information from Oneida Holdings and
SinoHawk and stole that information and reproduced it.”611
601 Id. 602 Id. 603 Bobulinski Interview at 182, 241. 604 Id. at 182, 241-42. 605 Id. at 14-15, 200-01. 606 Id. at 127-28. 607 WhatsApp Message from Tony Bobulinski to James Gilliar (May 13, 2017); Bobulinski Interview at 127; see
also Tony Bobulinski FD-302 at 8 (“HUNTER BIDEN wanted to withdraw the initial capitalization of $10 million
from SINOHAWK and spend it elsewhere.”).
608 Bobulinski Interview at 127-28. 609 Id. 610 Id. at 199-201. 611 Id. at 200.
132
contribution for [his] ownership share of [Hudson West III].”622 Under the terms of the operating
agreement, Hunter Biden was to be paid $100,000 a month along with a $500,000 retainer fee
and James Biden was to be paid $65,000 a month.623
CEFC had failed to send the $10 million capitalization funds, including $5 million in an
interest-free loan, for the SinoHawk venture despite signing agreements with Hunter Biden,
James Biden, Tony Bobulinski, James Gilliar, and Rob Walker in May 2017. After learning that
CEFC was reconsidering sending a $5 million interest-free loan to the Biden family, Hunter
Biden asserted his father was sitting next to him while he proceeded to make a threat to a CEFC
official. On July 30, 2017, nine days before a CEFC affiliate wired $5 million to a company
Hunter Biden co-owned, Hunter Biden invoked his father in a threatening message.624 He wrote:
Z[hao]- Please have the [CEFC] director call me . . . tonight. I am
sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the
commitment made has not been fulfilled. I am very concerned that
the [CEFC] Chairman has either changed his mind and broken our
deal without telling me or that he is unaware of the promises and
assurances that have been made have not been kept. Tell the director
that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand. And
now means tonight. And Z[hao] if I get a call or text from anyone
involved in this other than you, [Director] Zhang or the [CEFC]
Chairman I will make certain that between the man sitting next to
me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a
grudge that you will regret not following my direction. All too often
people mistake kindness for weakness—and all too often I am
standing over top of them saying I warned you.625
Hunter Biden testified in his deposition that he intended to send this message to CEFC
associate Raymond Zhao, but accidentally sent it to the chairman of Harvest Fund Management
Henry Zhao, who was unrelated to Hunter Biden’s relationship with CEFC.626 This explanation
is unpersuasive for a number of reasons. First, the Zhao whom Hunter Biden threatened did not
appear confused by the message, responding, “Sure. I need some time to reach him. At what time
window can you talk?”627 When Hunter Biden reiterated that he was “sitting here waiting for the
call with my father,” Mr. Zhao replied, again seemingly without confusion, “Hi Hunter, [the]
director did not answer my call. But he got the message you just mentioned.”628 On May 22,
2024, the Ways and Means Committee released additional evidence from the IRS whistleblowers
proving that Hunter Biden sent this message to CEFC’s Raymond Zhao, meaning that Hunter
622 Indictment at 5, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023). 623 Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Hudson West III LLC § 4.6 (Aug. 2, 2017)
(Ziegler Exhibit 2A).
624 Relevant Backup Messages (Ziegler Exhibit 300). 625 WhatsApp Message from Hunter Biden to Raymond Zhao (July 30, 2017). 626 Hunter Biden Deposition at 105-06. 627 WhatsApp Message from Raymond Zhao to Hunter Biden (July 30, 2017). 628 WhatsApp Message from Hunter Biden to Raymond Zhao (July 30, 2017).
133
Biden lied under oath during his deposition.629 According to the Ways and Means Committee,
Hunter Biden “continued to communicate with the same ‘Zhao’ phone number for an additional
three months regarding matters related to CEFC.”630
Hunter Biden also testified that he was not sitting next to his father when he sent the
threat,631 although “[p]hotographs on Hunter’s abandoned laptop place him at his father’s
Delaware estate that [day].”632 In any event, the message shows, at the very least, Hunter Biden’s
intent to use his father’s power and influence as a stick to threaten companies into sending the
Biden family millions of dollars.
On August 3, 2017, four days after his threat, Hunter Biden sent another message
expressing indignation at CEFC’s desire to only fund the joint venture and not give a $5 million
interest-free loan to the Biden family.633 This time, he told Mr. Dong that “This move to 5
[million dollars] is completely new to me and is not acceptable obviously. . . . [I]f the Chairman
doesn’t value this relationship [a]s being worth at leas[t] 5 [million dollars] then I’m just
baffled.”634 Here, Hunter Biden’s reference to Chairman Ye valuing the “relationship” with the
Biden family is further evidence showing that CEFC was only doing business with the Biden
family to establish a relationship with them and access their political influence. Hunter Biden
concluded the message by boasting that “[t]he Biden’s [sic] are the best I know at doing exactly
what the Chairman wants from this partnership,” and described the $5 million loan as “peanuts”
compared to what the Biden brand could provide.635 As witnesses testified and this
communication shows, the only thing Chairman Ye wanted from partnering with the Bidens was
their political influence.636 Hunter Biden’s message demonstrates again that the Biden family
was fully aware of CEFC’s interest in their political influence and was willing to sell it to them
for the right price.
The same day, on August 3, 2017, Mr. Dong responded to Hunter. He wrote, “Hi Hunter,
sorry to ping you at late hours. I am texting to convey some info from director Zang: 1) His best
regards to you, Jim and VP; 2) He fully supports cooperation with you and the proposition
provided by you. Chairman [Ye] also agrees upon your idea; 3) Kevin is designated by director
Zang to discuss with you on technical matters. The fund[s] will be wired to the jointly
administered account in a timely manner. Thanks!”637 The following day, a CEFC subsidiary
wired $100,000 to Hunter Biden’s personal company.638
629 Press Release, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Ways and Means Committee Releases Evidence Showing Hunter
Biden Lied Under Oath During Recent Congressional Testimony (May 22, 2024).
630 Id. 631 Hunter Biden Deposition at 105. 632 Miranda Devine, Allegations against Biden and his family are too credible to wipe away with ‘father’s love’ sob
story, N.Y. POST (June 28, 2023). 633 WhatsApp Message from Hunter Biden to Gongwen Dong (Aug. 3, 2017) (Ziegler Exhibit 300). 634 Id. 635 Id. 636 See, e.g., WhatsApp Message from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski (May 18, 2017) (“Tony I ain’t that stupid. I
know why [Chairman Ye] wants the deal and what makes it enormous, [i]t’s the family name . . . .”); WhatsApp
Message from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski (May 18, 2017) (“[T]he [Biden] family is the reason [C]hairman
[Y]e wants the relations.”).
637 WhatsApp Message from Hunter Biden to Gongwen Dong (Aug. 3, 2017) (Ziegler Exhibit 300). 638 Second Bank Memo at 25.
134
On August 8, 2017, six days after executing the Hudson West III contract, Northern
International Capital, a Chinese company affiliated with CEFC, wired $5 million to Hudson West
III.639 That same day, Hudson West III transferred $400,000 to Hunter Biden’s personal
company, Owasco PC.640 Afterwards, “Owasco, PC received monthly transfers of approximately
$165,000.”641 The indictment against Hunter Biden in federal court in Los Angeles revealed that:
[i]n total, [Hudson West III] made seven transfers to Owasco, PC in
2017 totaling approximately $1.445 million. [Hunter Biden] then
transferred approximately $555,000 of these funds from Owasco,
PC’s Wells Fargo Account to [James Biden]. In 2018, [Hudson West
III] made another 15 transfers to Owasco, PC, totaling
approximately $2.1 million, and [Hunter Biden] transferred
approximately $843,999 of these funds to [James Biden].642
Similarly, bank records obtained by the Oversight Committee confirmed that “between
August 2017 and October 2018, Hudson West III sent over $4 million to Hunter Biden related
companies and over $75,000 to James Biden related companies.”643
Later in August 2017, Hunter Biden met with Mr. Dong for lunch and thought Chairman
Ye might attend as well.644 On August 27, 2017, Hunter Biden asked Mr. Dong where they would
be having lunch and informed him, “My uncle will be here with his BROTHER who would like
to say hello to the Chairman.”645 After Mr. Dong responded, Hunter Biden reiterated, “Jim’s
BROTHER if he is coming just wants to say hello he will not be stopping for lunch.”646 In his
deposition with the Committees, Hunter Biden confirmed that he was referring to Joe Biden in
these messages.647
Later, on March 31, 2018, per a second amended operating agreement, Hudson West V’s
ownership interest in Hudson West III was transferred to Coldharbour Capital, which was owned
by CEFC associate Mervyn Yan.648 Owasco PC maintained its 50 percent ownership interest in
Hudson West III under the new agreement.649 Mr. Yan explained that Mr. Dong asked him to use
639 Fourth Bank Memo at 5. 640 Id.; Indictment at 5, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023). 641 Indictment at 5, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023). 642 Id.; see also Sarah Bedford, Nine takeaways from the Hunter Biden indictment, WASH. EXAM’R (Dec. 8, 2023)
(reporting that “Business Associate 3,” as used in the indictment, refers to James Biden).
643 Second Bank Memo at 23-24. 644 Hunter Biden Deposition at 108. 645 WhatsApp Message from Hunter Biden to Gongwen Dong (Aug. 27, 2017) (Ziegler Exhibit 300). 646 Id. 647 Hunter Biden Deposition at 108-109. 648 Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Hudson West III LLC (Mar. 31, 2018)
(Ziegler Exhibit 2C); Ziegler Affidavit 1, at 6.
649 Id.
135
his company to assume co-ownership of Hudson West III after the Chinese government refused
to allow senior CEFC officials, including Mr. Dong, to leave the country.650
Hunter Biden received significant compensation from Hudson West III despite seemingly
providing no value to the business. Under the terms of the second amended agreement, Hunter
Biden’s compensation from Hudson West III was increased to $165,000 a month.651 Despite
Hunter Biden’s extremely generous compensation package, Mr. Yan was unable to explain what
value Hunter Biden added to the business.652 During his transcribed interview with the
Committees, Mr. Yan testified:
Q. So, if he wasn’t opening doors because he was the son of the
former Vice President, what was he bringing to the table?
What was the value proposition?
A. In May 2017?
Q. Yes.
A. In the first meeting, he’s just saying that . . . basically he has
something to do with CEFC. That’s the general framework,
the 15-minute quick meeting, and basically introduced me
and said he’s working with C[E]FC. I think that’s the
substance of the conversation. And then the rest of the stuff
[was] to be determined later on.
Q. Okay.
A. So I’m not surprised . . . I just don’t know politics. I don’t
know.653
Once again, Hunter Biden provided little identifiable work to the joint venture created
with CEFC affiliates, yet he was paid exorbitantly. In an August 2, 2017, email to Mr. Dong
describing the genesis of the Hudson West III deal, Hunter Biden explained that he had initially
agreed to a deal with Director Zang that would pay him $10 million a year for three years “for
consulting fees based on introductions alone . . . .”654 Hunter Biden then wrote that after he met
with Chairman Ye in Miami in February 2017, Chairman Ye changed the deal “to a much more
lasting and lucrative arrangement to create a holding company” which he and Hunter Biden
650 Yan Interview at 71; see also Ziegler Affidavit 1, at 6 (“It was noted by the investigative team that this change [in
Hudson West III’s ownership] occurred after the arrest of Patrick Ho and Gong Wen Dong was believed to have
traveled back to China.”); see generally Chen Aizhu & Kane Wu, CEFC senior staff banned from overseas travel
amid chairman probe: sources, REUTERS (Apr. 20, 2018). 651 Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Hudson West III LLC § 4.6 (Mar. 31,
2018) (Ziegler Exhibit 2C).
652 See Yan Interview at 114, 129. 653 Id. at 114. 654 Email from Hunter Biden to Gongwen Dong (Aug. 2, 2017) (Ziegler Exhibit 1I).
137
myriad foreign subsidiaries, Mr. Dong registered numerous corporate entities in the U.S.663
Although many of the entities the Oversight Committee investigated are registered by Mr. Dong,
they are ultimately “to the benefit of Ye Jianming.”664 Additionally, the Oversight Committee
found the “layering” of CEFC’s numerous entities “deeply concerning” as it reflected a common
method for disguising the source of funds and laundering money.665 The Oversight Committee
detailed one such example of CEFC funneling money to Hunter Biden via numerous layered
business entities in its second bank records memorandum:
- On May 11, 2017, Mr. Dong formed CEFC Infrastructure Investment (US) (CEFC
Infrastructure) as a limited liability company in Delaware.666 Initially, CEFC
Infrastructure was owned entirely by Hudson West V.667 - On May 18, 2017, Hudson West V assigned 100 percent of its interest in CEFC
Infrastructure to a “Chinese state-owned enterprise”668 known as Shanghai Huaxin Group
(Hong Kong) Limited (Shanghai Huaxin).669 Shanghai Huaxin was a subsidiary of CEFC
Shanghai International,670 itself a CEFC subsidiary “which was run by multiple members
of the CCP, according to a 2017 Shanghai stock exchange filing.”671 - On June 30, 2017, Shanghai Huaxin wired $10 million to CEFC Infrastructure’s bank
account.672 - Approximately one month later, on August 4, 2017, CEFC Infrastructure wired $100,000
to Hunter Biden’s firm, Owasco PC.673
As detailed in the Oversight Committee’s fourth bank records memorandum, the Biden
family then used Hudson West III to funnel money from a Chinese company closely affiliated
with CEFC to Joe Biden.674
663 Id. at 22. 664 Id. 665 Id. at 22-23. 666 Id. at 24. 667 Id. 668 STAFF REPORT, S. COMM. ON HOMELAND SEC. & GOVERNMENTAL AFFS. & S. COMM. ON FIN., HUNTER BIDEN,
BURISMA, AND CORRUPTION: THE IMPACT ON U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY AND RELATED CONCERNS, at 78 (2020). 669 Second Bank Memo, at 24. Chinese state media described Shanghai Huaxin as “the offshore arm of Ye’s CEFC
China Energy Group.” Xie Yu, Creditors line up to wind down Chinese oligarch’s offshore unit to pry loose assets
for repaying debt, S. CHINA MORNING POST (July 25, 2018). 670 Xiaosu Zhu & Anna Chan, Legal Update: Hong Kong Court Recognizes Application by Shanghai Liquidators,
OLDHAM, LIE & NIE (June 12, 2020). 671 Philip Lenczycki, CCP-Controlled, State-Owned Firm Behind Chinese Cash Allegedly Funneled To Hunter
Biden, Documents Show, DAILY CALLER (May 12, 2023); see also Julie Zhu & Engen Tham, China’s CEFC was
scrambling for loans as authorities swooped, REUTERS (Mar. 12, 2018) (noting that CEFC Shanghai International is
a subsidiary of CEFC).
672 Second Bank Memo at 25. 673 Id. 674 See Fourth Bank Memo.
138 - On August 8, 2017, Northern International Capital, a Chinese company affiliated with
CEFC, wired $5 million to Hudson West III.675 As of August 8, 2017, the $5 million wire
from Northern International Capital was the only money in Hudson West III’s account.676 - Later the same day, Hunter Biden transferred $400,000 to his company, Owasco PC.677
After receiving the wire from Hudson West III, Owasco PC’s account balance was
$500,832.55.678 At the close of business on August 8, 2017, 99.8 percent of the money in
Owasco PC’s account was received from Chinese companies:
o $100,000 was from Shanghai Huaxin Group, via CEFC Infrastructure, received
on August 4, 2017; and
o $400,000 was from Northern International Capital, via Hudson West III, received
on August 8, 2017.679 - Between August 8 and August 14, 2017, Hunter Biden made over $130,000 in payments
to various entities.680 Owasco PC received no deposits, other than the $400,000 from
Hudson West III, during this period.681 The balance of the Owasco PC account on August
14, 2017, was $366,557.04, funded by the wires from Hudson West III and CEFC
Infrastructure.682 - On August 14, 2017, Owasco PC wired $150,000 to the Lion Hall Group, a company
owned by James and Sara Biden.683 James and Sara Biden used the Lion Hall Group “to
conduct various financial transactions, many of which appear personal in nature.”684
After receiving the wire from Owasco PC, the Lion Hall Group’s account balance was
$151,964.62.685 - Between August 14 and August 25, 2017, “the Lion Hall Group made a series of
purchases and payments that reduced the account balance to $115,822.13.”686 - On August 28, 2017, Sara Biden withdrew $50,000 from the Lion Hall Group account.687
675 Id. at 5. 676 Id. 677 Id. 678 Id. 679 Id. at 5-6. 680 Id. at 6. 681 Id. 682 Id. 683 Id. 684 Id. 685 Id. 686 Id. at 7. 687 Id.
139 - Later the same day, James or Sara Biden deposited $50,000 into their personal bank
account.688 After depositing the $50,000 from the Lion Hall Group, and Sara Biden
withdrawing $1,000, the balance in James and Sara Biden’s personal account on August
28, 2017, was $49,046.88.689 The total in James and Sara Biden’s account as of August
30, 2017 was $48,818.17.690 No deposits were made into this account between August 30
and September 3, 2017.691 - On September 3, 2017, Sara Biden signed a $40,000 check to Joe Biden with “loan
repayment” written in the memo line.692
Based on the amounts in each of the accounts at the time of their respective transactions,
the money used to pay former Vice President Biden must have come from CEFC or its associated
entities.693 James Biden’s attorney attempted to argue during his transcribed that the money paid
to former Vice President Biden did not come from Chinese companies because “money’s
fungible.”694 However, the Oversight Committee found that James Biden did not have sufficient
funds to make the payment to Joe Biden on his own and the funds James Biden received from the
Chinese company were transferred to Joe Biden on the same day.
695 In other words, there was no
denying the fact that the money sent to former Vice President Biden came directly from Chinese
companies closely tied to the CCP.
A money laundering investigator raised concerns about payments from Hudson West III
to Hunter Biden.696 On June 26, 2018, a bank investigator responsible for detecting money
laundering flagged an “unusual” and “erratic” series of payments “with no current business
purpose” from Hudson West III to Owasco PC.697 These payments traced back to the $5 million
wire from Northern International Capital to Hudson West III.698 Although the $5 million wire
was reported as a business loan, the investigator noted that “there was no loan agreement
document submitted.”699 Mr. Dong had also previously acknowledged that there was no loan
agreement between Hudson West III and Northern International Capital.700 The investigator also
raised “concerns” with the fact that Hudson West III, which “does not currently have any
investment projects at this time,” was paying millions of dollars in “fees” to Owasco PC even
688 Id. 689 Id. at 8. 690 Id. 691 Id. 692 Id. at 9. 693 Id. 694 James Biden Interview at 138. 695 See generally Fourth Bank Memo. 696 Email from [unidentified bank investigator] to [unidentified bank executive] (June 26, 2018). 697 Id. 698 Id. 699 Id. 700 See Email from [employee name redacted], Assistant Vice President, Branch Management, [bank name redacted]
to [employee name redacted] (Nov. 1, 2017) (Ziegler Exhibit 2B) (“According to Mr. Dong, they don’t have [a] loan
agreement between Northern International Capital Holdings and their company.”); Ziegler Supplemental Affidavit
1, at 6 (“Gong Wen Dong, known to be the Hudson West III manager at the time, stated that there was no loan
agreement between Hudson West III and Northern International Capital Holdings (HK).”).
141
Hunter Biden’s company Rosemont Seneca Advisors began renting office space at the House of
Sweden,705 an office building in Georgetown that includes the Swedish Embassy among its
tenants.706 On September 21, 2017, shortly after formalizing his joint venture with CEFC, Hunter
Biden wrote to the building’s general manager requesting that “keys [be] made available for new
office mates: Joe Biden[,] Jill Biden[,] Jim Biden [and] Gongwen Dong (Chairman Ye CEFC
emissary)[.]”707 Hunter Biden also asked that the office sign be updated to list “The Biden
Foundation [and] Hudson West (CEFC US),” but noted that “[t]he lease will remain under my
company’s name Rosemont Seneca.”708 Hunter Biden provided contact information for his
“partners,” as he referred to them, including Joe Biden.709 Hunter Biden also listed James Biden,
Mr. Dong, Mr. Yan, and Chairman Ye as his partners.710
James Biden testified to the Committees that CEFC “wasn’t affiliated with the Chinese
Government,” a conclusion he formed based on “the word of my nephew, Hunter,” who “had
assured [James Biden] that [CEFC] was not affiliated with the Chinese Government and it was a
private company.”711 It is difficult to understand how anyone could reach this belief in good
faith.712 Not only were CEFC’s close ties with the Chinese government widely known at the
time,713 but Hunter Biden and his business associates have shown that they were aware of these
ties.714 Mr. Bobulinski testified to the Committees that Hunter Biden and Mr. Gilliar were
705 See Press Release, J Street Companies, J Street Signs Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC to 2,852 SF Lease at
House of Sweden in Georgetown (Feb. 22, 2017); Email from Joan Mayer to Vadym Pozharsky (Feb. 16, 2017)
(listing new address for Rosemont Seneca Advisors at the House of Sweden); see also Andrew Kerr & Chuck Ross,
Hunter Biden Called His Father And Chinese Business Partner ‘Office Mates’ In September 2017 Email, DAILY
CALLER (Dec. 11, 2020) (quoting the House of Sweden’s general manager as confirming that “Rosemont Seneca
LLC rented an office at House of Sweden between February 2017 — February 2018”). 706 Matt Viser et al., Inside Hunter Biden’s multimillion–dollar deals with a Chinese energy company, WASH. POST
(Mar. 30, 2022).
707 Email from Hunter Biden to Cecilia Browning (Sept. 21, 2017, 10:37 AM). 708 Id. 709 Id. 710 Id. To be clear, since some news articles only reported that Hunter Biden referred to Chairman Ye in the email as
his “partner,” Hunter Biden first referred to Chairman Ye as his “partner” before referring to the remainder,
including Joe Biden, as his “partners.” See id. 711 James Biden Interview at 17-18. 712 See Sarah Cook, China’s Global Media Footprint: Democratic Responses to Expanding Authoritarian Influence,
NAT’L ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY, at 5 (2021) (describing CEFC as an “ostensibly private” company); Martin
Hála, A New Invisible Hand: Authoritarian Corrosive Capital and the Repurposing of Democracy, NAT’L
ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY, at 5 (2020) (same); Matt Viser et al., Inside Hunter Biden’s multimillion–dollar
deals with a Chinese energy company, WASH. POST (Mar. 30, 2022) (same). 713 See Mark Stokes & Russell Hsiao, The People’s Liberation Army General Political Department: Political
Warfare with Chinese Characteristics, PROJECT 2049 INST., at 26-29 (Oct. 14, 2013) (describing Chairman Ye’s,
CEFC’s, and the China Energy Fund Committee’s connections to the PLA); J. Michael Cole, Unstoppable: China’s
Secret Plan to Subvert Taiwan, NAT’L INTEREST (Mar. 23, 2015) (“Given what we know about CEFC China Energy
Co and the many [PLA]–related subsidiaries whose operations it finances, it is difficult to imagine that its office in
Taipei is not involved in political warfare.”); J. Michael Cole, Chinese Propaganda: Coming Soon to a Conference
Near You, THE DIPLOMAT (Sept. 23, 2015) (reporting that CEFC “finances and manages” an infamous PLA unit
“which has been spearheading psychological and propaganda operations against Taiwan”).
714 See Tony Bobulinski FD-302 at 4 (memorializing Mr. Bobulinski’s statement that Hunter Biden and James Biden
had expressed their awareness of CEFC’s “close affiliation with the Chinese government”); Text Message from
Hunter Biden to Hallie Biden (Dec. 14, 2018) (describing Dr. Ho as “the chief of intelligence of the [P]eople’s
[R]epublic of China”); Natalie Winters & Raheem Kassam, Hunter Biden Audio Confesses Partnership With China
142
“adamant on the relationship between CEFC, Chairman Ye, and President Xi and the Chinese
Government. . . . [T]hey had multiple message exchanges and discussions that, sort of, Chairman
Ye was President Xi’s guy, that CEFC was sort of a donned [] company by the Chinese
Government.”715 In addition, contemporaneous news accounts reaffirm that it was widely known
that CEFC was not only “closely entwined” with the CCP,716 the People’s Liberation Army
(PLA), and Chinese intelligence agencies,717 but that it was functionally no different than a stateowned enterprise.718 In short, “CEFC was China, and everybody knew it.”719
CEFC, which has been described as a “proxy” for the CCP,720 was particularly infamous
for its close ties to the Chinese government.721 According to CNN, CEFC “aligned itself so
closely with the Chinese government that it was often hard to distinguish between the two.”722
One scholar similarly observed that “CEFC was never a truly ‘private’ firm, but either an
extension of the military or of the leading energy [state-owned enterprises].”723 For instance,
“CEFC [] ha[d] layers of Communist Party committees, which are usually staples of state-owned
enterprises,” and “hired many former military brass and party cadres, underscoring its ties to
Chinese officials.”724 CEFC also received special privileges from the Chinese government
typically reserved for state-owned enterprises, such as “a rare contract to store part of the
‘Spy Chief’… Joe Biden Named as Criminal Case Witness, NAT’L PULSE (publishing audio file in which Hunter
Biden refers to Dr. Ho as the “spy chief of China”); Letter from Sens. Charles Grassley & Ron Johnson to David
Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., at 3 (Oct. 26, 2022) (presenting evidence of Mr. Gilliar’s awareness “that CEFC
was an extension of the communist Chinese government”).
715 Bobulinski Interview at 133. 716 Due to China’s “party-state” system wherein the CCP controls all aspects of government, ties to the CCP are
functionally no different than ties to the Chinese government. See TERESA WRIGHT, PARTY AND STATE IN POST–
MAO CHINA, at 19 (2016) (explaining that the CCP “ultimately controls the [Chinese] state”); Anne–Marie Brady,
Exploit Every Rift: United Front Work Goes Global, in PARTY WATCH ANNUAL REPORT 2018, at 35 (Julia Bowie &
David Gitter eds., 2018) (“[President] Xi has removed any veneer of separation between the [CCP] and the Chinese
state.”).
717 Kimberley A. Strassel, Opinion, The Biden ‘Family Legacy’, WALL ST. J. (Oct. 22, 2020); see also Alexandra
Stevenson et al., A Chinese Tycoon Sought Power and Influence. Washington Responded., N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 12,
2018) (“It’s been clear for some time that [CEFC] . . . had some intelligence ties.”).
718 See, e.g., Anne-Marie Brady, On the Correct Use of Terms, JAMESTOWN FOUND.: CHINA BRIEF (May 9, 2019)
(“CEFC . . . epitomizes the close party-state-military-market nexus of the political system in China, wherein
corporate interests serve the political agenda of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP).”).
719 Andrew C. McCarthy, A Collusion Tale: China and the Bidens, NAT’L REV. (Oct. 31, 2020). 720 Anne-Marie Brady, On the Correct Use of Terms, JAMESTOWN FOUND.: CHINA BRIEF (May 9, 2019). 721 See Hearing on Risks, Rewards, and Results: U.S. Companies in China and Chinese Companies in the United
States: Before the U.S.-China Econ. & Sec. Rev. Comm’n, 116th Cong. 53 (2019) (written testimony of William C.
Kirby, Professor, Harv. Univ.) (describing CEFC as “[a] truly negative example of the intersection of state and
private interests”); Martin Hála, A New Invisible Hand: Authoritarian Corrosive Capital and the Repurposing of
Democracy, NAT’L ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY, at 5 (2020) (“[CEFC] is illustrative of the overlap between
CCP-connected arbitrary capital operations and the party’s political interference machinery.”). 722 Jenni Marsh, The rise and fall of a Belt and Road billionaire, CNN (Dec. 5, 2018). 723 Hearing on Risks, Rewards, and Results: U.S. Companies in China and Chinese Companies in the United States:
Before the U.S.-China Econ. & Sec. Rev. Comm’n, 116th Cong., at 54 (2019) (written testimony of William C.
Kirby, Professor, Harv. Univ.).
724 Ji Tianqin & Han Wei, In Depth: Investigation Casts Shadow on Rosneft’s China Investor CEFC, CAIXIN
GLOBAL (Mar. 1, 2018). In addition to hiring former military and CCP officials, CEFC also “hired a number of
former top officials from state-owned energy companies[.]” Chen Aizhu & Jan Lopatka, China’s CEFC has big
ambitions, but little known about ownership, funding, REUTERS (Jan. 13, 2017).
143
nation’s strategic oil reserve,”725 and “routinely struck deals that made no business sense but
helped the Chinese government advance its geopolitical goals.”726 CEFC’s subsidiaries were
similarly tied to the Chinese government, as CEFC had “layers of Communist Party committees
across its subsidiaries – more than at many private Chinese companies.”727 For instance, China
Energy Fund Committee,728 a think tank run by Hunter Biden’s client Dr. Patrick Ho, maintained
“high-level connections with China’s political warfare apparatus.”729 Notably, the China Energy
Fund Committee served as “an apparent platform of the Liaison Department of the PLA General
Political Department,”730 which “functions as an interlocking directorate that operates at the
nexus of politics, finance, military operations, and intelligence.”731 Scholars identified the China
Energy Fund Committee as a “political warfare platform,”732 which was “involved in influence
operations and propaganda.”733
Furthermore, CEFC’s founder and former chairman Ye Jianming, with whom Hunter
Biden forged a close relationship, “claimed strong connections with China’s top leadership,”734
and had “ties to China’s military intelligence[.]”735 From 2003 to 2005, Chairman Ye served as
deputy secretary general of the China Association for International Friendly Contact,736 “a
political arm of the People’s Liberation Army,”737 which “facilitates influence operations through
[China’s] foreign affairs, state security, united front, propaganda systems, and military
systems.”738 Importantly, Chairman Ye was not just a businessman who incidentally happened to
be connected to the CCP and PLA. Rather, his ties with China’s governing elite were integral to
725 Chen Aizhu & Jan Lopatka, China’s CEFC has big ambitions, but little known about ownership, funding,
REUTERS (Jan. 13, 2017) 726 Helen Raleigh, American Princelings, CITY J. (Oct. 14, 2020). 727 Chen Aizhu & Jan Lopatka, China’s CEFC has big ambitions, but little known about ownership, funding,
REUTERS (Jan. 13, 2017). 728 See J. Michael Cole, Unstoppable: China’s Secret Plan to Subvert Taiwan, NAT’L INTEREST (Mar. 23, 2015)
(describing the China Energy Fund Committee as a subsidiary of CEFC).
729 J. Michael Cole, Chinese Propaganda: Coming Soon to a Conference Near You, THE DIPLOMAT (Sept. 23, 2015). 730 Andrew Chubb & John Garnaut, The enigma of CEFC’s Chairman Ye, S. SEA CONVERSATIONS (June 7, 2013). 731 Mark Stokes & Russell Hsiao, The People’s Liberation Army General Political Department: Political Warfare
with Chinese Characteristics, PROJECT 2049 INST., at 4 (Oct. 14, 2013). 732 Id. at 26. 733 Alexander Bowe, China’s Overseas United Front Work: Background and Implications for the United States,
U.S.-CHINA ECON. & SEC. REV. COMM’N, at 16 (Aug. 24, 2018). 734 Philippe Le Corre, China’s Rise as a Geoeconomic Influencer: Four European Case Studies, CARNEGIE
ENDOWMENT FOR INT’L PEACE (Oct. 15, 2018). 735 James T. Areddy & Stella Yifan Xie, Top Chinese Oilman Falls Out of Favor and a $9 Billion Russian Deal Is at
Risk, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 14, 2018). 736 See CEFC INT’L LTD., THE ROAD TO SUCCESS: ANNUAL REPORT 2012, at 6 (2013) (“From 2003 to 2005, Mr. Ye
Jianming has been working in CAIFC as deputy secretary-general.”); J. Michael Cole, Unstoppable: China’s Secret
Plan to Subvert Taiwan, NAT’L INTEREST (Mar. 23, 2015) (“We know that [Ye Jianming] was deputy secretary
general of the GPD/LD-linked China Association for International Friendly Contacts (CAIFC) from 2003–2005.”). 737 Stephen Stapczynski et al., The Secretive China Energy Giant That Faces Scrutiny, BLOOMBERG (Mar. 12, 2018). 738 Mark Stokes & Russell Hsiao, The People’s Liberation Army General Political Department: Political Warfare
with Chinese Characteristics, PROJECT 2049 INST., at 24 (Oct. 14, 2013); see also U.S.-CHINA ECON. & SEC. REV.
COMM’N, 2011 REPORT TO CONGRESS, at 353 (2011) (“In addition to serving as a front for inviting and meeting with
selected foreigners in China, [CAIFC] has also served as a vehicle for sending active-duty intelligence collectors
abroad under various kinds of cover.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
144
CEFC’s success.739 Chairman Ye was not the only CEFC executive with powerful connections,
as “nearly half of the company’s executives . . . had ties to China’s military or government.”740
The CCP and PLA ties of CEFC’s executives were not a secret, as CEFC proudly advertised “the
military and Communist Party experience of its top executives” on its website.741
The Hudson West III arrangement with CEFC showcased many of the hallmark
characteristics of the Biden family influence racket, including: (1) a lucrative deal with a foreign
company with no reason to do business with the Bidens other than the Biden brand and access to
former Vice President Biden; (2) highly favorable terms for the Bidens’ business; (3) large
payments to Hunter Biden despite his bringing nothing to the table other than his last name and
access to his father; (4) a complicated series of transactions through numerous shell companies
designed to obfuscate the flow of funds to the Biden family; and (5) Joe Biden’s surreptitious
involvement in the deal.
vii. CEFC paid Hunter Biden $1 million allegedly to serve as counsel for a
corrupt CEFC official—Patrick Ho—despite performing no legal work.
Hunter Biden also formed a “lucrative relationship” with Dr. Chi Ping “Patrick” Ho, the
then-head of a U.S.- and Hong Kong-based think tank, China Energy Fund Committee, funded
by CEFC.742 In private text messages, Hunter Biden referred to Dr. Ho as “the chief of
intelligence of the [P]eople’s [R]epublic of China,”743 and the “spy chief of China.”744
On November 18, 2017, the FBI arrested Dr. Ho in New York on federal bribery charges
stemming from a scheme to pay top government officials in Chad and Uganda to secure special
business advantages for CEFC.745 Dr. Ho conducted this criminal activity as part of China’s Belt
739 See Hearing on Risks, Rewards, and Results: U.S. Companies in China and Chinese Companies in the United
States: Before the U.S.-China Econ. & Sec. Rev. Comm’n, 116th Cong. 53 (2019) (written testimony of William C.
Kirby, Professor, Harv. Univ.) (“What seemed to be clear [] is that the success of [CEFC] depended in large part on
the ties Ye [Jianming] had made to military figures, several of whom were on his board of directors, and his ability
to secure government blessing and state bank financing for his international deals.”).
740 Rob Schmitz, FBI Indictment Opens A Rare Window Into How Chinese Firms Operate Overseas, NAT’L PUB.
RADIO: ALL THINGS CONSIDERED (May 4, 2018); see also Alexandra Stevenson & Matthew Goldstein, Chinese Oil
Company Official Talked Arms Deals and Evading Iran Sanctions, U.S. Says, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 4, 2018) (“[CEFC’s]
executives hinted at deep connections within Beijing’s halls of power as well as with China’s powerful military.”).
741 David Barboza et al., China Seeks Influence in Europe, One Business Deal at a Time, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 12,
2018); see also Pete Sweeney, China’s new energy star brandishes license to deal, REUTERS (Nov. 23, 2017)
(reporting that CEFC advertised “Communist ‘party-building’ activity” on its website). 742 Paul Sperry, Feds’ Foreign–Corruption Double Standard: They Protected Bidens Even as They Bore Down on
Trumpworld, REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS (Mar. 15, 2023). 743 Text Message from Hunter Biden to Hallie Biden (Dec. 14, 2018). 744 Tim Hains, Leaked Audio: Hunter Biden Discussing Business Deals With The “Spy Chief Of China”, REAL
CLEAR POLITICS (Oct. 28, 2020). 745 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Patrick Ho, Former Head Of Organization Backed By Chinese Energy
Conglomerate, Convicted Of International Bribery, Money Laundering Offenses (Dec. 5, 2018); Jenni Marsh, ExHong Kong politician faces jail after bribery conviction in US, CNN (Dec. 5, 2018).
145
and Road Initiative,746 in which CEFC played a significant role.747 Ostensibly an infrastructure
development program, the Belt and Road Initiative has “the ultimate goal of advancing Chinese
global dominance,”748 and represents a major threat to America’s national security.749 Shortly
after his arrest, Dr. Ho called James Biden, who “believed [the call] had been meant for Hunter
Biden,” and “passed on his nephew’s contact information.”750
Two months before Dr. Ho’s arrest, on September 18, 2017, Hunter Biden signed an
attorney engagement letter agreeing to serve as Dr. Ho’s attorney.751 Hunter Biden reportedly
agreed to represent Dr. Ho after Chairman Ye expressed “concern that U.S. law-enforcement
agencies were investigating one of his associates, Patrick Ho.”752 Under the terms of the attorney
engagement letter, Hunter Biden agreed to counsel Dr. Ho on “matters related to US law and
advice pertaining to the hiring and legal analysis of any US Law Firm or Lawyer.”753 CEFC paid
Hunter Biden $1 million allegedly for serving as Dr. Ho’s legal counsel.754 On November 2,
2017, CEFC wired the purported retainer payment to a Hudson West III bank account.755 On
March 22, 2018, “at [Hunter Biden’s] direction,” Hudson West III transferred the money to his
Owasco LLC account.756
746 James T. Areddy, Bribery Trial Spotlights China’s ‘Belt and Road’, WALL ST. J. (Nov. 23, 2018) (“Hundreds of
pages of court filings paint a detailed, sometimes negative picture of Belt–and–Road deal making by Dr. Ho and the
Shanghai company, CEFC China Energy Co. Ltd.”).
747 See Josh Christenson, Why Hunter Biden angrily threatened his Chinese business associate, N.Y. POST (last
updated June 26, 2023) (“CEFC was at the forefront of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative, and
Ye Jianming earned the nickname ‘Belt and Road billionaire’ for his success.”); Peter Lucas, Joe Biden needs to
answer questions on Hunter Biden’s Chinese connections, BOS. HERALD (Dec. 12, 2021) (describing CEFC as “the
capitalist arm of President Xi’s Belt and Road initiative”); Jenni Marsh, Disgraced former Hong Kong politician
jailed for 3 years for bribing African leaders at the UN, CNN (Mar. 25, 2019) (“[CEFC] had so tightly aligned itself
with President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road policy that it was often hard to distinguish between the two.”); James T.
Areddy, Bribery Trial Spotlights China’s ‘Belt and Road’, WALL ST. J. (Nov. 23, 2018) (“In some nations, no
Chinese company executed on the goals of Belt and Road more clearly than CEFC and its champion Dr. Ho.”).
748 John R. Bolton, Remarks by National Security Advisor Ambassador John R. Bolton on the Trump
Administration’s New Africa Strategy, The White House (Dec. 13, 2018).
749 See Lt. Col. Daniel Lindley, Assessing China’s Motives: How the Belt and Road Initiative Threatens US
Interests, 5 J. INDO-PAC. AFFS. 72, 72 (2022) (“[S]hould the Belt and Road Initiative achieve its planned vision, it is
on the trajectory to challenge the national interests of the United States and its European and Indo–Pacific allies and
partners.”); JENNIFER HILLMAN & DAVID SACKS, CHINA’S BELT AND ROAD: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES,
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELS., at 2 (2021) (“The Belt and Road Initiative . . . poses a significant challenge to U.S.
economic, political, climate change, security, and global health interests.”); China’s Belt and Road Initiative:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Int’l Trade, Customs, & Glob. Competitiveness of the S. Comm. on Fin., 116th
Cong., at 2 (2019) (statement of Chairman John Cornyn) (“But most concerning are the direct national security
threats posed by Belt and Road.”); Interview by Rich Lowry with Michael R. Pompeo, Sec’y of State, U.S. Dep’t of
State (Mar. 28, 2019) (stating that the U.S. is “working diligently to make sure everyone in the world understands
th[e] threat” posed by China’s Belt and Road Initiative).
750 Alexandra Stevenson et al., A Chinese Tycoon Sought Power and Influence. Washington Responded, N.Y. TIMES
(Dec. 12, 2018).
751 See Attorney Engagement Letter (Ziegler Exhibit 608B). 752 Adam Entous, Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?, NEW YORKER (July 1, 2019). 753 Attorney Engagement Letter (Ziegler Exhibit 608B). 754 See Attorney Engagement Letter (Sept. 2017) (Ziegler Exhibit 608B). 755 Indictment at 29, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023). 756 Id.
146
The Committees have identified no substantive legal services provided by Hunter Biden
to Dr. Ho in exchange for the $1 million retainer payment. Hunter Biden reportedly only
attended a single meeting as part of his representation of Dr. Ho and connected Dr. Ho with
another law firm to handle all of the legal work involved in the matter.757 According to Dr. Ho,
Hunter Biden “pocketed the $1 million but did no legal work for him, other than call another
attorney . . . and turn up half an hour late for a meeting . . . the morning after Ho’s arrest.”758 In
addition, IRS Special Agent Ziegler testified that “the $1 million payment was not for legal
fees,”759 and that its “ultimate purpose was still under investigation by DOJ.”760 SA Ziegler also
noted that “Hunter Biden is not included as an attorney on record for the Patrick Ho case in the
Southern District of New York,” where Dr. Ho was tried.761
Information available to the Committees indicates that prosecutors sought to keep the
Biden name out of Dr. Ho’s trial. Specifically, prosecutors in Dr. Ho’s case appear to have
redacted Hunter Biden’s name from evidence used at trial.762 During Dr. Ho’s trial, former
president of the United Nations General Assembly Vuk Jeremic testified that following his term
as president, he worked as a consultant for CEFC, which involved “opening doors” for CEFC by
“introducing company executives to the business or political leadership of various countries.”763
As part of this work, in December 2015, Mr. Jeremic “attempted to introduce Chairman Ye and
CEFC to Hunter Biden and his associates.”764 During the trial, a prosecutor requested that the
judge redact the name of “an individual that Mr. Jeremic was willing to bring to a dinner with the
chairman Mr. Ye” from an email between Dr. Ho and Mr. Jeremic that the Justice Department
intended to introduce into evidence.765 The prosecutor argued that not redacting the name of that
individual “could introduce a political dimension to this case that [prosecutors] don’t think is
worth dealing with.”766 The judge sustained the redaction.767 Other communications and
documents obtained by the Committees strongly suggest that the individual in question is Hunter
Biden.768 On February 20, 2024, the Judiciary and Oversight Committees sent a letter to
757 See Paul Sperry, Feds’ Foreign–Corruption Double Standard: They Protected Bidens Even as They Bore Down
on Trumpworld, REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS (Mar. 15, 2023); Miranda Devine, Opinion, Hunter Biden’s Chinese
legal ‘client’ threatens to sue unless first son pays back $1 million, N.Y. POST (Mar. 3, 2024). 758 Miranda Devine, Opinion, Hunter Biden’s Chinese legal ‘client’ threatens to sue unless first son pays back $1
million, N.Y. POST (Mar. 3, 2024). 759 Hearing With the IRS Whistleblowers: Hunter Biden Investigation Obstruction in Their Own Words: Before the
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, 118th Cong., at 10 (2023) (written testimony of Joseph Ziegler, Special Agent,
Internal Revenue Serv.); see also Ziegler Supplemental Affidavit 6, at 6 (stating that the purpose of the retainer
payment “was misrepresented by the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office”).
760 Ziegler Supplemental Affidavit 6, at 6. 761 Id. at 5. 762 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Vuk Jeremic (Feb. 21,
2023).
763 Transcript of Record at 90, 95, United States v. Ho, No. 1:17-cr-779-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2018). 764 See letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Vuk Jeremic (Feb.
21, 2023).
765 Transcript of Record at 125, United States v. Ho, No. 1:17-cr-779-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2018). 766 Id. 767 Id. at 132. 768 See Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Vuk Jeremic (Feb.
21, 2023); see also Paul Sperry, The Biden Justice Department Stands Accused of Hiding This Evidence of Biden–
China Corruption, REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS (Mar. 15, 2023) (“Although the name wasn’t made public during
147
Attorney General Garland requesting an unredacted copy of Mr. Jeremic’s email and the contents
of Dr. Ho’s seized iPad, but the Committees have not received a response.769
On December 5, 2018, a federal court convicted Dr. Ho of bribery, money laundering,
and conspiracy,770 and subsequently sentenced him to three years in prison.771 During the trial,
federal prosecutors had also accused Dr. Ho of endeavoring to help Iran evade global sanctions
and helping CEFC pursue arms deals with several countries in Africa, though he was not charged
for these actions.772 Following his release from prison on June 8, 2020, Dr. Ho was deported
back to Hong Kong.773
As acknowledged by federal law enforcement officials, the $1 million purported retainer
payment to Hunter Biden likely was not for legal services.774 Due to the Biden-Garland Justice
Department’s unprecedented and baseless obstruction of the Committees’ investigative efforts,775
it is not known whether the Department concluded its investigation of the “ultimate purpose” of
CEFC’s $1 million payment to Hunter Biden.
III. The Biden family received other financial benefits, including forgiven and interestfree loans, that they likely would not have received but for Joe Biden’s official
position.
Evidence obtained during the Committees’ impeachment inquiry also establishes that the
Biden family benefitted from Joe Biden’s official position by receiving other financial benefits
that they otherwise likely would not have received. The Biden family often received payments in
the form of purported loans, skirting campaign finance laws and peddling access to Vice
President Biden for decades. The loans are often forgiven, void of underlying documentation,
interest-free, and financially complex. Some have ended in litigation. Some are sourced from
foreign entities. Some came from political donors or friends. All appear to have been made
the trial, in an email to a mutual business associate found on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, Ho’s adviser had
invited ‘Hunter’ to attend the dinner.”).
769 Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, & Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight & Accountability, to Merrick Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Feb. 20, 2024).
770 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Patrick Ho, Former Head Of Organization Backed By Chinese Energy
Conglomerate, Convicted Of International Bribery, Money Laundering Offenses (Dec. 5, 2018).
771 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Patrick Ho, Former Head Of Organization Backed By Chinese Energy
Conglomerate, Sentenced To 3 Years In Prison For International Bribery And Money Laundering Offenses (Mar.
25, 2019).
772 Alexandra Stevenson & Matthew Goldstein, Chinese Oil Company Official Talked Arms Deals and Evading Iran
Sanctions, U.S. Says, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 4, 2018); James T. Areddy, Bribery Trial Spotlights China’s ‘Belt and
Road’, WALL ST. J, (Nov. 23, 2018). 773 Larry Neumeister, Hong Kong businessman ends prison sentence in bribery scheme, ASSOCIATED PRESS (June 9,
2020).
774 See Hearing With the IRS Whistleblowers: Hunter Biden Investigation Obstruction in Their Own Words: Before
the H. Comm. on Ways & Means, 118th Cong., at 10 (2023) (written testimony of Joseph Ziegler, Special Agent,
Internal Revenue Serv.) (“[T]he $1 million payment was not for legal fees and was misrepresented in the failed plea
agreement.”); Ziegler Supplemental Affidavit 6, at 6 (“The evidence further indicates that this $1 million payment
was not for legal fees and was misrepresented by the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office in the statement of facts, and
that its ultimate purpose was still under investigation by DOJ.”).
775 See, e.g., H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY ET AL., 118TH CONG., THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S DEVIATIONS FROM
STANDARD PROCESSES IN ITS INVESTIGATION OF HUNTER BIDEN, at 71–76 (2023).
148
because of the Biden “brand,” and the political power of Joe Biden. None have a legitimate
purpose but to benefit the Biden family, including Joe Biden, financially and politically by
trading on the “brand.”
A. James Biden received large cash loans, many of which remain unpaid, from
numerous individuals who previously made political contributions to Joe Biden,
as well as a bankrupt healthcare company.
Various individuals and companies—foreign and domestic—purportedly chose to go into
business with Joe Biden’s brother, James, who had numerous failed business pursuits and owed
multiple people hundreds of thousands of dollars. Evidence and witness testimony uncovered by
the Committees show how James Biden accepted “loans” from a bankrupt company and other
individuals by leveraging the power of the Biden name.
i. James Biden used inappropriately transferred funds from healthcare
company Americore to pay back a purported loan from his brother, Joe
Biden.
At the end of the Obama-Biden Administration, the Biden family, including Vice
President Biden, began to make career plans that would continue to benefit the Biden brand. In
early January 2017, Vice President Biden announced his plan to launch a nonprofit, the Biden
Cancer Initiative, that would “begin a national conversation and get Congress and advocacy
groups in to make sure [cancer] treatments are accessible for everyone.”776 Mere months after
this announcement, James Biden also sought to join the healthcare industry through his own
business venture with Americore.777
Americore was a healthcare company created to acquire distressed hospitals and
revitalize their failing businesses.
778 In summer 2017, James Biden pursued business
opportunities with Americore.779 According to subsequent reporting, “[a]lthough he wasn’t a
public health consultant or a medical expert, Jim Biden was the brother of Joe Biden, who had
recently finished his term as vice president. The company’s chief executive believed Jim Biden
would help provide the enterprise with ‘serious horsepower.’”780 An investigation from Politico
revealed that in addition to James Biden, several other members of the Biden family or close
associates worked for Americore or took part in meetings with its representatives leading up to
Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.781 Former Americore executives and executives from
776 Laurie McGinley, Biden to tackle broad range of cancer issues, including drug prices, after leaving White
House, WASH. POST (Jan. 4, 2017). 777 Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO (Feb.
18, 2024).
778 Fox Interview at 13, 64. 779 James Biden Interview at 215-16. 780 Joshua Goodman, et al., Jim Biden’s last name has helped open doors. It also has made him a target of House
Republicans, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Nov. 11, 2023). 781 See Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO
(Feb. 18, 2024) (“[A]t least three of Joe Biden’s relatives did work with Americore. They include Jim Biden’s wife,
Sara, and his son, Jamie. The president’s son, Hunter Biden also met with its CEO, and his personal doctor – current
White House physician Kevin O’Connor – joined a meeting with Jim Biden and the president of a hospital being
149
another healthcare firm have alleged that James Biden would invoke his brother’s name during
pitches to investors,782 even mentioning once on a call that he was “sitting in a car next to his
brother Joe.”783
According to reports, multiple former Americore executives stated that “[President]
Biden was central to Jim Biden’s ambitions for the company.”784 This was especially clear to one
former executive who James Biden told that if Americore was successful in revitalizing rural
health care, that “[it] would help his brother get elected if [Americore] were to take off and
go.”785
President Biden has claimed that he never discussed Americore with his brother James.786
Nonetheless, Joe Biden met Americore’s CEO Grant White at a nonprofit fundraiser at the
Wilmington Country Club during James Biden’s tenure with the company in September 2017.787
Additionally, former Americore executives reported how James Biden spoke of plans to give his
brother equity in the company and to put him on the board.788 However, during his transcribed
interview with the Committees, James Biden denied having such plans, alleging that such an
assertion was “ridiculous on its face.”789
One of James Biden’s focuses for Americore financing came from investors in the Middle
East—primarily officials from Qatar.790 Recent public reporting uncovered that James Biden
wrote a draft letter to an official at Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund that read in part, “[m]y family
could provide a wealth of introductions and business opportunities at the highest levels that I
believe would be worthy of the interest of His Excellency,” and, “[o]n behalf of the Biden family,
I welcome your interest here.”791 While it is unclear if the letter was ever sent out in its final
draft, it is clear that James Biden intended to lean into the Biden brand and his brother’s
international political connections to advance his personal financial interests.
acquired by Americore…”); Ben Schreckinger, DOJ looked at transactions linked to Jim Biden as part of criminal
investigation, POLITICO (Mar. 26, 2024). 782 Ben Schreckinger, Justice Department’s interest in Hunter Biden covered more than taxes, POLITICO (Dec. 9,
2020); Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother touted Biden Cancer Initiative ties in investment pitch, POLITICO (Sept.
26, 2019).
783 Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO (Feb.
18, 2024).
784 Ben Schreckinger, James Biden’s health care ventures face a growing legal morass, POLITICO (Mar. 9, 2020);
Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO (Feb.
18, 2024).
785 Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO (Feb.
18, 2024).
786 Ben Schreckinger, James Biden’s health care ventures face a growing legal morass, POLITICO (Mar. 9, 2020);
Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO (Feb.
18, 2024).
787 Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO (Feb.
18, 2024).
788 Id. 789 James Biden Interview at 43-44. 790 Ben Schreckinger, Fund manager indicates Jim Biden was in business with Qatari officials, POLITICO (Apr. 28,
2024).
791 Id.
150
While working to secure Americore financing from Qatar, James Biden helped the
company procure “an ill-advised bridge loan” from a hedge fund that “ended up unraveling” and
had a negative effect on Americore’s “financial landscape.”792 This bridge loan came from
Michael Lewitt, a hedge fund manager and former business associate of James Biden.793 The
financing came from Mr. Lewitt’s Third Friday Total Return Fund, which was managed by Mr.
Lewitt’s investment advisory firm, Third Friday Management, LLC.794 Third Friday was “the
largest crediting firm for Americore while it was in operation.”795
Carol Fox, who was appointed as trustee for Americore’s bankruptcy proceedings,
attempted to determine James Biden’s role at Americore and what services he provided.796 Other
than obtaining James Biden’s business card listing his title as “Principal,” Ms. Fox was not able
to determine what role James Biden played at Americore or identify any services he provided.797
Ms. Fox testified:
Q. What was James Biden’s role at Americore?
A. I don’t think we know.
Q. When you say you don’t know, can you expand on that a
little bit?
A. Well, we have what his business card says he does, but in as
far as what he actually did while he was in the company, that
preceded my involvement with the company. And so I think
we have a business card that says what his . . . stated role
was, but what he actually did, I don’t know.
Q. As part of being a trustee and filing this lawsuit, did you
investigate or take any steps to try and find out what he did
at the company?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. So I do know that, through Mr. Biden’s consulting company,
Lion Hall, he purportedly provided consulting services to the
792 In re Americore Holdings, LLC, et al., Carol Fox, Chapter 11 Trustee v. James Biden, No. 19-61608 at ¶¶ 11–12
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 7, 2022); Fox Interview at 68; see Ben Schreckinger, Fund manager indicates Jim Biden was
in business with Qatari officials, POLITICO (Apr. 28, 2024). 793 Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO (Feb.
18, 2024).
794 Fox Interview at 63-64. 795 Nicholas Vercilla, Settlement approved with former Americore creditor, NEW CASTLE NEWS (Dec. 16, 2023). 796 Fox Interview at 17-19. 797 Id. at 16-19.
151
debtor, or to the debtors. But what those services were . . . I
can’t say specifically.
Q. Is it fair to say that you weren’t able to identify any services
that he provided to Americore?
A. Well, that’s why I sued him . . . I did not think that he
provided services to the debtors, no.798
While serving as a “principal” at Americore, James Biden received payments for $400,000 and
$200,000, characterized as loans, from the company wired directly to his bank account.799
Regarding the $400,000 loan provided to James Biden, Ms. Fox testified:
Q. And now I’d like to turn your attention to paragraph 11. And
if you could please read paragraph 11 into the record.
A. Okay. “On January 12, 2018, Americore Health wire
transferred the sum of $400,000.00 to Defendant’s bank
account at PNC Bank, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The documentation evidencing the foregoing wire transfer
prepared by Americore Health references the transfer as a
‘LOAN.’”
Q. How did Americore or you find that there was this $400,000
purported loan to James Biden on January 12th of 2018?
A. From its bank records.
Q. And after you were able to identify that money from the bank
records, what were the next steps that you took to try and
follow up to see the terms of the loan or whether it was a
legitimate loan and to follow the money?
A. So we would have looked at the documents produced in this
case to see if there was any evidence of a promissory note. I
mean, that would be one thing that we would look for.
Q. And were there any documents or promissory notes or
anything documenting the loan itself?
A. No. There was one thing that said “loan,” and that’s why this
was called a loan, is because of the exhibits that were filed
with this complaint. . . .
798 Id. at 18-19. 799 In re Americore Holdings, LLC, et al., Carol Fox, Chapter 11 Trustee v. James Biden, No. 19-61608 at ¶¶ 11–12
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 7, 2022).
152
Q. Is there any documentation showing what the interest of this
purported loan was?
A. Right, so, no, because I told you, I couldn’t find the
promissory note.
Q. Do you know if there was any documentation showing what
the loan was potentially collateralized by?
A. I didn’t find any documentation supporting that.
Q. Did you find any documentation where James Biden
submitted the reason why he was trying to obtain this loan
from Americore?
A. No.
Q. And just to be clear, there was no documentation that even
showed any terms of the loan at all?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Would you agree with me that, based upon your expertise in
looking at loans, that there usually is, if it’s a legitimate loan,
a promissory note or something memorializing the terms of
the loan to some degree?
A. I would agree with you.800
In addition to this unexplainable “loan,” Ms. Fox recalled a similar loan that Americore
provided to James Biden for $200,000 nearly two months later.801 Ms. Fox stated:
Q. [H]ow did Americore come to learn that, in addition to the
$400,000 loan on January 12, 2018, that there was a
$200,000 purported loan on March 1st of 2018?
A. The same way. A review of the bank records.
Q. Was there any documentation, promissory note or any of the
other documents that I discussed earlier, that supported this
particular loan?
800 Id. at 22-24. 801 Id. at 26.
153
A. No . . . .
Q. And so, again, there was nothing – there was no interest laid
out or nothing that was collateralized that anyone’s aware of
that was documented or any contract or anything like that
related to this particular loan?
A. Right. So there was no document referencing a stated interest
rate or repayment terms or collateralization.802
In June 2018, Americore transferred $10,000 to James Biden, which was purportedly for
consulting and marketing.803 But, like with the loans, Ms. Fox was unable to identify any
supporting documentation.804 Ms. Fox stated:
Q. And so, just to be clear, when it came to consulting and
marketing, there w[ere] bank records that supported that, but
when it came to the loan, there was no promissory note or no
other records that showed that there was the loan.
A. There’s the same amount of documentation for the
consulting and marketing agreement as there is for the loans
– none.
Q. So there was no – you couldn’t find any documentation to
support the consulting and marketing services either?
A. There wasn’t a consulting agreement that I came across in
this litigation.805
In other words, although bank records identify two bank transfers from Americore to
James Biden as “loans” and one transfer for consulting and marketing, Ms. Fox was unable to
find any information corroborating that the transfers were, in fact, made for those reasons.806
Additionally, James Biden indicated during his transcribed interview that he viewed these
“loans” as payments to him for his services—despite the bank records characterizing them as
loans—and that he had no intention of paying the money back.807
Ultimately, Ms. Fox sued James Biden to recover the money he received from Americore
for which the company did not receive a reasonably equivalent value in work or services.808 Ms.
802 Id. 803 Id. at 27-28. 804 Id. 805 Id. at 28. 806 Id. at 22-29. 807 James Biden Interview at 216-17. 808 In re Americore Holdings, LLC, et al., Carol Fox, Chapter 11 Trustee v. James Biden, No. 19-61608 (Bankr.
E.D. Ky. July 7, 2022).
154
Fox’s bankruptcy suit demanded that James Biden repay Americore the $600,000, which the
company referenced as a “loan” in it bank records.809 Yet, during his transcribed interview with
the Committees, James Biden claimed that the $600,000 he received from Americore should
have been classified as repayment for his work for the company, including his bringing in the
$20 million from Mr. Lewitt.810 However, James Biden testified that he did not receive a salary
from Americore, and he could not provide a clear answer to what legitimate services he rendered
to the company other than a failed joint venture proposal.811 Specifically, James Biden stated:
Q. [W]hat services did you render to Americore if you weren’t
getting a salary?
A. . . . So my idea was to get drug and rehab and put it in one
end of the hospital and put post-traumatic stress disorder in
the other to cut down the timeline, but we would have to
follow all the protocols that the VA had. And I saw that as a
huge market because the VA or these rural hospitals was
heavily populated by former veterans with this disease, and
they weren’t getting any help or treatment. So what I was
going to do and I proposed that we do is we file some sort of
a joint venture with them and that we operate post-traumatic
stress disorder clinics within the hospitals along on the other
side of the hospital with drug- and alcohol-related problems,
okay.
812
In filings for the bankruptcy suit, Ms. Fox alleged that James Biden made “representations that
his last name, ‘Biden,’ could ‘open doors’ and that he could obtain a large investment from the
Middle East based on his political connections.”813 However, those representations never
materialized.814
On the same day that James Biden received the $200,000 wire transfer from Americore
into his bank account, James Biden then paid his brother Joe Biden $200,000 for a “loan
repayment.”815 Ms. Fox confirmed the timing of these wire transfers during her transcribed
809 In re Americore Holdings, LLC, et al., Carol Fox, Chapter 11 Trustee v. James Biden, No. 19-61608 at ¶¶ 11-12,
29 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 7, 2022).
810 James Biden Interview at 38-40, 178, 189-91. 811 Id. at 38-40. 812 Id. 813 In re Americore Holdings, LLC, et al., Carol Fox, Chapter 11 Trustee v. James Biden, No. 19-61608 at ¶ 15
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 7, 2022).
814 Ben Schreckinger, Biden’s brother used his name to promote a hospital chain. Then it collapsed., POLITICO (Feb.
18, 2024).
815 Press Release, Comer Releases Evidence of Direct Payment to Joe Biden, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability (Oct. 20, 2023).
155
interview with the Committees, acknowledging that the amount of money James Biden received
from Americore matched the amount he sent to his brother that same day.816 Ms. Fox testified:
Q. This is a check that the Oversight Committee was able to
obtain pursuant to a subpoena, and it shows a check in the
amount of $200,000 paid to Joseph R. Biden, Jr., from Sarah
and James Biden, Sr. And in the “For” column, it says, “loan
repayment.” And it appears to be signed by an individual.
What is the date of that check?
A. March 1, 2018.
Q. And now if you could flip back to exhibit 1, paragraph 12.
A. Okay.
Q. What was the date of the purported loan from Americore
Health to James Biden?
A. March 1, 2018.
Q. And for how much?
A. $200,000.
Q. And then if you’d flip back to exhibit 2, and I just read it, but
what was the amount for for the check that went to Joe
Biden?
A. $200,000.
Q. In your review of the materials related to James Biden and
Americore, did you see anything where James Biden
informed Americore that he was going to take the $200,000
that was purportedly a loan and give it to Joe Biden?
A. I did not.
Q. Have you seen this check before?
A. I saw it today for the very first time.
Q. So, looking at the check—and, as we just said, it’s for
$200,000, and it’s on the same day that James Biden
received the same exact loan amount from Americore – this
816 Fox Interview at 30-31.
157
A. It came from money that I earned at Americore.
Q. And you did end up paying back some of the money . . . to
Americore, correct?
A. Yes. . . . $350,000. . . .818
The $350,000 payment was made as part of an agreement to settle Americore’s suit against
James Biden.819
Relatedly, over the course of 2019, Mr. Lewitt’s fund also provided $225,000 in loans to
James Biden’s company, Lion Hall Group.820 According to James Biden, Mr. Lewitt forgave the
debt.821 During his transcribed interview, James Biden testified:
Q. We saw two deposits from Third Friday, total, into your
company account . . . . for $50,000 on July 9th . . . . it appears,
of 2019, and then on August 19th of 2019. And then, in
addition, we also identified two . . . . wires that were sent in
April and May of 2019 for $50,000 each—
A. Right.
Q. —making it a total of $225,000 from Third Friday to Lion
Hall.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The question is, why were you receiving money from Third
Friday to Lion Hall?
A. It was a loan. It was a loan. . . .
Q. And when’s the repayment on that loan?
A. They were forgiven.
818 James Biden Interview at 193-94. 819 Id. 820 Ben Schreckinger, DOJ looked at transactions linked to Jim Biden as part of criminal investigation, POLITICO
(Mar. 26, 2024).
821 James Biden Interview at 188-89.
158
Q. Say that again?
A. They were forgiven by Michael Lewitt.822
According to reporting, Mr. Lewitt disputes that he forgave James Biden’s loans.823 The
Oversight Committee subpoenaed Mr. Lewitt seeking his testimony, but he told the Committees
he would invoke his constitutional fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and decline
to answer the Committees’ questions.
824
ii. John Hynansky, a long-time donor and friend to President Biden, loaned
James Biden over $500,000 after receiving an international development
loan during the Obama-Biden Administration.
Another individual with connections to President Biden, who loaned James Biden large
sums of money, is a car dealer from Delaware, John Hynansky. Since 1987, Mr. Hynansky and
his family have donated over $100,000 to Joe Biden’s campaigns—more than they have donated
to any other candidate.825 During the Obama-Biden Administration, Mr. Hynansky received help
from the federal government when he was looking to expand his business in Ukraine.826 In late
2009, a few months after Vice President Biden publicly mentioned meeting with “my very good
friend, John Hynansky,”827 the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) awarded Mr.
Hynansky a $2.5 million loan to build a new headquarters and distribution center in Kyiv for his
car dealership.828 In July 2012, OPIC awarded Mr. Hynansky another $20 million taxpayerfinanced loan so he could grow his import car dealership in Ukraine.829 Although OPIC—which
has since been replaced by another agency—was “intended to assist U.S. firms’ foreign
operations,”830 the terms of its loan to Mr. Hynansky provided that “all cars sold at his
dealerships would be imported from Europe, not the United States, which meant that Americanbased automakers would not benefit from the taxpayer-backed venture.”831
822 Id. at 187-88. 823 Ben Schreckinger, DOJ looked at transactions linked to Jim Biden as part of criminal investigation, POLITICO
(Mar. 26, 2024).
824 Subpoena from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, & Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Michael Lewitt, (May. 16, 2024); Letter from Michael Lewitt to Rep.
James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, & Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on
the Judiciary (May. 23, 2024). 825 Ben Schreckinger, Donor with deep Ukraine ties lent $500,000 to Biden’s brother, POLITICO (Aug. 15, 2019); see
also John Hynansky, Contribution to Biden For President, FEC-C00703975 (FEC 2020),
https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&contributor_name=hynansky&min_date=01%2F01%2F19
72&max_date=12%2F31%2F2020.
826 PETER SCHWEIZER, PROFILES IN CORRUPTION, at 74-75 (2021). 827 Remarks by Vice President Biden in Ukraine, The White House (July 22, 2009). 828 Paul Sperry, All About Ukraine Auto Magnate and Joe Biden Megadonor John Hynansky, REAL CLEAR
INVESTIGATIONS (Apr. 26, 2023). 829 PETER SCHWEIZER, PROFILES IN CORRUPTION, at 75 (2021). 830 SHAYERAH ILIAS AKHTAR, CONG. RSCH. SERV., 98-567, THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION:
BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES, at 11 (2013) 831 Paul Sperry, All About Ukraine Auto Magnate and Joe Biden Megadonor John Hynansky, REAL CLEAR
INVESTIGATIONS (Apr. 26, 2023).
159
According to bank records subpoenaed by the Judiciary and Oversight Committees, one
of Mr. Hynansky’s businesses, Winner Imports Inc., wired $75,000 on June 3, 2016 to James and
Sara Biden’s entity, the Lion Hall Group, with the memo line, “LOAN FOR PROMISSORY
NOTE.”832 In May 2015, Mr. Hynansky also provided a $500,000 loan to James and Sara Biden
through another entity ambiguously titled, “1018 PL LLC,” that had been created two months
earlier.833 According to reporting in Politico, James Biden needed money after purchasing a $2.5
million vacation home in Florida dubbed “the Biden Bungalow” and reportedly upgrading it with
expensive renovations.834 James Biden missed over $600,000 in federal tax payments in 2013
and 2014 and a contractor filed a $75,000 lien on the property in December 2014 after James
Biden failed to pay for services rendered.835 Mr. Hynansky’s loan—which James Biden secured
with a second mortgage on the property—was risky because Florida provides a first mortgage
“preferential treatment in the event of a foreclosure[.]”836 In February 2018, Mr. Hynansky filed
a document discharging the mortgage in which he “acknowledg[ed] only ‘payment,’ rather than
full payment and satisfaction,” meaning that James Biden likely had not paid back the loan in
full.837
During his transcribed interview with the Committees, James Biden testified that he
accepted substantial loans from Mr. Hynansky and admitted he still owes him $97,000.838 James
Biden testified:
Q. . . . It’s been publicly reported that Mr. Hynansky has given
you approximately $900,000 in loans. Does that sound like
a fair and accurate estimate?
A. Yes.
Atty. No. That seems quite high, actually.
Q. But he just said yes.
Atty. I know, but I—
A. No, I mean, I don’t know.
832 Bank record on file with Committees; CorporationWiki, Winner Imports Inc. (last accessed on Nov. 8, 2023). 833 Ben Schreckinger, Donor with deep Ukraine ties lent $500,000 to Biden’s brother, POLITICO (Aug. 15, 2019); see
also Official Records, COLLIER CNTY. CLERK OF THE CIR. CT. & COMPTROLLER,
https://cor.collierclerk.com/coraccess/search/document (search party name “James Biden” or instrument number
“5128966”) (last visited May 15, 2024).
834 Ben Schreckinger, Donor with deep Ukraine ties lent $500,000 to Biden’s brother, POLITICO (Aug. 15, 2019). 835 Id. 836 Id. 837 Ben Schreckinger, Donor with deep Ukraine ties lent $500,000 to Biden’s brother, POLITICO (Aug. 15, 2019); see
also Official Records, COLLIER CNTY. CLERK OF THE CIR. CT. & COMPTROLLER,
https://cor.collierclerk.com/coraccess/search/document (search party name “James Biden” or instrument number
“5515357”) (last visited May 15, 2024).
838 James Biden Interview at 172-75.
160
Atty. But, no, because those loans are documented, and . . . that
does not seem correct, from what we know.
A. I know I have an outstanding balance of—I think it’s
$97,000 . . . that I still owe him.
Q. Okay. So, if $900,000 isn’t an accurate representation, what
would be a closer to accurate representation?
Atty. We believe it’s half of that, but Mr. Hynansky might be
right.839
According to his testimony, James Biden claimed Mr. Hynansky has given him $900,000 in
loans; however, his attorney backtracked, stating that the amount is “half of that.”840 His
attorney’s reasoning for believing the loans are lower is because “those loans are
documented.”841 The conflicting statements from James Biden and his lawyer suggest that Mr.
Hynansky may have loaned approximately $900,000 in total to James Biden, only half of which
is documented.
Mr. Hynansky not only formed a close relationship with James Biden, but also with Joe
Biden. During a speech in Ukraine in 2009, Vice President Biden called Mr. Hynansky “my very
good friend.”842 In his testimony, James Biden confirmed that Joe Biden and Mr. Hynansky had a
close relationship. In fact, James Biden explained that Mr. Hynansky was also a “financial
supporter” of Joe Biden’s campaigns.843 James Biden testified:
Q. And, in 2009, while your brother was Vice President, he
made a speech in Ukraine and called John Hynansky a
“good friend” in his speech. Is that an accurate
representation?
A. Yeah. I mean . . . a good friend, a good acquaintance, a
supporter. You know, he wrote a check for . . . one of his
campaigns for . . . the $2,500 or $2,300, whatever it was.
He may have, you know—
Q. So he was a supporter of your brother as well?
A. He was a supporter of my brother, yes.
Q. He was a financial supporter of his campaigns.
839 Id. at 172, 174-75. 840 Id. at 174-75. 841 Id. at 175. 842 Remarks by Vice President Biden in Ukraine, The White House (July 22, 2009). 843 James Biden Interview at 174.
161
A. Yes. Correct. Yes.844
Mr. Hynansky appears to have benefited from this relationship as well. According to public
reporting, the Biden Administration helped Mr. Hynansky’s business empire prepare for Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine by “placing calls to his top executive in [Kyiv] 13 days in advance of
Russian tanks crossing the border.”845 To date, Mr. Hynansky has declined the Committees’
request to sit for a transcribed interview regarding the money he loaned to Biden family
members.
846
iii. Long-time Biden family friend Joseph Langston paid over $200,000 to
James and Sara Biden, claiming he chose not to recoup the money to
maintain his friendship with the Biden family.
James Biden also appears to have received significant loans from long-time Biden family
friend Joseph Langston. During his interview with the Oversight and Judiciary Committees on
February 1, 2024, Mr. Langston testified that he has been friends with the Biden family,
including President Biden, since the late 1990s.847 Mr. Langston testified that he fundraised and
attended multiple campaign events for then-Senator Biden and even took him to a college
football game.848 Mr. Langston testified:
Q. Did you ever host events, any events for Mr. Biden?
A. Yes, I did host a dinner up at Pickwick. It wasn’t a fundraiser.
He had gone to a fundraiser in Mississippi, and I have a home
up at the—Pickwick is a lake near here. It’s on the Tennessee
river, and they have a historical restaurant there. So I invited
the Bidens. It was Jim, Joe, and I believe it was Beau came
up, and they went to dinner with a lot of friends of mine. But
we didn’t raise money.
Q. And when was this?
A. I’d say this was early 2000s, something like that. Maybe late
’90s.
Q. So, at some point, Mr. Patterson introduces you to the
Bidens. You began getting involved with fundraising,
campaigning for Mr. Biden. But it sounds like, at some point,
you kind of built a relationship of your own with the Bidens.
844 Id. 845 Paul Sperry, All About Ukraine Auto Magnate and Joe Biden Megadonor John Hynansky, REAL CLEAR
INVESTIGATIONS (Apr. 26, 2023). 846 See Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on Judiciary and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to John Hynansky (Nov. 9, 2023).
847 Transcribed Interview of Joey Langston, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on the Judiciary
at 20-21(Feb. 1, 2024) [hereinafter “Langston Interview”]. 848 Langston Interview at 23-26.
162
When did that transform to when you could just pick up the
phone and call the Bidens and invite them down to dinner
and they would come?
A. Well, they would come if they were available. . . . I can
assure you they didn’t cancel anything for me. But I did have
my own relationship with them, yes. And I considered them
both friends. And it was a comfortable friendship because I
never made any demands on them, nor did they make
demands on me.
Q. And you don’t recall when you built that relationship?
A. I’d say it was starting in the mid- to late ‘90s. . . . I’ve known
the Bidens for I want to say over 30 years. I’m estimating.849
In 2008, Mr. Langston pled guilty to conspiring to bribe a state court judge to receive a favorable
ruling in a civil lawsuit.850 Mr. Langston claimed that he has not spoken to President Biden since
getting into legal trouble.851
However, based upon this close friendship with President Biden and his family, Mr.
Langston maintained his connections with James Biden, who has monetarily benefited from their
relationship.852 In fact, Mr. Langston provided James Biden with numerous loans, namely to his
consulting firm Lion Hall Group, made with the hope that their joint business ventures would
take off and he would be paid back.853 Mr. Langston testified that he did not know why James
Biden needed the money, other than James Biden telling him he needed the money to maintain
his livelihood.854 When asked about the first time Mr. Langston provided James Biden a loan, he
explained:
I presume that you’re talking about 04/18/2016. If I had loaned
money to him prior to that, I just don’t remember that I did, because
. . . here was the thing. Jimmy and I pursued some business interests
together, and whenever we were pursuing business interests
together, then at times I would, because I could, help him with the
money it took to live, travel, pursue business interests. I would loan
money in hopes of, and in anticipation of, whatever business
interests we were pursuing would pay off, and he could pay me back.
So that’s how it worked. And I know it doesn’t sound . . . like a very
good businessman not to be more specific about it, but, you know, I
849 Id.at 23-24. 850 Ashley Elkins, We tried to influence judge, Langston says, DAILY JOURNAL (Jan. 18, 2008). 851 Langston Interview at 24-25. 852 See Langston Interview at 24-25, 52-53, 55-62, 65-68. 853 Id. at 51–53. 854 Id.
163
was loaning money to a friend. And he wasn’t the only friend I ever
loaned money to.855
Mr. Langston understood that Sara and James Biden’s Lion Hall Group did “[c]onsulting work
. . . . in practice, general consulting to help people who were seeking help on how to navigate . . .
Washington.”856 However, Mr. Langston could not remember if James Biden’s firm actually had
an office, and stated that if he had office space, he was unaware of it.857 Mr. Langston equated
sending the money to the Lion Hall Group as the same as sending money directly to James
Biden.858 He testified:
Q. And my question is: You’re talking about these payments for
Jim Biden for life, for his kids . . . to just get by. My question
is: Did Jim have you pay the Lion Hall Group? . . . Or why
were the payments going to the Lion Hall Group?
A. You know, I wondered that myself . . . I can’t remember why
it went to the Lion Hall Group, but, you know, I considered
it going to the Lion Hall Group and going to Jim as
practically the same thing.859
On April 18, 2016, Mr. Langston sent $100,0000 to James Biden through the Lion Hall
Group.860 Mr. Langston testified that he could not remember why James Biden needed the
money.861 Mr. Langston stated:
Q. And what was the nature of the $100,000 wire that you sent
the Lion Hall Group?
A. That was probably a loan. I don’t remember specifically
what it was, but from time to time, Jimmy asked me to loan
money to him, and I would. And I don’t remember that
specifically on that one, but I do know that I . . . at times,
loaned money to him.862
The $100,000 loan was not the only loan that Mr. Langston provided James Biden. While this
may have been the largest amount of money James Biden requested, Mr. Langston provided
several other five-figure loans in 2016 during Vice President Biden’s last year in office.863 Mr.
855 Id. at 52-53. 856 Id. at 51-52. 857 Id. at 51. 858 Id. at 59. 859 Langston Interview at 59. 860 Id. at 52; Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jim
Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Joseph Langston (Nov. 9, 2023).
861 Langston Interview at 51-53. 862 Id. at 52. 863 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Joseph Langston (Nov. 9, 2023).
165
In other words, Mr. Langston explained that he would dispose of documentation when he was
either paid or when he did not intend to pursue repayment from someone, as he did with James
Biden.869
In addition to these general loans to James Biden, Mr. Langston gave another loan to
James Biden for his Florida home.870 Mr. Langston stated:
Q. And then separately, based upon your prior testimony, it
sounds as if there was a loan to James Biden for a property
that was in Florida that may have undergone some damage.
Do I have that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But sitting here today, you couldn’t tell us the exact amount
for that particular loan, but the approximate amount I
believe, correct me if I’m wrong, would have been in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do I have that right?
A. Yes.871
According to James Biden, the reason he received these loans from Mr. Langston is
“because [he] was in financial distress.”872 Specifically, James Biden testified:
Q. Can you tell the committee why you received those loans?
A. Because I was in financial distress. . . .
The point is, I said, Joey, I am anticipating getting a
substantial amount of money in the immediate short term.
And . . . I was supposed to be paid from a deal—okay?—that
didn’t materialize, and it was supposed to be a done deal. A
deal ain’t done until it’s done. . . . And so I said, I feel that
I’ll be able to pay you back this within the next, you know,
3 to 6 months, something like that. And he said, well, how
much? And I said, you know, $400,000. And then he said,
no problem. And so I borrowed the 400,000 from him. And
I paid this obligation that I had that was of a personal nature.
. . . I subsequently paid him back his $400,000. And it wasn’t
869 Id. 870 Id. at 73. 871 Id. 872 James Biden Interview at 169.
166
a document, a written document, but he loaned me,
personally, as a friend. And there was some interest that
accrued. It was interest-related. You know, I mean, I don’t
know, it was 6 percent or something like that. And I haven’t,
to date, been able to pay him back the full amount.873
Mr. Langston could not quantify how many business ventures he and James Biden
undertook but testified that he fronted all the money for the ventures—James Biden’s role was to
make the introductions.874 He stated:
Q. I just want to go back to the loans that you provided to Mr.
James Biden. We provided you with documents prior to
today. Some of them were the four wires that were discussed
and one check I believe for $16,000. We see no money going
back from James Biden back to you in any form for these
particular payments. It’s our understanding that he did not
repay any of the loans for these specific payments. Do we
have that correct?
A. That’s correct. And . . . my thinking on that was that those
loans were made while we were pursuing business ventures.
The business ventures never were successful for us. Now, I
think at least Earth Care is still open, but when it became
evident that we were not going to make any money on Earth
Care matters, for example, then I really never intended to
pursue collection of monies that I advanced by loan to
Jimmy Biden during our pursuit of that business.875
In each of these ventures, James Biden never fronted any money because he was already
borrowing money from Mr. Langston to stay afloat while they were pursuing business
opportunities.876 Specifically, Mr. Langston stated:
Q. And how many ventures did the two of you [have]?
A. I’ll tell you, it’s hard to say. . . .
Q. And did you front any money for any of them?
A. To Jimmy?
Q. For any venture.
873 Id.at 169-71. 874 Langston Interview at 76-77. 875 Id. at 72-73. 876 Id. at 76-77.
167
A. I’m sure that I did. You know, practically all new businesses
are looking for raising money, and, you know, we talked
about trying to franchise Earth Care, but we never really got
off the ground there. So I’m sure I advanced some money,
but I don’t remember specifically what or to whom.
Q. Did he?
A. I don’t think so. He was borrowing money from me just to
keep going while we were pursuing these things.
Q. What did he bring to the table?
A. Well, first of all, he brought the introduction for me. . . . He
brought the business prospect to me. I didn’t bring it to him
and ask him as partner. He brought it to me.877
In essence, Mr. Langston found James Biden’s value was in bringing him the business
opportunities, while Mr. Langston fronted the money.878
Mr. Langston estimated that he has possibly loaned James Biden around $800,000 but has
only been repaid $400,000.879 During his transcribed interview, Mr. Langston stated that he no
longer has any documents that were used to execute the loans, though he maintains the loans
were “standard.”880 Mr. Langston estimated that James Biden still owes him roughly $300,000 to
$400,000.881 Even with this large outstanding balance, Mr. Langston testified that he never made
any formal collection efforts.882 During his transcribed interview with the Committees, James
Biden, through his counsel, confirmed the amount of money he received from, and still owes, to
Mr. Langston.883 When asked about the loans, James Biden’s counsel acknowledged:
Q. We interviewed Joey Langston. . . . I’m just paraphrasing this
—that he loaned you—he said approximately, I believe,
around $800,000 or so. He didn’t have an exact amount.
Atty. That’s not inconsistent with what we believe.
Q. And that you had paid back approximately half or $400,000,
I believe is what he said.
Atty. Also not inconsistent with what we believe.884
877 Id. at 76-77. 878 Id. 879 Id. at 65-68. 880 Id. at 55-57. 881 Id. at 68. 882 Id. at 57-58. 883 James Biden Interview at 169-71. 884 Id. at 171.
168
Although James Biden acknowledged that he has not paid Mr. Langston back in full, he did not
explain when or if he intends to pay his outstanding debt. Rather, he joked that he still felt
responsible to pay Mr. Langston back “once [he is] in a position [to] . . . after these usurious
legal feels and all the other things that [he’s] been involved in.”885
Based upon Mr. Langston’s testimony, the “loans” James Biden received from Mr.
Langston years ago can now effectively be considered gratuitous financial aid. Mr. Langston
admitted as much when he testified that he chose not to recoup the remaining loans owed to him
so that he could keep his friendship with James Biden.886 Although Mr. Langston testified that he
has not spoken to a member of the Biden family since President Biden took office as president,
he still considers them friends.887 Mr. Langston stopped working with James Biden sometime
between 2017 and 2018—after Joe Biden left the vice presidency.888
Overall, there were multiple sources of funding that James Biden exploited over the years
due to his relationship to his brother, President Biden. Public reporting and evidence gathered by
the Committees strongly suggest that but for President Biden’s foreign and domestic connections
he made throughout his political career, James Biden would not have received money for
business ventures or personal loans previously discussed above.889
B. Democrat donor Kevin Morris has loaned $6.5 million to Hunter Biden in order
to protect Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
Benefits to the Biden brand have also come in the form of protecting the family from
criminal and financial distress—a responsibility taken up by Hunter Biden’s friend and
entertainment attorney Kevin Morris.890
i. A fellow Biden donor connected Kevin Morris to Hunter Biden at a
fundraiser for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
Mr. Morris first met both Hunter Biden and then-former Vice President Biden in
November 2019 at a fundraiser in California for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign hosted by
Lanette Phillips.891 Mr. Morris donated money to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign in order to
attend the event.892 A week later, Mr. Morris met Hunter Biden for the second time and testified
885 James Biden Interview at 171. Following this statement, James Biden and his counsel both stated, “[t]hat was a
joke.” Id. 886 Langston Interview at 58. 887 Id. at 24-25. 888 Id.at 76. 889 See, e.g., Ben Schreckinger, Fund manager indicates Jim Biden was in business with Qatari officials, POLITICO
(Apr. 28, 2024); Joseph N. Distefano, Joe Biden’s Friends and Backers Come Out on Top—at the Expense of the
Middle Class, THE NATION (Nov. 7, 2019); Ben Schreckinger, Biden Inc., POLITICO (Aug. 2, 2019); Langston
Interview at 21, 24–25. 890 See, e.g., Miranda Devine, Majorie Hernandez, and Patrick Reilly, Hollywood lawyer paid off over $2M of
Hunter Biden’s delinquent taxes, N.Y. POST (May 8, 2022); Zachery Leeman, Meet Kevin Morris, Hunter Biden’s
‘Sugar Bro’ Hollywood Agent and Bankroller, THE MESSENGER (Dec. 8, 2023). 891 Morris Interview at 16-17. 892 Id.
169
that during that meeting, he began his legal representation of Hunter Biden.893 During his
transcribed interview with the Committees, Mr. Morris testified:
Q. What triggered the events that led you to then speaking with
Hunter Biden again?
A. Lanette . . . called her friend, my accountant, and asked if I
would go see Hunter. And I think I talked to her then. She
said he’s got some entertainment-ish issues and would I go
talk to him.
Q. Did Lanette Phillips on that phone call bring up anything else
other than just Hunter Biden’s entertainment issues?
A. No. I mean, it was pretty obvious . . . he had other issues
going on.
Q. What happened after she asked if you’d talk with him? Did
you get his phone number? Or how did that proceed from
there?
A. No, she set it up. A few days later . . . I went to his house
and met him.
[W]hen I first got there, I wanted to look at his art. I’m an art
collector and at that time I knew it was important to him.
After we met, we spent a while looking through his stuff. I
was impressed. And then . . . I met Melissa and saw that she
was . . . pregnant. She made us some tea or whatever. And
then Hunter and I just began a very long talk. And I just said,
“Tell me what’s going on.” And then we spoke for five
hours. And, you know, I began representing him at that
moment. And . . . my understanding of the rules of
professional responsibility and so forth is that’s how you do
it. That’s how you can do it.894
During his transcribed interview, Mr. Morris refused to provide specific information
about his representation of Hunter Biden.895 Rather, Mr. Morris interpreted his legal
representation as all-encompassing, frequently using the attorney-client privilege to not answer
893 Id. at 18, 20-22. 894 Id. 895 Id. at 22-24, 38-39, 41-43.
170
the Committees’ questions, even though he has never represented Hunter Biden in legal
proceedings with respect to any of his numerous legal issues.896 When asked about what in his
legal experience would make him a good match for representing Hunter Biden in his various
legal matters, Mr. Morris testified:
Q. And I just want to get into your practice as a lawyer. How
many notices of appearances have you filed in Federal or
State court in the past three years for clients?
A. Thank God, none.
Q. How many depositions have you represented clients in any
capacity in the past three years or so?
A. In the past three years?
Q. Yeah.
A. None.
Q. Have you appeared in any courts on behalf of Hunter Biden
or any other clients in the past three years?
A. No, I don’t do that . . . .
Q. It’s fair to say you’re not a tax lawyer either, correct?
A. Fair.
Q. [I]n the past three to five years, you never represented a
Federal criminal defendant?
A. No.
Q. And you’re not a divorce lawyer either? Is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you’re not an expert on State court proceedings in
Arkansas regarding alimony. Would that be correct?
896 Id. at 22-24.
171
A. I’m not admitted in Arkansas. It doesn’t mean I don’t know,
I’m not familiar with the proceedings of courts in Arkansas.
Q. So what specific matters do you represent Hunter Biden in
then? If you don’t do any of those things, which many of
them Hunter Biden is now going through legally, what is it
that you represent him in? And the reason this is important is
because you’re . . . saying you can’t answer a question
because of privilege issues. So I think it’s fair for us to fully
understand, what are the contours of your representation of
Hunter Biden?
A. Counsel, in my job I represent high-profile individuals. . . .
[H]igh-profile individuals have basically virtual
corporations. And in those virtual corporations, they have all
kinds of staff and assistants. You know, agents and managers
. . . publicists. You know, whatever. And what I do is I
oversee . . . sort of the squad. Sort of like a general counsel.
But I am involved in everything. I am involved in
everything. And the same is with Hunter. If you check my
retainer agreements, you’ll see that it’s not – it says all
matters. And that’s it.897
Contrary to his testimony about his legal work, Mr. Morris mostly provided the
Committees with information related to the financial assistance he has given Hunter Biden
within a month of meeting him.898 More specifically, Mr. Morris discussed the various payments
he quickly began to make for Hunter Biden and his alleged motivations for doing so.899
ii. Mr. Morris provided extraordinary financial assistance to Hunter Biden
leading up to and immediately after the 2020 presidential election.
Mr. Morris testified that he has made numerous payments to third-party vendors on
Hunter Biden’s behalf in order to facilitate Hunter Biden’s lavish lifestyle.900 These payments
were “loans” for Hunter Biden to fund a new residence in Venice, California, remedy the “upside
down” payments on his Porsche, pay his debts to the IRS, and hire security, among other “basic
living expenses.”901 With regards to his loan payments to Hunter Biden, Mr. Morris testified:
Q. . . . You’re loaning money to Hunter Biden, correct?
A. Correct.
897 Id. 898 See id. at 29-30 (“I started lending Hunter Biden money. That was almost always direct payments to third-party
vendors. And yeah . . . it was within a month.”).
899 Id. at 29-30, 52-53, 77-78. 900 Id. at 29-30, 52-53, 77-78, 110-12. 901 Id. at 29-30, 37-38, 52-53, 77-78, 106-07, 110-12.
172
Q. . . . [I]f I were to go get a loan, sometimes you have to tell
the bank, “Hey, I’m getting this loan for my house. I’m
getting this loan for my car.” So each time that Hunter Biden
gets a loan from you, does he have to come to you and tell
you what he’s getting that loan for?
A. . . . Hunter doesn’t come to me. He’s never asked me for
anything. I’ve done these things voluntarily. I have an idea
of what they were, and I keep a record. And the ones that are
absolutely necessary I take care of with a loan.902
Mr. Morris explained that the loans were made in the form of approximately five
promissory notes that were standard issue and interest-bearing with a maturity date set for Hunter
Biden to begin repaying on them in 2025.903 However, Mr. Morris also stated that as the note
holder, he would “decide how to enforce my rights” if the money he loaned to Hunter Biden was
not repaid.904 Surprisingly, Mr. Morris testified that he has executed some of these loans prior to
executing the proper promissory notes with Hunter Biden.905 Mr. Morris stated:
Q. So you advanced money to Hunter, and then you would later
formalize it into promissory notes?
A. . . . [I]n terms of documentation, we catch it up, which is
consistent with things I’ve done often. But it’s all to date.
You know, it’s all documented. I guess that’s all.
Q. So the loans are all documented?
A. Well-documented.
Q. What are the terms of the loans to Hunter?
A. You know, I’ve—the terms of a promissory note have
glossed over, but what I do know—you know, every lawyer
knows—it has an interest rate, it has a term, and . . . some
default provisions.
Q. So when you say interest rate, do you have a sense of how
much that is?
A. It’s whatever the legal requirement is. 5 percent jumps to my
head.
902 Id. at 37. 903 Id. at 75-76, 112. 904 Id. at 105. 905 Id. at 75-76, 145.
173
Q. And you said there’s a default provision. Doesthat mean that
if Hunter doesn’t make payments on time that there’s some
sort of penalty for him?
A. Yeah. There’s a standard, you know, if . . . you don’t pay,
there’s . . . the rights you have in the event of a default. It’s
pretty standard stuff.
Q. So all of the terms of this loan are standard?
A. Correct, very standard.
Q. You said earlier that Hunter has to start making repayments
starting in 2025. Is that right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Why not sooner?
A. . . . I’m not required to ask for it sooner, and that’s the
business deal we made—our lawyers made.
Q. So you said your lawyers made this deal. So is it fair to say
your lawyer negotiated with Hunter’s lawyer?
A. I play a lawyer on TV. I’m not really a lawyer. Yeah, I have
lawyers for lots of things.906
After his interview, on January 25, 2024, Mr. Morris, through his attorneys, provided the
Committees with additional information pertaining to these promissory notes. As laid out in his
attorneys’ letter, Mr. Morris has loaned Hunter Biden large amounts of money in increments
ranging between $640,355 to $2,600,000.907 Mr. Morris confirmed that he loaned the money to
Hunter Biden before formalizing it in a legally enforceable document.908
906 Id. at 75-76. 907 See Letter from Bryan Sullivan, Attorney, Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, to Oversight Committee
Staff (Jan. 25, 2024).
908 Morris Interview at 145-46.
175
Part of Mr. Morris’s stated rationale for loaning Hunter Biden millions of dollars was the
fear that he would not be able to maintain his sobriety and relapse.909 Further, Mr. Morris
claimed that he has provided loans to other friends as well who were “starting out who need a
downpayment for their house.”910 However, Hunter Biden’s sobriety and Mr. Morris’s desire to
help a friend were not the only concerns. Mr. Morris admitted that if Hunter Biden relapsed, he
feared that it would have the greatest effect on Joe Biden as he campaigned for president.
911
Mr. Morris carefully reiterated during his interview that he made payments directly to
third parties on Hunter Biden’s behalf rather than giving Hunter Biden money to handle on his
own.912 However, Mr. Morris would not explain to the Committees how he knew when Hunter
Biden needed financial assistance.913 Mr. Morris testified:
Q. . . . You said Hunter never asked for anything. And so the
question that I’m left with in my mind is, how did you know,
for instance, that the IRS debt was 190 or that the Porsche
debt, the financing for the car, was upside down and there
was $11,000, or other of the payments that you said that you
lent to him, that you were paying directly to the providers?
How did you know that those were loans or that those were
necessary at that time?
A. I’m not going to talk about anything I discussed with Hunter.
But I would—I don’t know. I was in—from day one, I was
in his life completely and I knew what was going on . . . all
the issues, you know, from a lot of sources.914
Regardless of how Mr. Morris learned of Hunter Biden’s financial difficulties, evidence suggests
that he was gravely concerned about quickly solving them—most notably Hunter Biden’s
outstanding tax returns.915
iii. Mr. Morris held a “crisis meeting” about Hunter Biden’s tax debt
because it posed a “considerable risk personally and politically.”
According to documents SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler produced to the Ways and Means
Committee, Mr. Morris held a “crisis meeting” around January 23, 2020, fearing the personal and
909 Id. at 78. 910 Id. at 69. 911 Id. at 78. 912 Id. at 29-30, 78. 913 Id.at 37-38, 89-90. 914 Id. at 89-90. 915 See H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Exhibit 607A: Emails Between Kevin Morris, Tory Schmidt, Lindsay
Wineberg, George Mesires, Shep Hoffman, and Hunter B, Subject: Return. (Feb. 7, 2020) [Hereinafter “Exhibit
607A”].
177
prior” to this two-and-a-half hour meeting.919 Additionally, Mr. Schmidt recalled that there were
at least ten people at the meeting, and he originally thought that they would be discussing the
preparation of Hunter Biden’s tax returns, but that was not the case.920 It appears that the
considerable political risk Mr. Morris referred to was associated with then-presidential candidate
Joe Biden and the upcoming 2020 Super Tuesday primary elections that occurred only weeks
later.921
Mr. Morris further embroiled himself in Hunter Biden’s tax evasion through the immense
loans he provided Hunter Biden to pay his taxes. During his testimony before the Committees,
Hunter Biden confirmed that Mr. Morris loaned him a substantial sum of money. He testified:
Q. And you also have over $6.5 million loans with Kevin
Morris, correct?
A. I do not know the exact amount that I have with Kevin
Morris, but, yes, I have loans with Kevin Morris.922
Of the more than $6 million Hunter Biden is estimated to owe Mr. Morris, over $1.9 million of
the debt was accumulated when Mr. Morris chose to pay off the tax liabilities Hunter Biden had
failed to pay.923 This is supported by evidence evaluated by SA Ziegler, who testified to the Ways
and Means Committee that “Hunter [Biden] did not pay his delinquent taxes. Kevin Morris
did.”924 However, SA Ziegler was wrongfully prevented from looking further into Mr. Morris’s
motivations.925 SA Ziegler testified to the Ways and Means Committee:
A. So looking at this big-picture wise, this wasn’t about
enriching one person. This was about enriching a family. A
family that—this family benefitted from the last name
Biden. And that is what this is about. It is not specifically
one person. And then where we come in, it is pay your taxes
on that money.
Q. Right.
A. Pay your taxes owed to the government.
919 See Exhibit 607 at 4. 920 See id. 921 See Stephen Collinson, Biden’s surprise win in Texas caps historic Super Tuesday while Sanders turns to
California, CNN (Mar. 4, 2020) (“A reinvigorated Joe Biden has a nine state Super Tuesday victory haul capped by
topping Sen. Bernie Sanders for an upset victory in Texas after his comeback campaign transformed the Democratic
presidential race.”).
922 Hunter Biden Deposition at 33. 923 See Morris Interview at 52-54; Catherine Herridge, et al., Hollywood attorney Kevin Morris, who financially
backed Hunter Biden, moves closer to the spotlight, CBS News (Jan. 12, 2024) (“A source familiar with the
financial arrangement told CBS News Morris loaned the president’s son more than $2 million to pay off back
taxes.”).
924 Hearing With The IRS Whistleblowers: Hunter Biden Investigation Obstruction In Their Own Words, 118th
Cong., at 40 (2023).
925 Id. at 166-68, 173-74.
178
Q. The reason I ask is because you were prevented from
rounding out your investigation 360 degrees, which is what
agents and prosecutors are supposed to do. You were
prevented from doing that. We now [need to] finish that job
through our investigative authority. So the reason I am
asking is, [w]hat were you prevented from doing that we can
try to reconstruct to the best of our ability to get to that
evidence if it so exists?
A. . . . In 2020, 2021, and 2022, Hunter Biden received
approximately $4.9 million in payments for personal
expenses, again, in the form of a loan or gift from
Democratic donor Kevin Patrick Morris. We have a reason
to believe that Kevin Morris was on phone calls with the
Presidential campaign prior to Joe Biden securing the
Presidency. So you have the email. “Personally and
politically.” Hunter Biden wasn’t running for office. So who
was impacted politically by Hunter Biden’s tax returns not
being filed? When did he meet Kevin Patrick Morris, and
when were the tax payments made? It was about 2 months
[after] meeting him.926
In other words, the timing of these payments is highly suspect as they occurred in the years
during President Biden’s bid for the Oval Office, but SA Ziegler was ultimately unable to get the
answers he sought.927 During his transcribed interview, Mr. Morris corroborated the testimony of
SA Ziegler, stating:
Q. . . . Mr. Ziegler, who was a member of the IRS, testified
before the Ways and Means Committee in December, that
Hunter Biden owed and paid taxes for the years 2015 to
- He further testified that you loaned Hunter Biden
approximately $4.9 million during the period 2020 to 2022
to cover the tax payments and the personal expenditures. Is
that basically correct?
A. Basically.928
926 Id. at 173-74. 927 Id. at 166-67, 173-74. 928 Morris Interview at 80.
179
Mr. Morris covered exorbitant sums of money Hunter Biden owed to both the federal
government as well as various state governments.929 When testifying before the Committees, Mr.
Morris confirmed that he paid off at least $1.9 million of Hunter Biden’s tax debt.930 He testified:
Q. . . . I want to go through now payments that you’ve made on
behalf of Hunter Biden via loan for his different tax
liabilities. I’m going to read into the record where it says,
“The Court” on line 9. “The Court: All right. In exhibit 1,
there are references to taxes paid by a third party on Mr.
Biden’s behalf of $955,800 and $956,632, as well as
$492,000 in 2016 and $197,000 for 2019. Just looking at
2017 and 2018, which are the subject of this case, those
numbers add up to more than $1.9 million.” Did you pay for
Hunter Biden, via loan, any of Hunter Biden’s tax debts or
taxes that were owed to different State and Federal agencies?
A. Yeah, yes.931
Mr. Morris’s wealth allowed him to cover these tax debts and other debts for Hunter
Biden without regard to expectation of repayment.932 The fact that he freely gave millions of
dollars to Hunter Biden—during the years in which President Biden was running for and elected
as President—causes serious concerns. It creates the perception, at the very least, there was an
unspoken quid pro quo or unlawful campaign contribution for which Mr. Morris would erase
Hunter Biden’s IRS troubles—and by extension, help the Biden campaign rid itself of a serious
liability—and receive some benefit in return.
iv. Mr. Morris’s testimony suggests the reason for buying Hunter Biden’s
company, Skaneateles, LLC, was to protect President Biden and the
Biden brand.
In addition to solving Hunter Biden’s outstanding tax issues, Mr. Morris benefited the
Biden brand by purchasing Hunter Biden’s company, Skaneateles, LLC in 2021.
933 Skaneateles
owned a 10 percent stake in a Chinese investment company, Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), that
Hunter Biden co-founded with Chinese business partners in 2013.934 Hunter Biden’s original
investment in BHR was worth $420,000, but Mr. Morris purchased Skaneateles for
$157,729.69—the amount that Hunter Biden and Skaneateles still owed on the investment.935
Other than admitting that he bought the company from Hunter Biden and that it owned a share of
929 Id.at 52-53. 930 Id. 931 Id. 932 Id. at 68. 933 Morris Interview at 147-49. 934 Id.; Ashley Oliver, Hunter Biden’s lawyer still owns his Chinese business shares, WASH. EXAM’R (Jan. 24,
2024).
935 See Letter from Bryan Sullivan, Attorney, Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, to Oversight Committee
Staff (Jan. 25, 2024).
180
BHR, Mr. Morris had minimal knowledge of what Skaneateles does as a business.936 Mr. Morris
testified:
Q. . . . [W]hen did you become aware of Skaneateles, LLC?
A. I think I had a generalsense of [Hunter Biden’s] corporations
and corporate structure in the early days, in the first couple
of months. I mean, that’s a—you know, that’s a piece of
perspective that you have to have in representing someone.
Q. What kind of company was Skaneateles?
A. I mean, I don’t know. An LLC, I think.
Q. But did it sell shirts? What was it? I mean, what was the
purpose of the company?
A. I think it’s—again . . . I’m not to the point sure, but it was an
LLC and—you know, I think it—Hunter actually had a very
simple corporate structure personally. I think this was one
that was for some purpose that I can’t remember. . . .
Q. Do you know what Hunter Biden’s role was with
Skaneateles?
A. No. I think he was the sole, sole member of an LLC.
Q. And are you aware of an investment fund Bohai Harvest?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. . . . [I]t’s a hedge fund of Chinese Nationals, I believe, that
raise money to make investments in public-private, and
infrastructure programs.
Q. And have you heard of Jonathan [Li], the CEO of BHR?
A. I’ve heard of him, yeah.
Q. You never met with him?
A. No.
936 Morris Interview at 147-48.
181
Q. And do you know what kind of investments that BHR
makes?
A. I knew better at one time. I remember going through them. I
don’t remember exactly what they were. I think they were –
I don’t know. I think they were infrastructure.937
Additionally, Mr. Morris would not tell the Committees why he purchased Skaneateles from
Hunter Biden, claiming that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege.938 After further
discussion with his counsel, Mr. Morris then stated that he believed purchasing Skaneateles
would be a good investment.939 Specifically, Mr. Morris stated:
Q. . . . [W]hen did you purchase Skaneateles?
A. Was it—I—you know, in 2021.
Q. How did it come up that you were going to purchase
Skaneateles? Or why did you buy Skaneateles of all the
companies that Hunter Biden was involved with? Why that
one?
A. That’s privileged. I am not going to answer that because of
attorney-client privilege.
Atty. No, no, no, why did you buy it? Like what?
A. I’m not going to answer it.
Atty. Can we go off the record for 2 minutes of the—
Q. Off the record.
A. Counsel, can you ask the question again?
Q. . . . Why did you buy BHR?
A. I did the transaction because . . . I evaluated it as a
businessman, and I thought it was something that could be a
very successful investment. . . . [B]ut I did diligence on the
assets. I knew what . . . Hunter paid for it in the beginning,
937 Id. 938 Id. at 149-50. 939 Id. at 150.
182
and I saw, and I still see upside.940
In other words, Mr. Morris claimed that he conducted due diligence on Skaneateles,941 yet he
testified moments before that he was not “sure” of the company’s purpose.942 It appears Mr.
Morris’ purchased Skaneateles to benefit the Biden brand by helping Hunter Biden to quickly
divest from this foreign business entanglement after his father was elected president.
Although Mr. Morris claimed to never have spoken to Hunter Biden or any other member
of the Biden family about politics and that there was no political motivation behind his
relationship with Hunter Biden,943 the overall history of their relationship indicates otherwise. In
2019, Mr. Morris met Hunter Biden at a fundraiser for President Biden’s campaign.944 Aside
from the millions of dollars provided to Hunter Biden to date, Mr. Morris testified that he has
provided between $500,000 and $700,000 to political action committees and candidates, most of
which were Democrats.945
IV. As President, Joe Biden provided access and rewards to his family’s benefactors, as
demonstrated by Hunter Biden’s sale of amateur art for exorbitant prices.
Hunter Biden also leveraged the Biden name to sell his artwork to his father’s donors for
large sums of money. Around the same time that Hunter Biden met Kevin Morris, he also met art
gallerist George Bergès.946 Although reporting claims that Hunter Biden has “been painting for
decades,” Hunter Biden only sold his first piece through Mr. Bergès after Joe Biden was elected
President in 2020.
947
During his interview with the Committees, Mr. Bergès explained how he met Hunter
Biden in 2019 through a mutual friend, Lanette Phillips.948 According to Mr. Bergès, Ms. Phillips
knew he was a gallerist and “introduced [him] to a lot of other people,” but she told Mr. Bergès,
“there’s this artist,” so he flew to California to look at Hunter Biden’s artwork.949 Mr. Bergès
stated that he “liked the potential” in what he saw, and he “also liked [Hunter Biden’s] personal
narrative for a variety of reasons.”950 Mr. Bergès testified that he never got the impression that
Hunter Biden ever sold any art before Mr. Bergès became his gallerist.951 However, once he
began selling Hunter Biden’s art, Mr. Bergès confirmed that the Biden name influenced setting
the price for his artwork.952
940 Id. at 149-50. 941 Id. at 149-50. 942 Id. at 147-48. 943 Id. at 98, 123-24, 136. 944 Id. at 16-17. 945 Id. at 96-97. 946 Transcribed Interview of George Bergès, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & H. Comm. on the
Judiciary at 14 (Jan. 9, 2024) [hereinafter “Bergès Interview”]. ; Morris Interview at 13. 947 Bergès Interview at 18-19; Graham Bowley, At Hunter Biden’s Art Show, Line, Color and Questions, N.Y. TIMES
(Nov. 5, 2021).
948 Bergès Interview at 15-16. 949 Id.at 15. 950 Id. 951 Id. at 99. 952 Id. at 14–15, 64.
183
Hunter Biden’s transition into the art world showed immediate signs that he was looking
to exploit the Biden name to make a profit. News reports covering feedback from art critics
pushed back on the pricing of Hunter Biden’s art, calling the price range “extremely high” and
“not common for any new artist.”953 One national art critic affirmed that, based on the exorbitant
price of Hunter Biden’s art, “it is absolutely, 100 percent certain that what is being sold is the
Biden name and story.”954 Another art critic similarly noted that people buying Hunter Biden’s
art are “paying for the brush with fame,” and analogized such payments to “campaign
contribution[s].”955
Hunter Biden signed his first contract with Mr. Bergès around December 2020—shortly
after his father was elected president.956 On December 11, 2020, soon after the two signed the
contract, Mr. Bergès sold Hunter Biden’s first piece of artwork.957 In the first contract, Hunter
Biden insisted on inserting a term that required Mr. Bergès to tell Hunter Biden the names of
who bought his artwork.958 Mr. Bergès testified that such a provision is unusual in the
industry.959 Mr. Bergès stated:
Q. So according to your letter, the first sale of Hunter Biden’s
art was on December [11th]. Had you established anything
in writing regarding your relationship with Hunter Biden at
that time? . . . At this point had there been discussions about
keeping the buyers of Hunter Biden’s art anonymous?
A. . . . I believe in the first contract, he was. . . able to know
who the buyers were.
Q Okay.
A Yeah. I don’t know how it was phrased or—but I remember
that there—that that was the difference. So—
Q. Is that normal or unusual . . . ? Is it a normal kind of contract?
A. That part was different than—normally, the gallerist does not
let the artist know who the collectors are.960
953 Tina Sfondeles & Alex Thompson, We asked art critics about Hunter’s paintings, POLITICO: WEST WING
PLAYBOOK (July 27, 2021) (“For an emerging artist doing his first show, this would put Hunter Biden in the top, top
tier of what was thinkable. These are prices for an already successful artist.” (quoting national art critic Ben Davis).
954 Id. 955Id.; see also Charles Hilu, Is Hunter Biden’s art worth $500,000? Here’s what a curator has to say, WASH.
EXAM’R (July 4, 2021) (“How much of that value [of Hunter Biden’s art] is due to the art itself? That’s easy: None
of it.” (quoting Jeffry Cudlin, Professor, Md. Inst. Coll. of Art)).
956 Bergès Interview at 15, 90. 957 Id. at 18-19. 958 See Id. at 27, 102. 959 Id.at 19, 102-03. 960 Id.at 19.
184
At the time of his transcribed interview, Mr. Bergès told the Committees he represented roughly
fifteen artists, and unlike Hunter Biden, none of them asked to know the identity of their buyers
when he began working with them.961 Mr. Bergès stated that it was unusual for the gallerist to
reveal the buyers’ or collectors’ identities to preserve the gallerist’s relationship with the buyer
and ensure the gallerist is not cut out of future sales.962
However, Hunter Biden and Mr. Bergès removed this provision in a subsequent
September 2021 contract, over eight months into President Biden’s first year in office.963 Mr.
Bergès testified that there were two major changes in the second contract: (1) Mr. Bergès was
required not to disclose the names of the individuals who purchased Hunter Biden’s artwork; and
(2) Hunter Biden received a 5 percent increase in commission from his art sales.964
961 Id. at 21. 962 Id. at 21-22 (“A. …what you don’t want is your artists to circumvent you if they know your collectors…it’s kind
of the bloodline of the gallery…which is an incentive of why galleries don’t necessarily want to give away their
buyers because then [what] prevents them from just working directly.”). 963 Id. at 26-27. 964 Id. at 27-28, 36.
186
Mr. Bergès testified that he met Ms. Naftali in 2020 through Lanette Phillips, and “it took
a lot of convincing” for Ms. Naftali to purchase art from Mr. Bergès.968 On February 17, 2021,
after “a year of [Bergès] cajoling her,” and mere weeks after President Biden’s inauguration, Ms.
Naftali purchased a Hunter Biden piece of art for $42,000 on February 17, 2021.969 Prior to the
February 2021 sale, Ms. Naftali had never purchased any artwork from Mr. Bergès.970 On
December 9, 2022, she purchased a second Hunter Biden piece for $52,000.971
According to reports, Ms. Naftali is a California real estate investor and Democrat donor
who has donated more than $13,000 last year to President Biden’s reelection campaign and has
visited the White House at least a dozen times.972 In July 2022, President Biden appointed Ms.
Naftali to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad.973 Notably, this is
the same preservation board to which President Obama appointed Biden family associate Eric
Schwerin in 2015.974 Mr. Schwerin subsequently thanked Hunter Biden when he was reappointed
two years later before the end of the Obama Administration.975
Another known buyer who purchased the largest share of Hunter Biden’s artwork was
Kevin Morris, who purchased $875,000 worth of art.976 Mr. Bergès testified that he met Mr.
Morris through Hunter Biden and had never sold Mr. Morris art prior to meeting him at Hunter
Biden’s California home.977 Further, Mr. Morris purchased the $875,000 worth of art—a total of
11 different pieces—through his art procurement entity, Kuliaky Art, LLC Management.978
However, Mr. Morris did not pay the full price of $875,000, and only paid the commission owed
to Mr. Bergès.979 Mr. Bergès explained:
Q. . . . You said that Mr. Morris’[s] payments for Hunter Biden’s
art [went] towards Hunter Biden’s debt to Mr. Morris?
968 Bergès Interview at 22-23, 127. 969 Id. at 22-23, 115; Letter from William Pittard, Kaiser Law, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Jan. 9, 2024).
970 See Bergès Interview at 127. 971 Letter from William Pittard, Kaiser Law, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep.
James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Jan. 9, 2024).
972 Matt Stieb, Hunter Biden Sold a Painting to One of His Dad’s Donors, N.Y. MAG.: INTELLIGENCER (July 25,
2023); Josh Christenson, Democratic donor who bought Hunter Biden’s art visited White House a dozen times, N.Y.
POST (July 25, 2023); Disclosures, Visitor Logs, The White House (accessed July 2, 2024) (search “Naftali”).. 973 Bergès Interview at 23; Briefing Room, President Biden Announces Key appointments to Boards and
Commissions, The White House (July 1, 2022).
974 Office of the Press Secretary, President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, The White House
(Mar. 10, 2015).
975 Office of the Press Secretary, President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, The White House
(Jan. 5, 2017); Email from Eric Schwerin to Hunter Biden (Jan. 6, 2017, 1:23 AM).
976 Bergès Interview at 40-41, 91-92; see Letter from William Pittard, Kaiser Law, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Jan. 9,
2024).
977 Bergès Interview at 40. 978 Id. at 40; see Letter from William Pittard, Kaiser Law, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Jan. 9, 2024).
979 Bergès Interview at 91-92.
187
A. I think they had an arrangement, because I didn’t pay Hunter
Biden his commission, the artist commission, because it was
dealt—that’s how I remembered that, yes, he had to have
known that he was the buyer because normally the gallery
would then write a check for the artist[’s] commission but I
didn’t. So I just got paid for my portion, for the gallery’s
portion, and they . . . negotiated [their portion] . . . I got paid
for my portion. And then that portion was because they dealt
with how they’re going to . . . instead of him waiting for me
to pay him, they were going to settle it together. So but I
don’t want to circumvent that. I want the gallery to make a
profit. Obviously, otherwise, it’s circumventing the gallery. .
. .
Q. So Kevin Morris just paid you the 40 percent of the
$875,000?
A. Correct.
Q. He gave you a check. Normally he would pay $875,000 to
the gallery, and then you would give the 60 percent to the
artist.
A. Correct.
Q. Have you ever done that before? The arrangement that
happened where you got paid directly the 40 percent from
the purchaser, has that ever happened before?
A. Not that I can recall but it’s not unusual if the collector and
the artist have an existing relationship and they obviously
want to pay me because he doesn’t want to ruin the
relationship. If I’m a collector, I don’t want to ruin the
relationship the artist has with the gallery.980
In other words, Hunter Biden eliminated $525,000 of his total loan debt owed to Mr. Morris
through this one-time purchase.981
While Mr. Bergès still received the gallerist’s fees and commission owed to him through
the sale to Mr. Morris, he admitted that he could not recall any other time that he had seen an
arrangement like this in art sales.982 Additionally, this abnormal transaction raised questions
regarding the tax implications for Hunter Biden since he did not receive a direct payment on Mr.
980 Id. at 91-93. 981 See id. at 91-92. 982 Id.at 92-93.
188
Morris’s purchase.983 When asked about the subsequent tax documentation for this $875,000
sale, Mr. Bergès testified:
Q. Do you ever provide tax documentation for the artists?
A. Yeah, I send them a I think it’s a 1099 . . . .
Q. Okay. So for . . . Kevin Morris, Hunter Biden would get a
1099 that reflects he received a payment of $525,000?
A. I don’t know. I’d have to talk to my accountant . . . .
Q. So I guess the question is [a] . . . two part question. You
ordinarily send tax documentation, correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. So that’s the first question. The second question related is
whether for the Kevin Morris transaction . . . because you
didn’t cut a check to Hunter Biden for the [$525,000], that
was something, I guess, handled between Mr. Morris and Mr.
Biden, right?
A. Right.
Q. So you didn’t provide tax documentation for that most likely,
correct?
A. I don’t know.984
Mr. Bergès’s testimony on this sale not only raised questions about whether Hunter Biden
appropriately reported this for tax purposes, but also presented yet another example of how
Hunter Biden expected and received special treatment because of the Biden name. Even after the
provision requiring disclosure of buyers’ names was removed in their second contract, Mr.
Bergès admitted that there were no ramifications for Hunter Biden if he learned their names from
any other source.985
The Committees also received testimony from Mr. Bergès with regards to the White
House’s involvement in his contract with Hunter Biden. According to the Washington Post,
White House officials, along with one of Hunter Biden’s attorneys, were involved in crafting the
terms of the contract, “attempt[ing] to do so in a way that allows the [P]resident’s son to pursue a
983 Id. at 91-93. 984 Id. at 94-95. 985 Id. at 48-50.
189
new career while also adhering” to President Biden’s pledge to maintain the highest ethical
standards.986 Commenting on the contract’s requirement to maintain buyers’ confidentiality, a
White House spokesman reportedly promised the arrangement “would ensure ethical
dealings.”987 However, director of the Office of Government Ethics during the Obama-Biden
Administration Walter Shaub disparaged the ethics arrangement as “the perfect method for
funneling bribes” to the President and criticized it for “outsourc[ing] government ethics to an art
dealer,” which he found particularly concerning given that the art industry is “notorious for
money laundering.”988 Mr. Shaub denounced the lack of transparency provided by the
arrangement, asserting that “we don’t know who is paying for this art and we don’t know for
sure that [Hunter Biden] knows, we have no way of monitoring whether people are buying
access to the White House,”989 and proclaimed that Hunter Biden’s art sales have “the absolute
appearance that he’s profiting off his father’s fame.”990
However, Mr. Bergès testified that he had never spoken with anyone at the White House
about the terms of his agreement with Hunter Biden, so he was “surprised” the White House
stated that it was involved in drafting an ethics agreement for Hunter Biden’s art sales.991
Specifically, Mr. Bergès testified:
Q. So when you’re seeing in the press that the White House is
putting in certain safeguards regarding an ethics agreement
but you’ve had no conversations with [the] White House, I
mean, did you ever say to Hunter Biden, Hey, where’s this
coming from? This is in the press, saying the White House
is involved in this ethics agreement. They’re not even
involved in the agreement at all.
A. I might have. I probably did, yeah.
Q. And do you remember what he said to you?
A. I don’t . . . . I do remember being surprised.
Q. Why were you surprised?
986 See Matt Viser, Deal of the art: White House grapples with ethics of Hunter Biden’s pricey paintings, WASH.
POST (July 8, 2021). With regard to specifically which White House officials were involved in developing the terms
of Hunter Biden’s contract, the New York Times twice reported that the White House Counsel’s Office helped
develop the terms. See Graham Bowley, At Hunter Biden’s Art Show, Line, Color and Questions, N.Y. TIMES (Nov.
5, 2021); Zolan Kanno-Youngs, White House Sets Ethics Plan for Sales of Hunter Biden’s Art, N.Y. TIMES (Sept.
13, 2021).
987 Zolan Kanno-Youngs, White House Sets Ethics Plan for Sales of Hunter Biden’s Art, N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 13,
2021).
988 Caroline Downey, Former Obama Ethics Chief: Hunter Biden Art-Selling Arrangement ‘Perfect Mechanism for
Funneling Bribes’, NAT’L REV. (July 9, 2021). 989 Matt Viser, Deal of the art: White House grapples with ethics of Hunter Biden’s pricey paintings, WASH. POST
(July 8, 2021).
990 Caroline Downey, Former Obama Ethics Chief: Hunter Biden Art-Selling Arrangement ‘Perfect Mechanism for
Funneling Bribes’, NAT’L REV. (July 9, 2021). 991 Bergès Interview at 28.
190
A. Because I hadn’t had any communication with the White
House about an agreement.992
In sum, Mr. Bergès’s testimony confirms the financial benefit that Hunter Biden received
in all lines of work solely because of the identify of his father. Even though joining the art
industry is unlike any of Hunter Biden’s other known business ventures, Mr. Bergès’s testimony
sheds light on how Hunter Biden is now using the Biden brand to increase the value of his work,
especially with known Democrat supporters.993
Overall, the evidence collected by the Committees indicate that the Biden family’s main
priority has been to benefit the Biden brand. In doing so, the Biden family has utilized numerous
business associates to help them exploit financial opportunities by leveraging the Biden name.
Although some witnesses dispute or downplay the Biden family influence-peddling operation,
testimony and documents collectively indicate that the Bidens, including President Biden, have
been well-aware of their family’s ability to take advantage of their power and influence for
financial gain. This family’s clear and apparent self-enrichment depends on President Biden’s
official position, and if not for President Biden’s official position, it is highly unlikely the Bidens
would have had access to the business contacts that have made them millions.
Abuse of power “encompass[es] a wide range of self-dealing, obstruction, and misuse of
federal authority maneuvers.”994 Under the standard articulated by House Democrats in 2019,
impeachable abuse of power occurs when the President exercises “official power to obtain an
improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest.”995 President Biden
has done just that.
In a years-long pattern of foreign and domestic influence peddling and grift, Joe Biden
placed his personal interests and his family’s financial benefits above the welfare of the nation
and the security of American democracy. The acts constitute an abuse of power of the Vice
Presidency. President Biden allowed his family to sell access and influence over first the Vice
Presidency and even participated in these ventures with quick phone calls and drop-by meetings.
Documents and testimony show that the Biden family would not have received the benefits it did
without the official position of President Joe Biden.
992 Id. 993 Id. at 46-48. 994 Turley Testimony at 23. 995 H.R. REP. NO. 116-346, at 44 (2019).
191
Financial records—documents that are used as evidence in federal court every day—
show that, since at least the second term of Joe Biden as vice president, millions of dollars have
flowed to Biden family members’ (or their associated entities’) bank accounts from foreign
sources. Interviews with witnesses who were privy to these transactions could not identify value
the Bidens provided to their foreign business partners other than access to or influence over Joe
Biden. Joe Biden has abused the power and trust placed in him by the American public for
personal gain. Joe Biden engaged in—and indeed made possible—a scheme to monetize the
positions of public trust he has held for millions of dollars sourced from foreign parties.
192
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND
THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT BIDEN’S SON
President Biden has abused his office and misused official White House and Executive
Branch resources to impede the Committees’ legislative investigations and impeachment inquiry
and the criminal investigation of his son, Hunter Biden. As Professor Turley testified to the
Oversight Committee, misusing official resources “to obstruct or frustrate efforts to investigate”
misconduct is an impeachable offense.996 Accordingly, the Committees are compelled to examine
the President’s actions, and those of his Administration, in obstructing Congress and obstructing
justice.
I. President Biden and the White House obstructed Congressional investigations.
The President, the White House, and the Biden-Harris Administration have repeatedly
evinced a hostility towards and unwillingness to cooperate with the House’s impeachment
inquiry and Congress’s legislative oversight. Specifically, the President and the Biden-Harris
Administration have taken affirmative steps to hinder or otherwise impede the Committees from
effectuating their responsibility to conduct a thorough and necessary impeachment inquiry
regarding both the circumstances surrounding Joe Biden’s mishandling and disclosure of
classified materials and the breadth of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s influence
peddling and grift.
The White House has obstructed the Committees’ impeachment inquiry and
investigations in at least four distinct ways: (1) the White House prevented five current and
former White House officials with personal knowledge of President Biden’s mishandling of
classified documents from testifying before the Oversight Committee and refused to provide
documents and information in response to requests from the Oversight Committee;
997 (2)
President Biden obstructed Congress by asserting executive privilege over subpoenaed material
concerning President Biden’s mishandling of classified information;
998 (3) the White House has
obstructed Congress from obtaining documents and communications related to President Biden’s
use of pseudonym email accounts;
999 and (4) the White House has obstructed Congress from
receiving other documents from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
including drafts of President Biden’s speech to the Ukrainian Rada in 2015 during which he
called for the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.1000
996 Turley Testimony at 24. 997 Letter from Richard Sauber, Special Counsel to the President, White House, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Oct. 18, 2023).
998 Letter from Edward N. Siskel, White House Counsel, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Accountability, and Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (May 16, 2024).
999 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, to Colleen
Shogan, Archivist, Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. (Jan. 12, 2024). 1000 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, & Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, to Edward
Siskel, White House Counsel (Jan. 31, 2024).
193
A. President Biden’s White House obstructed Congress’s investigation of his
mishandling of classified materials.
In January 2023, the White House announced that President Biden’s personal attorneys
discovered classified materials at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement
(Penn Biden Center), an office space used by Joe Biden, in part, to run his private entity,
CelticCapri Corp. (CelticCapri).1001 The White House Counsel’s Office released a statement, in
part describing the circumstances surrounding the documents’ alleged discovery on November 2,
2022:
The White House is cooperating with the National Archives and the
Department of Justice regarding the discovery of what appear to be
Obama-Biden Administration records, including a small number of
documents with classified markings. The documents were
discovered when the President’s personal attorneys were packing
files housed in a locked closet to prepare to vacate office space at
the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C. The President
periodically used this space from mid-2017 until the start of the
2020 campaign. On the day of discovery, November 2, 2022, the
White House Counsel’s Office notified the National Archives. The
Archives took possession of the materials the following morning.
The discovery of these documents was made by the President’s
attorneys. The documents were not the subject of any previous
request or inquiry by the Archives. Since that discovery, the
President’s personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives
and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any ObamaBiden Administration records are appropriately in the possession of
the Archives.1002
Shortly after this announcement, President Biden’s personal attorneys allegedly
discovered additional classified materials in President Biden’s possession in several other
unsecured locations at President Biden’s personal residence in Delaware and at the University of
Delaware.1003
Days after the White House’s announcement regarding discovery of the improperly
retained classified materials, the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee opened
separate investigations into the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the materials and
Attorney General Garland’s appointment of former U.S. Attorney Robert Hur as special counsel
1001 Ian Sams (@IanSams46), Twitter (Jan. 9, 2023, 6:04 PM),
https://x.com/IanSams46/status/1612586101692141570?s=20&%3Bt=f5dkjJ_yginkktzlagTJjA; Form 278e, The
President’s Annual Financial Disclosure Report for 2022 (2023), U.S. Office of Gov. Ethics. 1002 Ian Sams (@IanSams46), Twitter (Jan. 9, 2023, 6:04 PM),
https://x.com/IanSams46/status/1612586101692141570?s=20&%3Bt=f5dkjJ_yginkktzlagTJjA.
1003 Hur Report at 22-28.
194
over the matter.1004 The appointment of Special Counsel Hur did not absolve President Biden, the
Biden White House, or the Biden-Harris Administration from cooperating with the Committees’
investigation of this matter. Nonetheless, these parties have taken unprecedented steps to obstruct
the Congressional investigation by blocking White House officials from testifying about their
involvement in the discovery of or access to the classified materials and preventing the Attorney
General from providing Congress the audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur’s interviews.
i. The White House prevented former and current White House officials
from testifying before Congress regarding his mishandling of classified
materials.
Since the beginning of the 118th Congress—and subsequently in furtherance of the
impeachment inquiry—the Oversight Committee has investigated President Biden’s mishandling
of classified documents and whether the White House led an effort to cover up his misconduct or
mislead the American people about it. Through this investigation, the Committee learned that at
least five White House employees—including then-White House Counsel Dana Remus—
accessed the Penn Biden Center prior to the discovery of classified documents.1005
The Committee has sought testimony from five current and former White House
employees involved in the handling of President Biden’s classified documents. These five
individuals were identified through the Oversight Committee’s transcribed interviews of Kathy
Chung (a current Department of Defense employee and former Assistant to then-Vice President
Biden) and two Penn Biden Center employees (Penn Biden Center Employee 1 and Penn Biden
Center Employee 2):
- Dana Remus (former White House Counsel) played a central role in coordinating
the organizing, moving, and attempted removal of President Biden’s boxes that
were later found to contain classified materials.
1006 - Annie Tomasini (Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the President
and Director of Oval Office Operations) went to the Penn Biden Center to take
inventory of President Biden’s documents and materials on March 18, 2021.1007 - Anthony Bernal (Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the First Lady)
traveled to the Penn Biden Center with Ms. Remus and an unknown White House
1004 See Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Stuart Delery,
White House Counsel, The White House (Jan. 13, 2023); Letter from Reps. Jim Jordan & Mike Johnson, H. Comm.
on the Judiciary, to Merrick Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Jan. 13, 2023). 1005 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, & Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Peter Koski, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP (Nov. 13, 2023).
[hereinafter, “Nov. 13 Remus Letter”].
1006 See generally Transcribed Interview of Penn Biden Center Employee 1 (July 18, 2023) [hereinafter “Penn Biden
Center Employee 1 Interview”].
1007 Letter from Penn Biden Center Employee 1 to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability (Aug. 8, 2023) [hereinafter “Aug. 8 Employee 1 Letter”].
195
employee to take possession of the boxes of documents and materials but could
not fit all the boxes into their vehicle.1008 - Ashley Williams (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Oval
Office Operations) traveled to the Penn Biden Center on October 12, 2022, with
President Biden’s personal attorney, Pat Moore, to do another “wave of assessing
files and looking at boxes.”1009 Ms. Williams returned to the Penn Biden Cener
the following day, October 13, 2022, and left with “a few” of President Biden’s
boxes.1010 - Katie Reilly (Advisor to Chief of Staff) was on email communications between
Ms. Remus and Ms. Chung in May of 2022 regarding documents at the Penn
Biden Center and connected Ms. Remus with Penn Biden Center employees.1011
These individuals were all involved in the handling of boxes of Vice President Biden’s
documents, which contained classified information, before the purported discovery that some of
the documents contained classified information on November 2, 2022. The White House and
President Biden’s personal attorneys omitted their interactions with the documents at the Penn
Biden Center from any public statements.
The Committee learned from one Penn Biden Center Employee, Penn Biden Center
Employee 1, that on March 18, 2021, the first White House employee, Annie Tomasini, went to
the Penn Biden Center to take inventory of President Biden’s documents and materials.1012
Notably, Special Counsel Hur’s report reveals that Ms. Tomasini reported back directly to the
President after her review of the materials.1013 These facts are significant as it shows that the
White House’s review began well over a year before the purported timeline and President
Biden’s direct involvement.
Then, six months prior to the beginning of the White House’s timeline of events—Ms.
Remus initiated an effort to retrieve President Biden’s files from the Penn Biden Center by
contacting Kathy Chung, who served as an assistant to then-Vice President Biden, in May
2022.1014 Ms. Remus contacted Ms. Chung about this task via “her personal telephone and email
account” rather than her government phone and Department of Defense email account.1015
According to Special Counsel Hur, Ms. Remus explained the “original purpose” was to
“gather[] materials to prepare for potential congressional inquiries about the Biden family’s
activities during the period from 2017 through 2019, when Mr. Biden was actively engaged with
1008 Penn Biden Center Employee 1 Interview at 11-14. 1009 Penn Biden Center Employee 1 at 17, 38-40; Aug. 8 Employee 1 Letter. 1010 Aug. 8 Employee 1 Letter. 1011 Chung Interview at 27-28. 1012 Aug. 8 Employee 1 Letter. 1013 Hur Report at 257. 1014 Transcribed Interview of Kathy Chung, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 119 (April 4, 2023)
[hereinafter “Chung Interview”]); Hur Report at 257. 1015 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Dana Remus (May 5,
2023).
196
the Center.”1016 Ms. Remus later learned that President Biden’s materials at the Penn Biden
Center were “not limited to records of his activities from 2017 through 2019.”1017 The purpose of
the retrieval effort then “became to clear out all of President Biden’s materials from the Penn
Biden Center.”1018 Ms. Remus “decided to ship material that could be relevant to future
congressional inquiries to [Mr.] . . . Moore for further review,” “while personal items [were]
shipped to [President] Biden’s Delaware home.”1019
Ms. Chung worked as Assistant to the Vice President from July 2012 through the end of
the Obama-Biden Administration in January 2017.
1020 During the final days of the Obama-Biden
Administration, Ms. Chung packed up several moving boxes with materials from the West Wing,
including “mementos, photos, framed photos, [and] a lot of books.”1021
After the Obama-Biden Administration ended, Ms. Chung began working for President
Biden at his corporate entity, CelticCapri, which was located in the Penn Biden Center.1022
However, Ms. Chung was working at the Department of Defense when Ms. Remus—whom Ms.
Chung had not spoken to since the Biden presidential campaign a year and a half earlier—
contacted her on May 24, 2022, to do what Ms. Chung “believed was a personal task for the
President.”1023 Ms. Chung did not believe the items she packed at the Penn Biden Center were
“subject to the Presidential Records Act.”1024 Ms. Remus contacted Ms. Chung about this task
via “her personal telephone and email account” rather than her government phone and
Department of Defense email account.1025
Ms. Chung’s testimony to the Committee refutes the White House’s characterization of
when these documents were discovered and how and where they were stored. According to the
White House’s statement, in November 2022 the President’s personal attorneys discovered the
documents in a “locked closet” at the Penn Biden Center while preparing to vacate the space.1026
According to her testimony, however, Ms. Chung—not President Biden’s personal attorneys—
packed boxes of documents at the Penn Biden Center on June 28, 2022—not November
2022.
1027 Ms. Chung also was not aware—contrary to the explanation given by the White House
in January 2023—of any plan to vacate the office. She testified:
Q. . . . In May 2022, when Ms. Remus first reached out to you,
. . . were plans in progress to close down the Penn Biden
1016 Hur Report at 257-58. 1017 Hur Report at 258. It is not clear when exactly Ms. Remus learned this fact, as the Hur report only says she
learned it “[t]hrough later conversations.” Id. 1018 Id. 1019 Id. 1020 Chung Interview at 7-8. 1021 Id. at 20-21; 55-57. 1022 Id. at 11-12. 1023 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Dana Remus (May 5,
2023) [hereinafter “May 5 Letter to Remus”]. 1024 Chung Interview at 96. 1025 May 5 Letter to Remus. 1026 Statement of Richard Sauber, Special Counsel to the President (Jan. 9, 2023). 1027 Chung Interview at 86-88.
197
Center now that the Vice President was in the White
House?
A. No. Not that I’m aware of.1028
Instead, Ms. Remus asked her to pack up the Penn Biden Center documents because “they were
his documents, [and] they wanted to take possession of them.”1029
Ms. Chung’s testimony also revealed that, of the thirteen boxes she packed—which were
later found to contain classified materials—as well as an unspecified number of additional boxes
that were never unpacked from the Obama-Biden Administration, were not in a locked closet.1030
She testified:
Q. These boxes, when you went there on June 28th of 2022,
and the items, were they in a locked closet?
A. No.
Q. Were any of the boxes in a locked closet at all?
A. No.
Q. Were any of the items that you boxed up and then put them
in the 13 boxes—so now you’ve boxed them up and
packaged them up. Were those boxes placed in a locked
closet?
A. No.
Q. Would you have even had the ability to lock them in a
closet yourself without getting [Penn Biden employees]
involved?
A. No.1031
According to Ms. Chung, she found documents in multiple locations, none of which were
secured. 1032 She stated:
Q. When you first go into Penn Biden Center, I believe you
said you need a fob to get in. Do I remember that correctly?
1028 Id. at 119. 1029 Id.at 18. 1030 May 5 Letter to Remus.. 1031 Chung Interview at 88. 1032 Id. at 82-83.
198
A. Yes.
Q. Do you need a fob to access any other part of Penn Biden
Center once you go through the entrance?
A. No.
Q. So the fob is just to get you in the entranceway?
A. Yes, to the suite.
Q. Okay. In order to get into the storage room, was the storage
room locked?
A. I’m trying to think if [Penn Biden Employe 2] or [Penn
Biden Employee 1] had to unlock—no, I believe not.
Q. It’s fair to say since it wasn’t locked, you didn’t have a key
for the storage room then?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any other keys or fobs or anything else
related to Penn Biden Center to get in any other areas that
could be locked in Penn Biden Center?
A. I had a fob and a key. I had a key to his office, which was
not locked. No.1033
Ms. Chung emailed Ms. Remus later that evening after she completed packing the boxes.1034 The
boxes Ms. Chung packed were later found to contain classified materials.1035
The Oversight Committee’s transcribed interviews with two Penn Biden Center
employees provided further information about the circumstances of the discovery of the
classified documents.1036 Penn Biden Center Employee 1 was present when Ms. Chung went to
the Penn Biden Center on June 28, 2022, and on June 30, 2022, when Ms. Remus, Mr. Bernal,
and an unknown White House employee went to the Penn Biden Center to take possession of the
boxes of documents and materials but could not fit all of the boxes into their vehicle.1037
Through counsel, Penn Biden Center Employee 1 told the Oversight Committee that Ms. Remus
“arrived approximately a half hour after Mr. Bernal.”1038
1033 Id. 1034 Id. at 86-88. 1035 May 5 Letter to Remus. 1036 See generally Penn Biden Center Employee 1 Interview; see generally Transcribed Interview of Penn Biden
Center Employee 2 (July 21, 2023) [hereinafter “Penn Biden Center Employee 2 Interview”]. 1037 Penn Biden Center Employee 1 Interview at 36, 52, 58-59. 1038 Aug. 8 Employee 1 Letter.
199
Ms. Remus told Special Counsel Hur that she discovered upon arriving at the Penn Biden
Center “that there was much more than 13 boxes of material belonging to Mr. Biden, and some
of it was not even packed.”1039 According to Ms. Remus, the project of going through the
volume of material and figuring out where things should go “was a much bigger task” than she
expected.1040 Ms. Remus and her colleagues left the Penn Biden Center without removing
anything.1041 Although Ms. Remus left the White House in July 2022, she contacted Mr. Moore
at some point and “asked him to review and properly dispose of the material stored at the Penn
Biden Center.”1042
On October 4, 2022—months after she packed up the boxes—Ms. Chung was notified by
a Penn Biden Center employee that no one had picked them up. She testified:
Q. Then if we can go to . . . the October 4, 2022, email at
10:32 a.m. from [Penn Biden Center Employee 1] to you.
What does she write?
A. “Hi, Kathy. Checking in to see if the below mentioned
boxes will be picked up soon. Thanks, [Penn Biden Center
employee 1].”
Q. And what was your response?
A. “Wait. Did they not pick up back in June?”
Q. And as you discussed with my colleagues, you were
surprised at this point that the items had not been picked
up, correct?
A. Correct.1043
Penn Biden Center Employee 1 testified that on October 11, 2022—over three months
after the three White House employees’ visit to the Penn Biden Center—Special Assistant to the
President and Deputy Director of Oval Office Operations Ashley Williams reached out to Penn
Biden Center Employee 1 about “com[ing] by this week with some of my colleagues to do the
next wave of assessing of files and looking at boxes.”1044
On October 12, 2022, Ms. Williams went to the Penn Biden Center with President
Biden’s personal attorney, Patrick Moore.1045 Mr. Moore told Special Counsel Hur that his “goal
was to take stock of what was stored there, determine how much needed to be reviewed, and
1039 Hur Report at 262. 1040 Id. 1041 Id. at 262-63. 1042 Id.at 263. 1043 Chung Interview at 94. 1044 Penn Biden Center Employee 1 Interview at 17. 1045 Id.at 17, 38-40, 66-67.
200
create a plan for moving everything out.”1046 He stated “conducting the review was not a high
priority because nobody expected to find classified documents or presidential records there.”1047
Mr. Moore ultimately identified six or seven boxes containing documents to review, some of
which he recalled finding in a small closet in President Biden’s office.1048 According to Special
Counsel Hur, Mr. Moore told FBI agents that he “believed the small closet was initially locked
and that a Penn Biden Center staff member provided a key to unlock it, but his memory was
fuzzy on that point.”1049
During their transcribed interview, Penn Biden Center Employee 1 told the Committee
neither Mr. Moore or Ms. Williams took items or boxes with them when they left on October
12.1050 However, counsel for Penn Biden Center Employee 1 later clarified: “Ms. Williams
returned to the Center by herself the following day, October 13, 2022, and removed a few boxes
at that time. [Penn Biden Center Employee 1] does not have firsthand knowledge of the contents
of the boxes that were removed.”1051
Also on October 13, 2022, Ms. Chung notified Bob Bauer, one of President Biden’s
personal attorneys, that boxes remained at the Penn Biden Center.1052 She testified:
Q. And in this text message dated October 13 of 2022, you
send a text to Mr. Bob Bauer, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’ve said this before, but you knew Mr. Bauer from
previously working in the administration and other
government jobs; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you please read your text to him?
A. “Bob, one thing I forgot to ask you today. There are still
boxes of materials at the Penn Biden Center. They are
wondering if someone is going to pick up. Dana went there
in June, but decided it was too much to take I was told.”1053
Mr. Bauer responded via text message the same day, stating: “[Mr. Moore] has begun to sort
through them and so we should get this organized in the near future.”1054 Mr. Moore returned to
1046 Hur Report at 263-64. 1047 Id.at 264. 1048 Id. at 264-65. 1049 Id. at 265. 1050 Penn Biden Center Employee 1 Interview at 22, 74. 1051 Aug. 8 Employee 1 Letter. 1052 Chung Interview at 95. 1053 Id. 1054 Id. at 96.
201
the Penn Biden Center several weeks later on November 2, 2022, with an associate from his law
firm, at which point, according to the White House’s timeline, President Biden’s personal
attorneys “unexpectedly discovered” the classified materials in “a locked closet.”1055
Because the Oversight Committee learned of all this new information, not previously
revealed by the White House, the Oversight Committee sought documents and information, and
interviews with the five current and former White House employees, including Ms. Remus, to
gain clarity about the events that preceded the “discovery” of documents at the Penn Biden
Center in November of 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Oversight Committee first requested a
transcribed interview with Ms. Remus—who had left the White House by the time of the first
public reporting on classified materials possessed by President Biden.1056 Through counsel, Ms.
Remus requested guidance from the White House regarding her ability to speak to the Oversight
Committee regarding this matter because of her position at the time in the White House.
On October 11, 2023, the Oversight Committee wrote to the White House seeking
specific documents, interviews with certain White House personnel, and noticing its intent to
conduct a transcribed interview of Ms. Remus.1057 On October 18, 2023, the White House
responded by informing the Oversight Committee that the White House would neither provide
the requested documents nor make available White House officials—including former White
House Counsel Remus—for interviews.1058 After the Oversight Committee and Judiciary
Committee issued subpoenas for Ms. Remus’s testimony, the White House again responded on
November 17, 2023, requesting that the Committees withdraw all subpoenas issued in
connection with this investigation of President Biden.1059
The White House’s refusal to cooperate with the Committees’ investigation constitutes
obstruction. Evidence obtained by the Oversight Committee’s investigation revealed numerous
White House employees participated in the review and taking of material from the Penn Biden
Center. This review was being conducted by a White House Counsel who told Special Counsel
Hur that the White House’s motive for doing so was to prepare responses for potential
congressional oversight.
1055 Statement from Bob Bauer, Personal Attorney for the President (Jan. 14, 2023). 1056 Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Dana Remus, Covington &
Burling LLP (May 5, 2023); Chung Interview at 13-14; Penn Biden Center Employee 1 Interview at 10-11; Penn
Biden Center Employee 2 Interview at 12. 1057 Letter from James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Edward Siskel, White House
Counsel (Oct. 11, 2023). 1058 Letter from Richard Sauber, Special Counsel to the President, The White House, to Rep. James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Oct. 18, 2023).
1059 Letter from Richard Sauber, Special Counsel to the President, The White House, to Rep. James Comer,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary
(Nov. 17, 2023).
202
ii. The White House obstructed Congress from obtaining audio recordings
of Special Counsel Hur’s two-day interviews with President Biden and his
ghostwriter.
President Biden obstructed Congress by withholding material relevant to the Oversight
and Judiciary Committees’ legislative oversight and the Committees’ impeachment inquiry. In
the weeks following the February 5, 2024, release of Special Counsel Hur’s report, the
Committees engaged with the Justice Department to obtain a limited set of documents and
records related to the report. On February 16, 2024, the Department responded to the
Committees’ February 12 letter but failed to produce any of the requested material—stating,
instead, that it was “working to gather and process” responsive documents.1060 The Department
offered no timeframe or commitment for the production of requested documents and
information.1061
Accordingly, on February 27, 2024, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees issued
identical subpoenas to Attorney General Garland compelling the production of the four
categories of materials:
- All documents and communications, including audio and video recordings, related to
Special Counsel Robert Hur’s interview of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; - All documents and communications, including audio and video recordings, related to
Special Counsel Hur’s interview of Mr. Mark Zwonitzer; - The documents identified as “A9” and “A10” in Appendix A of Special Counsel Hur’s
report, which relate to Vice President Biden’s December 11, 2015 call with thenUkrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk; and - All communications between or among representatives of the Department of Justice,
including the Office of the Special Counsel, the Executive Office of the President, and
President Biden’s personal counsel referring or relating to Special Counsel Hur’s
report.1062
The Judiciary and Oversight Committees subpoenaed these materials for several reasons,
including: (1) to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment
against President Biden for consideration by the full House of Representatives, (2) to determine
whether the Justice Department was upholding its commitment to impartial justice, and (3) to
ensure that federal agencies, including NARA, adequately accounted for records and documents
meant to be returned to the federal government upon an executive branch employee’s departure
1060 Letter from Assistant Att’y Gen. Carlos Felipe Uriarte, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman,
H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability et al. (Feb. 16, 2024).
1061 Id. 1062 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm on the Judiciary, to Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Feb. 27,
2024).
203
from office. To date, although the Department has produced some limited material, the Attorney
General has refused to produce the audio recordings.
The subpoenas set a return date of March 7, 2024. On that date, the Department produced
an incomplete set of documents comprising only correspondence exchanged between President
Biden’s legal counsel and the Department, along with an offer to review two classified
documents in camera—documents “A9” and “A10.”1063 Special Counsel Hur’s report revealed
those documents “concerned President Biden’s 2015 interactions with the Ukrainian
government.”1064 Two days later, on March 9, 2024, the Committees notified the Department that
its initial production in response to the subpoenas was inadequate.1065 In this letter, the
Committees specifically noted that the Department had failed to produce unredacted transcripts
and audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur’s interviews of President Biden or Zwonitzer.1066
Because Special Counsel Hur was scheduled to testify in front of the Judiciary Committee on
March 12, 2024, the Committees offered to accept a production of all materials responsive to the
Committees’ subpoenas by March 11, 2024, at 3:00 p.m.1067 The Department failed to comply
with the Committees’ revised deadline,1068 and instead informed the Committees that an
“interagency review” for classified and confidential information was pending.1069
Approximately two hours before Special Counsel Hur’s scheduled testimony in front of
the Judiciary Committee on the morning of March 12, 2024, the Department produced to the
Committees two redacted transcripts of Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President
Biden.1070 The Department failed to produce the audio recordings of the interviews. In its letter
accompanying the two redacted transcripts, which was transmitted to the Committees at
approximately 7:45 a.m., the Department represented to the Committees that it had just
completed the “standard interagency review process” earlier that morning, thereby allowing the
material to be released.1071 Despite the Department’s representation, however, it was apparent
1063 Letter from Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Rep.
Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar. 7, 2024); Letter from Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att’y
Gen., Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Accountability (Mar. 7, 2024) [collectively, “Mar. 7 Letters”].. 1064 H. Rept. 118-533, 118th Cong. at 8 (2024); Hur Report at A-2. 1065 Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Merrick B. Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Mar. 9, 2024)
[hereinafter “Mar. 9 Letter.”]. 1066 Id. 1067 Id. 1068 Letter from Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Rep.
Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar. 12, 2024); Letter from Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att’y
Gen., Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Accountability (Mar. 12, 2024) (collectively “March 12 Letters”).
1069 Id. 1070 Email from Office Staff, Office of Legislative Affairs, Dep’t of Justice, to Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Accountability (Mar. 12, 2024, 7:48 a.m.); Email from Office Staff, Office of Legislative Affairs, Dep’t of
Justice, to Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Mar. 12, 2024, 7:49 a.m.); Email from Office
Staff, Office of Legislative Affairs, Dep’t of Justice, to Comm. Staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability
(Mar. 12, 2024, 7:49 a.m.). 1071 March 12 Letters.
204
that several news outlets had received and reviewed the transcripts before they were produced to
the Committees.1072
The Committees wrote to Attorney General Garland on March 25, 2024, regarding the
Department’s continued withholding of material responsive to the Committees’ subpoenas,
particularly the audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President Biden and
the transcripts and audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with Zwonitzer.1073 The
letter reminded Attorney General Garland about the legal obligations imposed upon him by the
Committees’ subpoenas and directed him to produce all responsive materials no later than 12:00
p.m. on April 8, 2024 to avoid further action on this matter, including the invocation of contempt
of Congress proceedings.1074
The Department replied on April 8, 2024, but again flouted the Committees’ subpoenas,
choosing instead to produce only the redacted transcripts of Special Counsel Hur’s two
interviews with Zwonitzer but not the audio recordings.1075 In a letter to the Committees, the
Department explained why it decided to withhold the audio recordings—not because of any
applicable legal privilege, but instead based on the Department’s unfounded accusations
regarding the Committees’ motives and its self-interested determination that the audio recordings
were “cumulative” of other material already produced.1076 Rather than engaging with the
Committees and addressing their articulated reasons for seeking the audio recordings, the
Department chose to dictate to the Committees what materials fulfilled the House’s informational
needs.1077
The Committees addressed the Department’s excuses for failing to comply with the
subpoenas in a subsequent letter to Attorney General Garland dated April 15, 2024, writing that
his response to the subpoenas suggests he is “withholding records for partisan purposes and to
avoid political embarrassment for President Biden.”1078 In that letter, the Committees rejected the
Department’s unsupported assertion that the audio recordings were “cumulative,” explaining
how audio recordings are materially distinct from written transcripts and reminding the Attorney
General that federal courts have held that Congress requires “all relevant evidence” in an
impeachment inquiry.1079
The Committees noted the Department had asserted no constitutional or legal privilege
shielding the disclosure of the audio recordings and that any applicable privilege had been
1072 Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman. H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Merrick B. Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Apr. 15, 2024)
[hereinafter “Apr. 15 Letter”]. 1073 Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Merrick B. Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Mar. 25, 2024).
1074 Id. 1075 Letter from Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Apr. 8,
2024) [hereinafter “Apr. 8 Letter”]. 1076 Id. 1077 Id. 1078 Apr. 15 Letter. 1079 Id. at 2-3.
205
waived by the release of the written transcripts to the media.1080 The Committees also rejected
the Department’s unsupported speculation about the Committees’ motives for obtaining the audio
recordings, explaining the recordings’ evidentiary value and highlighting the Department’s
hypocritical insistence on a standard of compliance here that it would never allow for a private
party.1081 The Committees offered the Department until April 25 to produce the withheld
materials or else the Committees would consider invoking contempt of Congress
proceedings.1082
The Department again refused to comply. On April 25, 2024, the Department responded
to the Committees’ letter and argued, among other things, that the Committees “have not
articulated a legitimate congressional need to obtain audio recordings from Mr. Hur’s
investigation[,]” and that releasing the audio recordings “would harm law enforcement and the
evenhanded administration of justice” because it “would compound the likelihood that future
prosecutors will be unable to secure th[e] level of cooperation” that was important to Special
Counsel Hur’s investigation.1083
On May 13, 2024, the Committees each formally noticed a report recommending that the
House hold Attorney General Garland in contempt of Congress to be considered at a business
meeting on May 16, 2024.1084 A mere two hours before the start of the Judiciary Committee’s
meeting, the White House and the Department informed the Committees that President Biden
had asserted executive privilege over the audio recordings.1085 The Department’s letter explained
that the Committees’ “contempt citation[s] [are] not justified[,]” and that “the President has
asserted executive privilege over the requested audio recordings and is making a protective
assertion of privilege over any remaining materials responsive to the subpoenas that have not
already been produced.”1086 The Department attached a separate letter, dated May 15, 2024, from
Attorney General Garland to President Biden outlining “the legal bases for the assertion [of
executive privilege]” and “request[ing]” that the President make such assertion.1087 This letter
contended that the audio recordings of the President’s and his ghostwriter’s interviews with
Special Counsel Hur “fall within the scope of executive privilege” because the “[p]roduction of
these recordings to the Committees would raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the
Department’s ability to conduct similar high-profile criminal investigations . . . .”1088
1080 Id. at 3. 1081 Id. at 4. 1082 Id. 1083 Letter from Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman. H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Apr. 25,
2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).
1084 See, e.g., Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Comer Opens Markup Initiating Contempt
of Congress Proceedings Against Attorney General Garland (May 16, 2024).
1085 Letter from Carlos F. Uriarte, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman. H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (May 16,
2024).
1086 Id. 1087 Letter from Merrick B. Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (May 15,
2024) [hereinafter “Garland Request”]. 1088 Id. at 4.
206
Meanwhile, the White House’s letter stated that the President “has a duty to safeguard the
integrity and independence of Executive Branch law enforcement functions and protect them
from undue partisan influence that could weaken those functions in the future.”1089 The White
House also stated that “the Attorney General has warned that the disclosure of materials like
these audio recordings risks harming future law enforcement investigations by making it less
likely that witnesses in high-profile investigations will voluntarily cooperate.”1090
The President’s invocation of executive privilege over the audio recordings is frivolous
and appears intended to impede the Committees from examining his mishandling of classified
information and the Department’s commitment to impartial justice. First, the President waived
executive privilege over the contents of his and his ghostwriter’s interviews with Special
Counsel Hur both when the Department produced the transcripts of such interviews to the
Committees and when the Executive Branch provided such transcripts to the press before they
were produced to the Committees.1091 This conclusion is consistent with U.S. v. Mitchell, which
rejected a presidential claim of privilege over audio recordings where, as here, “portions of
subpoenaed recordings” were “reduced to transcript form and published.”1092 In Mitchell, the
Court concluded that “the privilege claimed [was] non-existent since the conversations are . . . no
longer confidential.”1093 Moreover, the Department could have taken steps to protect the
confidentiality of the transcripts, but failed to do so when they released the transcripts to the
press prior to providing them to the Committees and failed to request that the Committee take
any action to protect the confidentiality of the transcripts.
Second, the President’s assertion of executive privilege was almost three months late,
and, therefore, invalid. When the Committees subpoenaed Attorney General Garland on February
27, 2024, the subpoenas had a return date of March 7, 2024—meaning that any assertion of
privilege over the requests should have occurred on or by that date.1094 On that date, the
Department produced an incomplete set of documents comprising only correspondence
exchanged between President Biden’s legal counsel and the Department, along with an offer to
review two classified documents in camera.
1095 At no point during that chain of correspondence
did the President or the Department mention any legal or constitutional privilege, including
executive privilege, as a justification for the Department’s failure to comply in full with the
subpoenas. Instead, the Department’s correspondence attempted to avoid the subpoenas by
insulting the Committees’ impeachment and oversight efforts.1096 Accordingly, the Department’s
eleventh-hour attempt to remedy its deficient subpoena response failed on its face.
1089 Id. 1090 Id. 1091 See Apr. 15 Letter. 1092 United States v. Mitchell, 377 F. Supp. 1326, 1330 (D.D.C. 1974) (citing Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 718
(D.C. Cir. 1973)).
1093 Id.; Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 10 F.4th 879, 891 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (finding that
“release of a document waives [executive privilege] for the document or information”).
1094 See Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm on the Judiciary, to Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Feb. 27,
2024).
1095 Mar. 7 Letters; DOJ-HJC-HUR-0000001-0000032. 1096 See Mar. 7 Letters; DOJ-HJC-HUR-0000001-0000032.
207
Finally, even if the President’s invocation of executive privilege was valid, which it is
not, it certainly has been overcome here. As an initial matter, the Committees have already
demonstrated a sufficient need for the audio recordings as the recordings are likely to contain
evidence important to the Committees’ inquiries. The audio recordings, which are uniquely in the
possession of the Department, would offer unique and important information to advance the
Committees’ impeachment inquiry and inform the Judiciary Committee as to the need for
legislative reforms to the operations of the Department or the conduct of Special Counsel
investigations. Moreover, contrary to the Department’s assertion that the audio recordings are
“cumulative” of the transcripts, an audio recording is the best evidence of a witness interview.
Where audio recordings and transcripts diverge, because of “inflection in a speaker’s voice or by
inaccuracies in the transcript,” the audio recordings, not the transcripts, control.1097
Such a divergence occurs and, in fact, it occurred recently with President Biden. A video
and audio recording taken of President Biden’s speech on April 24, 2024, reflects him reading a
teleprompter instruction to pause, saying: “Imagine what we could do next. Four more years,
pause.”1098 However, the official White House transcript of that same speech initially did not
reflect that President Biden uttered the word “pause.”1099 In this case, the video and audio
recording is the best evidence of the words that President Biden actually spoke.
The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to dictate to the House of
Representatives how to proceed with an impeachment inquiry or to conduct its oversight.1100
Rather, “congressional committees have significant discretion in how they approach an
investigation[.]”1101 The Committees are under no obligation to rely exclusively on transcripts
created, refined, and produced by executive agencies subordinate to the President, especially
when, as here, there exists superior evidence—audio recordings—that would ensure an accurate
and complete record of the interviews. While the text of the Department-created transcripts
1097 Don Zupanec, Using Transcripts of Recordings as a Demonstrative Aid, 23 No. 7 FED. LITIGATOR 13 (July
2008) (“The tape recording is evidence for you to consider. The transcript, however, is not evidence.”). See, e.g.,
United States v. Hogan, No. 2:06-CR-10, 2008 WL 2074112, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. May 14, 2008) (“[T]his Court will
instruct the jury as to the limited use of the transcripts, as the transcripts are not the evidence but the audio
recordings are the actual evidence.”).
1098 See Anders Hagstrom, Biden appears to read script instructions out loud in latest teleprompter gaffe: ‘Four
more years, pause,’ FOX NEWS (Apr. 24, 2024). 1099 See Remarks by President Biden at the North America’s Building Trades Union National Legislative
Conference, The White House (Apr. 24, 2024),
https://web.archive.org/web/20240425002537/https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/04/24/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-north-americas-building-tradesunions-national-legislative-conference/ (“Folks, imagine what we can do next. Four . . . more years (inaudible).”).
The White House subsequently updated the transcript after public attention on the omission. See Remarks by
President Biden at the North America’s Building Trades Union National Legislative Conference, The White House
(Apr. 24, 2024), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/04/24/remarks-by-presidentbiden-at-the-north-americas-building-trades-unions-national-legislative-conference/. 1100 See Linda D. Jellum, “Which Is to be Master,” the Judiciary or the Legislature? When Statutory Directives
Violate Separation of Powers, 56 UCLA L. REV. 837, 884 (2009) (“Each branch of government deserves the
autonomy necessary to carry out its functions within the constitutional scheme, and each branch should enjoy a
protected sphere of control over its internal affairs. No branch should be able to regulate the inner workings of any
other branch. Rather, each branch must be master in its own house.”) (cleaned up).
1101 TODD GARVEY, CONG. RSCH. SERV., LSB11093, COMMITTEE DISCRETION IN OBTAINING WITNESS TESTIMONY,
at 2 (2023).
208
purport to reflect the words uttered during these interviews, the transcripts do not reflect
important verbal context, such as tone or tenor, or nonverbal context, such as pauses or pace of
delivery. For instance, when interviewed, a subject’s pauses and inflections can provide
indications of a witness’s ability to recall events, or whether the individual is intentionally giving
evasive or nonresponsive testimony to investigators.
The verbal nuances in President Biden’s answers are important to the Committees’
legislative oversight investigation. Special Counsel Hur concluded that although there was
evidence that President Biden’s conduct satisfied the elements of willfully retaining classified
information, justice would not be served by indicting President Biden because he would appear
to a jury to be a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” 1102 In coming to
his conclusion, Hur considered “not just the words from the cold record of the transcript, but the
entire manner in living color in real time of how the President presented himself” and the
President’s overall demeanor.
1103 President Biden’s personal attorneys and the White House
Counsel’s office have contested Special Counsel Hur’s assessment.1104 However, Special
Counsel Hur stood by his assessment during his sworn testimony before the Judiciary
Committee. 1105 The transcripts provided to the Committees are insufficient to arbitrate this
dispute as to President Biden’s mental state, an issue which goes directly to his culpability and
whether the Justice Department appropriately pursued justice by declining to bring an
indictment. Rather, the Committees need the best evidence of how the President presented
himself during his interview with Special Counsel Hur, which is the audio recording of the
interview.
The Committees must assess whether the declination decision, which was based in part
on President Biden’s poor mental state, was consistent with the Department’s commitment to
impartial justice or whether legislative reforms are necessary regarding Special Counsel
investigations because they are not leading to impartial outcomes. The transcripts produced by
the Department, due to their inherent limitations, are not sufficient for that purpose. The audio
recordings offer unique and important information to inform the Committees as to the need for
legislative reforms to the operations of the Department or the conduct of Special Counsel
investigations.
The House of Representatives found Attorney General Garland in contempt of Congress
on June 12, 2024.1106 Every day that President Biden and Attorney General Garland refuse to
comply with the Committees’ subpoenas is another day in which President Biden is obstructing
Congress’s impeachment inquiry and legislative oversight.
1102 Hur Report at 219. 1103 Hearing on the Report of Special Counsel Robert Hur: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 118th
Cong., at 105 (2024) (statement of Robert K. Hur, Special Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Just.).
1104 Betsy Woodruff Swan, White House lawyers wrote Garland slamming Hur’s report before its’ release,
POLITICO (Feb. 15, 2024). 1105 Hearing on the Report of Special Counsel Robert Hur: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 118th
Cong., at 18 (2024) (statement of Robert K. Hur, Special Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Just.) (“My assessment in the report
about the relevance of the President’s memory was necessary and accurate and fair.”).
1106 H. Res.1293, 118th Cong. (2024).
209
B. President Biden’s White House has obstructed Congress from receiving relevant
documents from the National Archives.
During the impeachment inquiry, the Committees learned that NARA possessed many
records from Joe Biden’s tenure as Vice President critical to the investigation. The Presidential
Records Act (PRA) subjects Vice-Presidential records to its provisions “in in the same manner as
Presidential records.”1107 Under the PRA, a congressional committee may request special access
to presidential records “if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its
business and that is not otherwise available[.]”1108 Pursuant to the PRA, before releasing
documents to the Oversight Committee, NARA must provide notice to the incumbent President,
who normally has 60 days to review the relevant document and either assert a “constitutionally
based privilege against disclosure” or permit NARA to release the document.1109
On August 17, 2023, the Oversight Committee requested Presidential Records Act Case
Number 2023-0022-F, entitled “Email Messages To and/or From Vice President Biden and
Hunter Biden related to Burisma and Ukraine,” “any document or communication in which a
pseudonym for Vice President Joe Biden was” used, “including but not limited to Robert Peters,
Robin Ware, and JRB Ware,” and “all drafts from November 1, 2015 to December 9, 2015 of
then-Vice President Biden’s speech delivered to the Ukrainian Rada on December 9, 2015,”
among other documents.1110 On August 30, 2023, the Oversight Committee requested records
pertaining to the Biden family and its associates’ use of Air Force Two and Marine Two.1111 On
September 6, 2023, the Oversight Committee requested unrestricted access from NARA to PRA
Case Number 2022-0121-F, entitled “Records on Hunter Biden, James Biden and Their Foreign
Business Dealings,” and documents and communications “to or from the Executive Office of the
President (including but not limited to the Office of the Vice President)” related to known Biden
family business associates.1112
The Biden White House has refused to permit NARA to release thousands of documents
responsive to the Oversight Committee’s August 17, August 30, and September 6 letters. The
White House has relied on Executive Order 13489 to continually extend its review time of these
documents, depriving Congress the ability to conduct its oversight responsibilities.1113 The most
notable obstruction of these requests concern the August 17, 2023 requests for all drafts of thenVice President Biden’s speech to the Ukrainian Rada on December 9, 2015, and for documents
and communications related to then-Vice President Biden’s use of pseudonym emails. NARA
informed the Oversight Committee that it had collected the responsive documents within one
week of receiving the August 17 letter and transmitted the documents to the White House on
1107 44 U.S.C. § 2207. 1108 44 U.S.C. § 2205. 1109 44 U.S.C. § 2208. 1110 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Colleen Shogan,
Archivist, Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. (Aug. 17, 2023) (hereinafter “Aug. 17 NARA Letter”).. 1111 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Byron Donalds,
to Colleen Shogan, Archivist of the United States, Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. (Aug. 30, 2023).
1112 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Colleen Shogan,
Archivist of the United States, Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. (Sept. 6, 2023).
1113 See, e.g., Letter from Colleen J. Shogan, Archivist, NARA, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability, et al. (Jan. 25, 2024); Oversight Comm. staff meetings with NARA representatives.
210
August 24, 2023.1114 President Biden continues to obstruct Congress by preventing NARA from
providing these documents.
i. The White House has prevented NARA from disclosing certain evidence
relevant to assessing the extent of Joe Biden’s involvement in Hunter
Biden’s influence peddling in Ukraine.
The White House has obstructed Congress from obtaining documents and information
related to Vice President Biden’s December 9, 2015 speech to the Ukrainian Rada, including
drafts of his speech. On December 4, 2015, Hunter Biden “called D.C.” after Burisma executives
“requested Hunter . . . help them with some of that pressure” Burisma was facing.
1115 On
December 6, 2015, Vice President Biden flew to Ukraine and while on the plane to Ukraine, Vice
President Biden “call[ed] an audible” and changed U.S. policy toward Ukraine.1116 Just days
later, on December 9, 2015, Vice President Biden delivered a speech to the Ukrainian Rada, in
which he claimed the “Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform.”1117 Vice
President Biden told then-President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko: “If the prosecutor is not fired,
you are not getting the money.”1118 Vice President Biden, contrary to U.S. policy at the time,
made the renewal of a $1 billion loan guarantee for Ukraine contingent upon the firing of
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Shokin—the official leading the investigation into Burisma and
Zlochevsky.1119 Shortly thereafter, President Poroshenko fired Prosecutor General Shokin and
Shokin’s successor eventually dropped the case against Zlochevsky.
1120
On August 17, 2023, the Oversight Committee requested that NARA produce all drafts of
Vice President Biden’s speech that he delivered in Ukraine on December 9, 2015.1121 Federal law
permits Congress to request presidential records from former administrations and those records
must be made available “subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or
any agency or person may invoke.”1122 President Biden’s White House declined to authorize the
production of the draft speeches.1123 On January 31, 2024, the Oversight Committee, along with
the Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees, requested, again, that the White House permit
1114 Email from NARA representatives to Oversight Comm. staff (Jan. 30, 2024). 1115 Archer Interview at 34-37. 1116 Glenn Kessler, Inside VP Biden’s linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor’s ouster, WASH. POST (Sept. 15,
2023).
1117 Remarks by Vice President Joe Biden to The Ukrainian Rada, The White House (Dec. 9, 2015). 1118 Former Vice President Biden on U.S.-Russia Relations, Council on Foreign Relations (Jan. 23, 2018). 1119 Glenn Kessler, Inside VP Biden’s linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor’s ouster, WASH. POST (Sep. 15,
2023); see Letter from Victoria Nuland, Assistant Sec’y of State, U.S. Dep’t of State, to Viktor Shokin, Prosecutor
General of Ukraine (June 9, 2015) (“We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda
of your government . . . . The United States fully supports your government’s efforts to fight corruption.”); Email
from Christina Segal-Knowles, Special Assistant for Int’l Econ., Exec. Off. of the Pres., to Members of the
Interagency Policy Comm. (Oct. 1, 2015, 8:05 AM) (concluding that “Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its
reform agenda to justify a third [loan] guarantee”). 1120 Impeachment Inquiry Memo at 8-9. 1121 Aug. 17 NARA Letter. 1122 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2). 1123 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, & Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, to Edward
Siskel, White House Counsel (Jan. 31, 2024).
211
NARA to release the draft speeches.1124 To date, President Biden’s White House has refused to
permit the production of the draft speeches, which would allow the Committees to better
understand Vice President Biden’s last minute change of U.S. policy toward Ukraine—a change
that benefited the Biden family. For example, if the discussion in Biden’s speech to the Ukrainian
Rada regarding the Office of the General Prosecutor were added or strengthened following
Hunter Biden’s phone call, that would constitute powerful evidence that Burisma’s payments to
Hunter Biden directly influenced United States policy towards Ukraine.
ii. The White House has refused to provide thousands of other documents
requested under the Presidential Records Act, some of which it has
retained for over eight months.
President Biden has obstructed Congress from receiving relevant documents and
communications related to his use of pseudonym email addresses while Vice President. The
Oversight Committee found evidence that then-Vice President Biden made use of various
pseudonym email accounts to communicate with staff, his family, and his family’s business
associates.1125 The August 17 Letter requested NARA produce “[a]ny document or
communication in which a pseudonym for Vice President Joe Biden was included either as a
sender, recipient, copied or was included in the contents of the document or communication,
including but not limited to Robert Peters, Robin Ware, and JRB Ware[.]”1126 According to
NARA staff, “the volume of records responsive to the Chairman’s three [letters] was over
300,000 pages.”1127 To date, the White House has permitted NARA to produce less than a third
of this number, and what has been produced consists mostly of “junk mail.” In response to the
Oversight Committee’s concerns that the productions were incomplete, NARA replied that the
production “reflected merely those documents that the White House had cleared for release to the
Committee.”1128
IRS whistleblowers provided the Ways and Means Committee evidence that confirmed
then-Vice President Biden communicated with Mr. Schwerin and Hunter Biden, among others,
using email accounts with various aliases, including robinware456@gmail.com,
JRBWare@gmail.com, and Robert.L.Peters@pci.gov.1129 Mr. Schwerin also confirmed during
his transcribed interview the Robert.L.Peters@pci.gov was Vice President Biden’s email
account.1130 On December 5, 2023, the Ways and Means Committee publicly released the
whistleblower evidence, which included metadata from 327 emails showing Vice President
1124 Id. 1125 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Colleen Shogan,
Archivist, Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. (Aug. 17, 2023).
1126 Id. 1127 Email from NARA representatives to Oversight Comm. staff (Apr. 16, 2024); Letter from the Hon. Colleen J.
Shogan, Archivist of the United States, Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., to Rep. James Comer et al. (Jan. 25,
2024).
1128 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, to Colleen
Shogan, Archivist, Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. (Jan. 12, 2024). 1129 Press Release, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Newly Released Evidence Underscores Joe Biden’s Excessive Use
of a Secret Email Address to Communicate with his Son’s Business Associates (Dec. 5, 2023). 1130 Schwerin Interview at 156-57.
212
Biden’s furtive correspondence with Mr. Schwerin, Hunter Biden, and others.1131 Nearly 90
percent of these emails were sent during Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency.1132
Of the 327 emails released by the Ways and Means Committee, 54 were exclusively
between Vice President Biden and Mr. Schwerin, and 38 were from White House email accounts
to one of Vice President Biden’s private accounts and copied to Hunter Biden.1133 Five were sent
within days of Vice President Biden’s June 2014 trip to Ukraine, while another 27 emails were
sent before Vice President Biden returned to Ukraine in November 2014.1134 These documents
have not been produced separately by NARA to the Oversight Committee.
II. President Biden and the Biden-Harris Administration Obstructed the Criminal
Investigation of His Son and the Committees’ Impeachment Inquiry.
In 2023, two IRS whistleblowers, SSA Gary Shapley and SA Joseph Ziegler, notified the
Ways and Means Committee that the Justice Department impeded, delayed, and obstructed the
criminal investigation of the President’s son, Hunter Biden. The whistleblowers explained that
Justice Department officials deviated “from the normal process that provided preferential
treatment, in this case to Hunter Biden.”1135 These were not minor deviations from standard
operating procedure. These were outcome-determinative decisions that precluded prosecution on
some charges and weakened it on others. In an egregious breach of investigative and
prosecutorial form, the Justice Department permitted the statute of limitations on several serious
charges against Hunter Biden to lapse, withheld evidence from line investigators and prohibited
these investigators from asking questions about President Biden during witness interviews,
excluded investigators from meeting with defense counsel, and informed defense counsel about
pending search warrants.1136
The fundamental mission of the Justice Department is to uphold the rule of law.1137 To do
so, the Department has adopted values of integrity and impartiality, promising all Americans that
it will enforce federal law “without prejudice or improper influence.”1138 The Department’s
mission and its values are reflected in the Justice Manual, described as “a set of rules,
regulations, [and] procedures that basically provides guidance to Department of Justice
personnel.”1139 The Justice Manual includes a section specific to the fair and impartial
enforcement of federal laws, explaining that uniform enforcement of criminal tax laws is
necessary “[t]o achieve maximum deterrence” of tax crimes.1140
1131 Press Release, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Newly Released Evidence Underscores Joe Biden’s Excessive Use
of a Secret Email Address to Communicate with his Son’s Business Associates (Dec. 5, 2023); see also D-Order
Email Search Terms (Ziegler Exhibit 606).
1132 Kayla Bartsch, Biden Used Aliases to Exchange Hundreds of Emails with Hunter’s Business Partner, NAT’L
REV. (Dec. 6, 2023) (stating that 291 of the emails were sent while Vice President Biden was still in office). 1133 Press Release, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Newly Released Evidence Underscores Joe Biden’s Excessive Use
of a Secret Email Address to Communicate with his Son’s Business Associates (Dec. 5, 2023).
1134 Id. 1135 Shapley Interview at 10. 1136 Id.; see Ziegler Interview. 1137 About DOJ, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., https://www.justice.gov/about (last visited Nov. 26, 2023). 1138 Id. 1139 Weiss Interview at 63. 1140 U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual § 6-4.010 (2023).
213
The Department failed to live up to its standards in the Hunter Biden investigation. After
the whistleblowers exposed the Department’s preferential treatment toward the President’s son,
the Biden Justice Department offered Hunter Biden an unprecedented plea agreement to resolve
the charges against him.1141 The plea agreement was on track to succeed until the arrangement
imploded in court after a federal judge questioned the deal’s extraordinarily favorable terms to
the President’s son.1142 Equally damaging, the Department made inconsistent statements
regarding the independence of its investigation to the Judiciary Committee, and President Biden
prejudiced the investigation by publicly proclaiming his son’s innocence.
1143 The Biden Justice
Department was also weaponized against witnesses who provide evidence of his or his family’s
wrongdoing.1144 Taken separately and together, the Biden-Harris Administration has obstructed
the investigation into Hunter Biden to provide the President’s son special treatment and attempt
to ensure an outcome favorable to the President’s family. Such misconduct is perhaps the
paradigmatic example of obstruction of justice, wherein an individual, including the President,
“endeavors to impede or influence an investigation or other proceeding . . . with an improper
purpose.”1145 Indeed, no one would contest that “if the president interferes with an investigation
because he worries that it might bring to light criminal activity that he, his family, or his top
aides committed . . . then he acts corruptly, and thus criminally.”1146
A. Federal law enforcement began investigating Hunter Biden nearly seven years
ago.
The investigations into Hunter Biden emerged in 2018 out of a separate international tax
investigation the IRS was conducting into a foreign based amateur online adult platform
suspected of failing to pay U.S. taxes.1147 In November 2018, IRS agents began to look into
Hunter Biden after reviewing bank reports related to this separate investigation that showed that
Hunter Biden was paying prostitutes that were potentially part of a prostitution ring.1148 They
also discovered that Hunter Biden was “living lavishly through his corporate bank account” and
not accurately reporting his taxes.1149 This information spurred an internal IRS investigation into
Hunter Biden, focusing on his tax returns.1150
In a probe separate from the IRS’s tax investigation, the FBI, with help from the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware (USAO-DE), opened its own investigation into
Hunter Biden in February 2019, after it became aware that Hunter Biden may have committed
multiple financial violations, including money laundering in connection with his foreign business
1141 Andrew C. McCarthy, Hunter Biden’s Sweetheart Plea Deal Blows Up, NAT’L REV. (July 27, 2023). 1142 Memorandum of Plea Agreement, United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-274 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2023). 1143 See H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY ET AL., 118TH CONG., THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S DEVIATIONS FROM
STANDARD PROCESSES IN ITS INVESTIGATION OF HUNTER BIDEN (2023). 1144 See infra Section II.C.ii. 1145 Daniel J. Hemel & Eric A. Posner, Presidential Obstruction of Justice, 106 CALIF. L. REV. 1277, 1282 (2018)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
1146 Id. 1147 Shapley Interview at 12. 1148 Ziegler Interview at 17. 1149 Id. 1150 Shapley Interview at 81-82.
214
dealings.1151 A retired SSA at the FBI Wilmington Resident Agency (Retired FBI Supervisor)
explained in a transcribed interview that he was the lead supervisor on the FBI’s Hunter Biden
investigation from February 2019 until his retirement in June 2022.1152 Retired FBI Supervisor
explained how the FBI first had to obtain special approvals from FBI supervisors and FBI
headquarters to open the case against Hunter Biden given the sensitive nature of the
investigation’s main subject.1153 Specifically, the sensitivity revolved around the fact that Hunter
Biden was the son of Joe Biden—a previous elected official and presumptive presidential
candidate in 2020.
1154
After Retired FBI Supervisor received approval to open an investigation into Hunter
Biden in February 2019, he and his team became aware of the IRS’s investigation in April
2019.1155 Upon discovery of the concurrent IRS investigation, the Justice Department merged the
FBI’s investigation of Hunter Biden with the ongoing IRS investigation.1156 Retired FBI
Supervisor explained that after the merger, the FBI and IRS “worked hand-in-hand” conducting
“regular meetings, regular conversations… [and] doing joint interviews together.”1157 However,
in his transcribed interview, IRS SSA Gary Shapley explained how the merger created a myriad
of problems that held up the IRS’s own investigation so as not to interfere with the covert nature
of the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Hunter Biden.1158
In October 2019, the FBI became aware that a computer repair shop possessed a laptop
allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden and that the laptop contained evidence of potential
crimes.1159 Retired FBI Supervisor testified that he was involved in verifying that the laptop
belonged to Hunter Biden because his agents physically took possession of the laptop and
completed a “forensic review” of the device.1160 After further investigation in November 2019,
Retired FBI Supervisor verified the laptop’s authenticity “by matching the device number to
Hunter Biden’s Apple iCloud ID.”1161 The FBI then notified the IRS that the laptop contained
evidence of tax crimes,1162 though prosecutors withheld the contents of the devices from IRS
case agents working on the Hunter Biden investigation.1163 Delaware AUSA Lesley Wolf’s stated
that the FBI “ha[d] no reason to believe there [was] anything fabricated nefariously on the
computer and or hard drive.”1164 Retired FBI Supervisor confirmed that AUSA Wolf made this
statement.1165
1151 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 10. 1152 Id. 1153 Id. 1154 Id. 1155 Id. at 13. 1156 Id. 1157 Id. 1158 Shapley Interview at 25-26; Ziegler Interview at 22. 1159 Shapley Interview at 12. 1160 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 108. 1161 Shapley Interview at 12; see also 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 101. 1162 Shapley Interview at 12. 1163 Id. at 16; Shapley Interview, Ex. 6. 1164 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 107. 1165 Id.
215
SSA Shapley’s and SA Ziegler’s testimony confirms that the IRS money laundering
investigation into Hunter Biden deviated from the normal process.1166 Testimony from Retired
FBI Supervisor also confirms that the FBI’s separate investigation into Hunter Biden required
heightened approvals due to the “sensitive” nature of the case.1167 Meanwhile, President Joe
Biden promised to keep politics out of the Justice Department; just weeks before his
inauguration, the President-elect said, “[i]t’s not my Justice Department. It’s the people’s Justice
Department,” and that those leading the Justice Department will have the “independent capacity
to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t.”1168 Joe Biden lied about keeping politics out of
the Justice Department, and the whistleblower testimony demonstrates how the Biden family
received favorable treatment from the Biden Justice Department.
B. The special treatment the Justice Department afforded Hunter Biden stemmed
from the politically “sensitive” and “significant” nature of the criminal
investigation.
The Committees uncovered evidence that the Justice Department deviated from standard
investigative practices, provided preferential treatment, and slow-walked its high-profile
investigation of Hunter Biden. For example, witnesses described how the Department allowed
the statute of limitations to lapse on serious felony charges, prohibited line investigators from
asking about Joe Biden in witness interviews, and notified defense counsel of pending search
warrants.1169 According to SSA Shapley, the criminal tax investigation of the President’s son “has
been handled differently than any investigation [he’s] ever been a part of” throughout his 14-year
career at the IRS.1170 SSA Shapley stated:
[T]he criminal tax investigation of Hunter Biden, led by the United
States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, has been
handled differently than any investigation I’ve ever been a part of
for the past 14 years of my IRS service.
Some of the decisions seem to be influenced by politics. But
whatever the motivations, at every stage decisions were made that
had the effect of benefiting the subject of the investigation. These
decisions included slow-walking investigative steps, not allowing
enforcement actions to be executed, limiting investigators’ line of
questioning for witnesses, misleading investigators on charging
authority, delaying any and all actions months before elections . . .
well before policy memorandum mandated the pause.
1171
1166 Shapley Interview at 16, 32, 92; Ziegler Interview at 16, 32. 1167 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 10. 1168 Morgan Chalfant, Biden, Harris pledge to keep politics out of DOJ, THE HILL (Dec. 3, 2020). 1169 See generally Shapley Interview; Ziegler Interview. 1170 Shapley Interview at 11. 1171 Id. at 11-12.
216
Other witnesses with knowledge of the case have since corroborated SSA Shapley’s testimony
that the Justice Department treated Hunter Biden’s case differently than other criminal
investigations.1172
i. The majority of witnesses with knowledge of the case acknowledged that
there were inherent sensitivities with investigating and prosecuting the
President’s son—and doing so in the President’s home state.
Several witnesses acknowledged the delicate approach used during the case, describing
the investigation as a “sensitive” or “significant” matter.1173 From the outset, the FBI, the Justice
Department, and IRS all recognized the sensitivity of investigating the former Vice President’s
son, particularly in the state in which the Bidens are a prominent family. As a result, Hunter
Biden was afforded extra protection, and investigators were forced to jump through additional
hoops they would not normally experience in a typical case. Retired FBI Supervisor from the
Wilmington Resident Agency who opened the FBI’s investigation of Hunter Biden explained that
he had to obtain special approval to open the case due to its politically sensitive nature.1174 He
testified:
Q. And when did you first learn about the Hunter Biden
investigation?
A. I opened it. I was the supervisor that received the
information and decided to pursue it.
Q. And what action did you take to open the investigation?
A. So we received some initial information, and like we did in
many other cases, talked with members of the squad,
checked relevant information available to us; and using that
information . . . designated one of the members of my squad
to be the lead case agent. We opened the case, I believe, it
was February of 2019. I don’t recall the exact day. And I am
trying to think what—because . . . the sensitivities involved
in this, it required greater approval. So like any case that we
would open, we would open a case . . . get approval. And in
this case, it went higher up into FBI management as well at
the criminal division at the FBI headquarters.1175
Retired FBI Supervisor explained that this sensitivity revolved around the fact that
Hunter Biden was the son of Joe Biden, who was expected to announce his candidacy for the
upcoming 2020 Presidential election around that time.1176 He testified:
1172 See generally Ziegler Interview. 1173 Ziegler Interview at 45; 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 10. 1174 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 10. 1175 Id. 1176 Id.
217
Q. When you say there were sensitivities involved in this case
that required greater approvals, what were the sensitivities?
A. So a public figure who was politically connected. Although,
at the time, the subject’s father was not an elected official,
he had just left government service. And we expected that he
would probably be a candidate in the upcoming election.
Although, he hadn’t declared at the time we had opened the
case.1177
Former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania Scott Brady also testified
about the “sensitive” nature of the Hunter Biden case.1178 More specifically, Mr. Brady provided
the Committee with further insight on the FBI’s overly cautious treatment of any investigative
action related to Hunter Biden. Mr. Brady stated:
Q. And, when you say that the information was sensitive, what
do you mean by that?
A. Certainly anything relating to Ukraine, Ukrainian nationals
that intersected with Hunter Biden and his role serving on
the Burisma board was sensitive and certainly in 2020,
months before an election cycle when different policies kick
in for the Department and for the FBI.
Q. And was it sensitive because Hunter Biden’s father, Joe
Biden, was running in the 2020 election?
A. Yes.1179
Likewise, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Matters within the
Department’s Tax Division, Stuart Goldberg, confirmed whistleblower testimony that the Hunter
Biden case received special treatment, as it required “closer supervision” than other cases.1180
Mr. Goldberg testified:
Q. Was the fact that Hunter Biden was involved here, did that
require DOJ Tax’s sign-off because it’s a sensitive matter?
A. Well, without getting into the case, again trying to answer a
question at a slightly higher level, there are cases that are
sensitive, people—some would say sensitive, sometimes say
1177 Id. 1178 Transcribed Interview of Scott Brady, & H. Comm. on the Judiciary at 37-39 (Oct. 23, 2023) [hereinafter
“Brady Interview”]. 1179 Id. at 19. 1180 Goldberg Interview at 17.
218
significant cases. And those cases typically have closer
supervision than other, more run-of-the-mill cases.
Q. And if there’s a target of an investigation that has some
political significance attached to him or her . . . does that
trigger any heightened review process within DOJ Tax?
A. So if something can be termed as sensitive pursuant to the
case it might be because it’s a public official or it’s a person
that has a noteworthy profile or it’s going to generate a lot of
media attention, or might be congressional interest. It could
be a corporation or an individual. That might mean that the
case would come to my level for ultimate sign-off on the case
as opposed to be[ing] handled at the chief’s level.
Q. . . . And is it fair to say that the Hunter Biden case fell into
that category?
A. Yes.1181
Thus, due to the sensitive nature of the case, Goldberg had an unusual responsibility to
make approval decisions within his division at the Biden Justice Department.1182 U.S. Attorney
David Weiss also asked Goldberg to attend a meeting in Delaware with prosecutors and Hunter
Biden’s defense counsel—something he stated was “uncommon” for him to do.1183 Goldberg
testified regarding the meeting:
Q. [Was] it customary for you to attend that type of meeting or
did you only attend here because of the significance of the
target and the investigation?
A. I attended because Mr. Weiss asked me to come up for the
meeting.
Q. Okay. How frequently do you travel to U.S. Attorney’s
Offices for meetings of that sort? Was that unusual for
you to—
A. For me to go to a U.S. Attorney’s Office on a case?
Q. Yeah.
A. It’s not something that I would commonly do.
1181 Id. 1182 Id. 1183 Id. at 25-27.
219
Q. Okay. How many times have you done it . . . [i]n your current
role?
A. I think it’s the only time I’ve done it.1184
The close supervision required by the Justice Department in the Hunter Biden case
similarly applied to the FBI’s investigation. The retired FBI Supervisor testified:
Q. And did you supervise a team of agents that were working
on this case? How did that work?
A. Yeah, so it was limited—again, with sensitivities, there was
a . . . strict need to know. So we limited it. We assigned a
couple of agents on the squad, support staff. . . . [S]o it was
very limited the number of people working on it initially.1185
SA Ziegler also explained how the Bidens were afforded special treatment due to being a
politically powerful family. SA Ziegler recalled one instance in late 2018 where he sent
documentation that would refer the case to the Department’s Tax Division for further
investigation up to his manager at the time, SSA Matt Kutz.1186 Upon reviewing the package of
documents, SSA Kutz told SA Ziegler that “a political family like this, you have to have more
than just an allegation and evidence related to that allegation. In order for this case to move
forward, you basically have to show a significant amount of evidence and similar wrongdoing
that would basically illustrate a prosecution report.”1187 Ultimately, SA Ziegler had to draft three
versions of the referral package before SSA Kutz approved it for review by the Tax Division.1188
Department and IRS officials also expressed obvious concerns over investigating a Biden
in Delaware, ultimately leading to the Department’s sensitive approach in handling this case. SA
Ziegler described the challenges associated with investigating the Bidens in Delaware,
explaining that “Delaware was in the State in which the subject’s father lived, and the family was
extremely well-known.”1189 He testified:
Q. Okay. Just a question about working with the U.S. Attorney’s
Office in Delaware. It seems like the elephant in the room is
that—correct me if I’m wrong, but—Joe Biden and anyone
in the Biden family is royalty in Delaware. Is that not the
case?
A. It was definitely something that was overly apparent in the
State, yes.
1184 Id. 1185 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 11-12. 1186 Ziegler Interview at 17-18. 1187 Id. at 18-19. 1188 Id. at 19. 1189 Id. at 20.
220
Q. So whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, if
you are in the district of Delaware, and you are in the U.S.
Attorney’s Office, and you are trying to bring a case against
a family member of Joe Biden, that inherently has its
challenges, doesn’t it?
A. Yes. . . . I think he is someone that’s a big deal within that
State.
Q. Right. And so all the nonpolitically-appointed officials in the
office certainly could be affected by the fact that we’re
dealing with Joe Biden, correct? In that office?
A. I went into it with the belief that I would hope that that
wouldn’t happen. But it being in the Delaware area, it very
well could have happened that way.1190
SSA Shapley similarly testified that an unidentified FBI case agent in Wilmington “was
concerned about the consequences for him and his family” if he had to investigate the Bidens in
Delaware.1191 However, when he sat for his transcribed interview, Delaware U.S. Attorney Weiss
would not acknowledge any fear or worry about investigating the President’s son in the Biden
family’s home state. Weiss suggested that although there are only “a certain number of
practitioners” in the small Delaware legal community, he was not concerned with bringing a case
there against the President’s son.1192 Weiss testified:
Q. Would you characterize the Delaware legal community as a
small, tight-knit legal community?
A. I would characterize the Delaware community as a small
community, yes, for sure.
Q. And, for the most part, all the key players who litigate in
Federal court know one another?
A. I think that’s fair that folks get to know one another pretty
quickly, yes.
Q. . . . Did you ever have any concerns that you were
responsible for bringing a case against the President’s son
and, yet, you’re part of this close-knit community?
1190 Id. at 157-58. 1191 Shapley Interview at 16. 1192 Weiss Interview at 143-45.
221
A. No, I didn’t. . . . I just acknowledge that the Delaware,
particularly in Federal court . . . there is only a certain
number of practitioners locally[.]1193
Although Weiss would not acknowledge any fear or worry about investigating the
President’s son in their home state of Delaware, other Department and IRS officials expressed
concern. The retired FBI supervisor testified the case was a “hot potato” that “[a] lot of people
didn’t want to get involved in . . .”1194 IRS Director of Operations Michael Batdorf likewise
testified about “concerns on the ability to interview witnesses” and the difficulty in “getting
approvals” from Weiss’s team to interview witnesses.1195 Hunter Biden’s own lawyer, Chris
Clark, threatened prosecutors that they faced “career suicide if they pursued the
investigation.”1196
Overall, the testimony from Justice Department and other officials bolsters the IRS
whistleblowers’ prior testimony that the Justice Department’s “sensitive” treatment of Hunter
Biden’s case was anything but normal.
ii. FBI bureaucrats hostile to the Trump Administration and senior officials
in the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office thwarted former U.S. Attorney
Scott Brady’s efforts to vet Ukraine-related information by slow-walking
investigative action and withholding relevant information.
In late 2019 or early 2020, as the Hunter Biden investigation progressed and additional
reporting on Ukraine-related information poured in, the Justice Department set up a system to
coordinate multiple Department matters related to Ukraine.1197 As part of this effort, on January
3, 2020, then-Attorney General Bill Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen gave
then-U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania Scott Brady a limited assignment to
vet information related to Ukraine coming into the Justice Department, and then to pass credible
information along to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices with relevant ongoing grand jury investigations by
providing substantive briefings on their findings and recommending next steps.1198
In his transcribed interview, Mr. Brady confirmed to the Committee that “any member of
the public” could provide information as part of this intake process, and that his office treated the
information the same as all other information provided to the Department.1199 Mr. Brady
1193 Id. at 143-44. 1194 2024 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 24. 1195 Batdorf Interview at 60-61. 1196 Shapley Interview at 27; Ziegler Interview at 122, 149. 1197 Letter from Stephen E. Boyd, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary (Feb. 18, 2020).
1198 Brady Interview at 10-13; see also id. at 35 (“My goal was for us to do our task, our job that we were given by
AG Barr, DAG Rosen.”); id. at 43 (“Q. Okay. So the task that you were given came ultimately from Attorney
General Barr. Is that right? A. I believe so, yes.”).
1199 Id. at 14, 63; see also Letter from Stephen E. Boyd, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to Rep. Jerrold
Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Feb. 18, 2020) (“Nor do these procedures grant any individual
unique access to the Department. Indeed, any member of the public who has relevant information may contact the
Department and make use of its intake process for Ukraine-related matters. . . . All information provided through
this process will be treated just like any other information provided to the Department.”).
222
described his assignment as “an intake and vetting process, kind of akin to a due diligence,”1200
involving assessing the credibility of information using publicly available resources and preexisting FBI records.1201 Mr. Brady explained that his office did not have access to grand jury
tools such as subpoenaing documents or witnesses.1202 When asked how the vetting process was
structured without the typical vetting tools at his disposal, Mr. Brady testified:
Q. And how did you assess the credibility of information
coming in?
A. Well, we would look at public sources. General Barr in other
public statements had said that we are to coordinate with the
FBI and intelligence services, so we did. We . . . met with
them on a regular basis, asked [them] to . . . run names,
emails, bank account numbers through their existing files.
We would vet that against information that was provided by
the public. And, again, open-source information, and then
make a determination about credibility or next steps.
Q. And so, after you made an assessment regarding the
credibility, then you would pass that information along to
other offices who had predicated grand jury investigations.
Is that correct?
A. That’s right. At the end of our process, we then would brief
those offices with information that we believed was either
credible or had indicia of credibility and we felt, in our
judgment, required some additional investigation, probably
using tools available to a grand jury. But, ultimately, it was
their decision. Our visibility beyond that point was over.1203
In his transcribed interview, Mr. Brady also detailed the “challenging working
relationship” he had with the FBI in carrying out his assignment, as well as the FBI’s “reluctance
. . . to really do any tasking related to [the] assignment from DAG Rosen and looking into
allegations of Ukrainian corruption broadly and then specifically anything that intersected with
Hunter Biden and his role in Burisma.”1204 In particular, challenges arose from FBI headquarters
slow-walking the vetting process, which the FBI purportedly did due to the “sensitive nature” of
the assignment.1205 When asked to elaborate on what he meant by “sensitive,” Mr. Brady agreed
that it was sensitive because “Hunter Biden’s father, Joe Biden, was running in the 2020
election[.]”1206
1200 Brady Interview at 11. 1201 Id. at 11-12. 1202 Id. at 12, 15. 1203 Id. at 12-13. 1204 Id. at 37-38. 1205 Id. at 37. 1206 Id. at 19.
223
Mr. Brady explained that the FBI required Baltimore Field Office special agents to obtain
an unnecessary and unprecedented number of approvals from FBI headquarters to take even the
most basic investigative actions.1207 Further, the requisite approval document that allowed the
FBI to continue looking into Hunter Biden at Brady’s request, “the assessment,” required 17
Headquarters officials to sign off every 30 days—something Mr. Brady had never seen in his
career.1208 He testified:
Q. Did you get a sense of why the FBI was reluctant to take any
action? . . .
A. I don’t know why they were reluctant. I know that, because
of what they deemed to be the sensitive nature, and this was
sensitive, as it related to Mr. [Hunter] Biden, that there were
a lot of steps of approval and a lot of eyes that had to look at
things and sign off on any action that the special agents that
were doing the day-to-day work and interacting with our
team would take.
It was my understanding that FBI Headquarters had to sign
off on every assignment, no matter how small or routine,
before they could take action, which then just lengthened the
amount of time . . . between us asking them to do something
and them actually performing it.
Q. And, in your dealings with the FBI, was this level of signoff
regular, that the special agent would have to get signoff to
take any little investigative action?
A. Not in my experience. In my experience, on most
investigations, even sensitive investigations, and/or public
corruption investigations, it was usually contained within the
field office. . . .
Even something as simple as extending the assessment that
we talked about, that requires a renewal every 30 days under
the FBI [Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide].
Normally that, either opening or renewal, can be . . . at the
[Supervisory Special Agent] level. In this case, it required 17
different people, including mostly at the headquarters level
to sign off on it before the assessment could be extended.
And so, at different times, we were told by the special agents
that they had to go pens down sometimes for 2 or 3 weeks at
a time before they could re-engage and take additional steps
1207 Id. at 37. 1208 Id. at 38.
224
because they were still waiting on, again, someone within
the 17 chain signoff to approve.
Q. And had you ever seen a 17-person signoff required by the
FBI?
A. Never in my career.1209
Politicized bureaucrats at FBI Headquarters also told agents to withhold information from
Brady’s office. On one occasion, Mr. Brady explained, FBI headquarters told the Pittsburgh FBI
team that “they were not to affirmatively share information with us but that they were only to
share information with us if we asked them a direct question relating to that information, which
is not typically how the investigative process goes.”1210 Indeed, Brady testified that the FBI
refused to share its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide—“the FBI’s bible for their
processes and procedures”—with him, and when he registered an objection as “a presidentially
appointed United States Attorney” who is “on the same team,” the FBI advised him: “That’s
what we were told, so we can’t, sir.”1211
The prohibition on sharing information between FBI Pittsburgh and Brady’s office was
out of the ordinary and resulted in unnecessary delays in the investigation. Mr. Brady explained:
Q. What was the normal kind of reporting process between your
office and FBI Pittsburgh?
A. I mean, on a normal case, it’s an iterative process, a
collaborative process between agent, investigator, and
[Assistant U.S. Attorney] and prosecutor. There’s mutuality
of information sharing. There’s a certain transparency
because . . . the goal is to conduct an investigation and make
a determination at some point with the agency’s
recommendation about prosecute, not prosecute. But, even
short of that . . . take investigative steps that you discuss and
agree on, and you know, to move an investigation forward or
to open other avenues, identify potential witnesses, subjects,
targets. This was not that dynamic.
Q. And, with the FBI not following the typical investigative
process at the direction of FBI headquarters, what did that
mean for your assignment in vetting Ukraine-related
information?
A. It just meant, as I testified earlier, there were stops and starts.
It was sometimes difficult to get full information back from
1209 Id. at 37-38. 1210 Id. at 85. 1211 Id.
225
the FBI. Again, as I mentioned, sometimes they had to go
pens down while they were awaiting approval from
headquarters.1212
The FBI’s prohibition on information sharing with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Western District of Pennsylvania had real consequences. Mr. Brady informed the Committee that
there were “many things” relevant to his investigation that the FBI did not share with his
office.1213 Alarmingly, Mr. Brady “was not aware . . . that the FBI was in possession of the
Hunter Biden laptop” until it was publicly reported in October 2020.1214 Mr. Brady expressed
that he was “surprised” to learn this information from a media report because the laptop
contained “information relating to Hunter Biden’s activities on the board of Burisma in Ukraine,
that might have been helpful in our assessment of the information that we were receiving about
him” and that Mr. Brady “would have expected that be shared” with his office.1215 It was not just
him that was surprised by the laptop story—his whole team working on the Ukraine-related
information assignment was surprised that the FBI did not inform them of the laptop.1216
The FBI’s reluctance to cooperate with Mr. Brady’s assignment added further delays to
the process of vetting Ukraine-related information coming into the Justice Department.1217
Ultimately, Mr. Brady had no choice but to seek help from the Deputy Attorney General’s office
“at least five or six times on a myriad of different issues” to get the FBI to follow its typical
investigative process and stop hindering the assignment.1218 Simply put, the FBI and officials in
headquarters slow-walked necessary investigative actions and prohibited information sharing
that could have helped prosecutors gather evidence in the case against Hunter Biden. This lack of
transparency and reluctance to take action due to sensitivities around the case ultimately
benefited Hunter Biden.
In addition to the challenges posed to the investigation by FBI headquarters, senior
officials in the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office attempted to avoid learning information that
could implicate President Biden in criminal activity. The Committees have obtained information
showing that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware under the leadership of
David Weiss also deviated from standard operating to the detriment of Mr. Brady’s assignment.
According to Mr. Brady, it was “regularly a challenge to interact with” Weiss’s office.1219 Mr.
Brady testified that the communication issues between his office and Weiss’s office began almost
immediately and that communication issues “became problematic at different points.”1220 There
were times when the two U.S. Attorneys would have to get involved directly to attempt to
resolve communication issues between their offices.1221 Mr. Brady testified:
1212 Id. at 85-86. 1213 Id. at 105. 1214 Id. 1215 Id.; see also id. at 157 (“Q. . . . Were you surprised that you didn’t know about the existence of this laptop? A.
Yes.”).
1216 Id. at 159. 1217 Id. at 38, 41, 86, 187. 1218 Id. at 39. 1219 Id. at 29. 1220 Id. 1221 Id.
226
Q. Did you have any issues developing a channel of
communication initially with the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s
Office?
A. Yes.
A. It became problematic at different points, which required Mr.
Weiss and me to get involved and level set, as it were, but it
was regularly a challenge to interact with the investigative
team from Delaware.1222
Mr. Brady testified that in his experience, U.S. Attorney’s Offices are generally “fairly
clear and transparent” with each other, “even on sensitive matters.” 1223 He called the
communication issues with Weiss’s office “unusual.” 1224
Mr. Brady explained that his team merely wanted “to understand what [Weiss’s team] had
looked at, what they had not looked at to make sure we weren’t . . . duplicating efforts, stepping
on toes, doing anything that would in any way complicate their lives and their investigation.”1225
Despite their best efforts to communicate with Weiss’s team, Mr. Brady explained that the
relationship deteriorated. 1226 Mr. Brady stated:
I don’t want to speculate as to why, but I know that there was no
information sharing back to us . . . . And, at one point, the
communication between our offices was so constricted that we had
to provide written questions to the investigative team in Delaware,
almost in the form of interrogatories, and receive written answers
back.1227
Brady further elaborated on the stilted relationship between the two offices, stating:
Q. Now, also, based on what you said, throughout the process,
you said that the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office wasn’t
willing to cooperate, so much so that you had to send
interrogatories?
A. Yes, we had conversations, asked for communication and a
flow of information, mostly one way from us to them, but
1222 Id. 1223 Id. at 31. 1224 Id. 1225 Id. at 37. 1226 Id. at 30. 1227 Id.
227
also, as I testified, we wanted to make sure we weren’t
duplicating what they were doing. They would not engage.
And so finally, after me calling Mr. Weiss and saying can
you please talk to your team, this is important, this is why
we want to interact with them, the response that we got back
is you can submit your questions to our team in written form,
which we did.
Q. And that was unusual?
A. I had never seen it before.1228
As their work continued on the investigation, Weiss’s team would further deviate from
standard investigative practices in ways that shielded Hunter Biden and the Biden family from
close scrutiny.
iii. From requiring unnecessary and unprecedented layers of approval to
preventing investigators from taking otherwise ordinary investigative
actions, Justice Department officials slow-walked the investigation into
Hunter Biden.
At great personal and professional risk, SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler came forward to
advise Congress that recurring unjustified delays pervaded the Hunter Biden investigation, with
Justice Department officials slow-walking and outright declining investigators’ requests for
action.1229 Investigators were ready to proceed with overt actions in the summer of 2020, but,
according to SA Ziegler, Justice Department officials slow-walked requests for action seemingly
to get into the 60- to 90-day pre-election window when Justice Department policy does not allow
overt action on politically sensitive cases.1230 These delays helped run down the clock on
potential criminal charges on Hunter Biden’s under-reported income and tax avoidance that
occurred while his father was Vice President. SSA Shapley noted that “every single time the
process could be bogged down by deferring to some other approval level, [DOJ Tax] took full
advantage of that.”1231 IRS documents and testimony from Justice Department officials
corroborated the whistleblowers’ account of the constant roadblocks they encountered to
properly work on and investigate Hunter Biden’s case.
SA Ziegler, who opened the IRS’s investigation into Hunter Biden in November 2018,
testified that the USAO-DE and other Justice Department officials “would often slow-walk
investigative steps, often not follow the appropriate investigative procedure, and would say that
we couldn’t do or had to wait on certain steps because there were too many approvals in front of
us.”1232 SA Ziegler expressed frustration among investigators that “we were always on an
impending election cycle” according to prosecutors from DOJ Tax and USAO-DE beginning in
1228 Id. at 156-57. 1229 See, e.g., Ziegler Interview at 23-30. 1230 See id. 1231 Shapley Interview at 59. 1232 Ziegler Interview at 16.
228
early 2020.1233 The first disagreement SA Ziegler recalled between IRS investigators and Justice
Department officials was whether and when to go “overt” with the investigation.1234 Contrary to
IRS policy—which requires investigators to interview the subject “within 30 days of elevating
the investigation”—the investigation remained covert until after the presidential election on
December 8, 2020.1235
SSA Shapley provided similar testimony. After he became supervisor of the Hunter Biden
investigation in January 2020, he began coordinating with the FBI, DOJ Tax, and USAO-DE by
attending biweekly meetings to discuss the case.1236 In early March 2020, SSA Shapley
submitted a sensitive case report up through the IRS chain of command, indicating that his team
was prepared to seek search warrants in California, Arkansas, New York, and DC by midMarch.1237 Shortly thereafter, SA Ziegler drafted an affidavit establishing probable cause for
these warrants dated April 1, 2020, at which point they would contemporaneously execute the
search warrants and interview fifteen witnesses.1238 Yet, SSA Shapley explained, “after former
Vice President Joseph Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee for President in early
April 2020, career [Justice Department] officials dragged their feet on the IRS taking these
investigative steps.”1239
By June 2020, it became evident to SSA Shapley that the Justice Department was
intentionally delaying the investigation.1240 SSA Shapley voiced his concerns to his IRS chain of
command regarding the discrepancies between normal procedures and the current handling of the
Hunter Biden case in a June 16 call.1241 During this call, SSA Shapley stated that “if normal
procedures had been followed we already would have executed search warrants, conducted
interviews, and served document requests.”1242 Nonetheless, he was instructed to defer to the
Justice Department.1243
From that point on, SSA Shapley “became the highest-ranking IRS [Criminal
Investigation] leader to participate in . . . prosecution team calls, be up to date on specific case
strategies, discuss the investigation with [Justice Department] and the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s
Office, and address concerns as they arose.”1244 SSA Shapley testified that “even after” the
Justice Department denied or rejected “investigative steps” and “enforcement operations . . .
1233 Id. at 23. 1234 Id. at 21. 1235 Id. at 21-22; see also id. at 21. (“In a normal investigation, we would typically advise the subject of the criminal
investigation, try to get a statement from them, try to get an understanding of why there were unfiled returns. And it
. . . puts them on notice that the IRS is looking into them currently and then it . . . preserves the record in an
essence.”).
1236 Shapley Interview at 12-13. 1237 Id. at 13. 1238 Id. 1239 Id. 1240 Id. 1241 Id. 1242 Id. 1243 Id. 1244 Id.
229
leading to the election in November 2020,” his team and other investigators “continued to obtain
further leads in the [Hunter Biden] case and prepared for when [they] could go overt.”1245
Both SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler recalled an instance in August 2020 where “assigned
prosecutors did not follow . . . ordinary process, . . . slow-walked [investigative steps], and
[required] unnecessary [layers of required] approvals.”1246 Specifically, AUSA Wolf prohibited
line investigators from looking into incriminating messages involving now-President Biden,
including when Hunter Biden invoked his father in a threatening message to a Chinese business
associate.1247 When IRS investigators discovered Hunter Biden’s message, they asked AUSA
Wolf if they could obtain location data to determine Hunter Biden’s location when he sent the
messages to determine whether he was actually sitting next to his father and establish probable
cause for interviewing now-President Biden.1248 SSA Shapley explained that the message not
only constituted evidence of potential tax crimes, but also raised national security and Foreign
Agents Registration Act (FARA) concerns as well.1249 Despite the fact that collecting location
data is what investigators “would normally do” in this scenario,1250 AUSA Wolf denied the
request.1251 Investigators discovered other incriminating messages Hunter Biden had sent and
received,1252 some of which suggested that now-President Biden was involved in his son’s
foreign business ventures.1253 According to SSA Shapley, these messages “included material [that
investigators] clearly needed to follow up on,” and “made it clear [investigators] needed to
search the guest house at the Bidens’ Delaware residence where Hunter Biden stayed for a
time.”1254 However, once again, “prosecutors denied investigators’ requests to develop a strategy
to look into the messages and denied investigators’ suggestion to obtain location information to
see where the texts were sent from.”1255 SSA Shapley described this situation as “one of the
major deviations [from standard operating procedure] in this case.”1256
1245 Id. at 14. 1246 Ziegler Interview at 25; see Shapley Interview at 14. 1247 Shapley Interview at 14, 163; Jerry Dunleavy, Hunter Biden invoking ‘my father’ resulted in millions flowing
from CCP-linked company, WASH. EXAM’R (June 28, 2023); Josh Christenson, Why Hunter Biden angrily
threatened his Chinese business associate, N.Y. POST (June 26, 2023). 1248 Shapley Interview at 14, 163; see also Timeline of Hunter Biden Investigation, EMPOWER OVERSIGHT (last
updated Sept. 29, 2023).
1249 Shapley Interview at 164. 1250 Ziegler Interview at 105; see also Hearing with IRS Whistleblowers About the Biden Criminal Investigation:
Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 118th Cong., at 50–51 (2023) (statement of Gary Shapley,
Supervisory Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv.) (“I recall [prosecutors] saying to me that, how do we know that
[Joe Biden] is there . . . and then I said well, we would get the location data. So as a part of my normal investigation,
that is what I would do.”); Id. at 65 (statement of Joseph Ziegler, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv.) (“So
typically, in that situation, you’d want to get location data, contemporaneous data that would show where that
person is at, so that’s what we would typically look to.”).
1251 Shapley Interview at 14, 163, 165; Ziegler Interview at 105-06. 1252 See generally Ziegler Supplemental Production 2, Ex. 300. 1253 See e.g., Shapley Interview, Ex. 11 (listing a WhatsApp message Hunter Biden sent to a CEFC executive stating,
“The Biden’s [sic] are the best I know at doing exactly what the Chairman wants from this partnership[].”).
1254 Shapley Interview at 14. 1255 Id. 1256 Hearing with IRS Whistleblowers About the Biden Criminal Investigation: Before the H. Comm. on Oversight &
Accountability, 118th Cong., at 19 (2023) (statement of Gary Shapley, Supervisory Special Agent, Internal Revenue
Serv.).
231
warrant” and “a lot of evidence in [the] investigation would be found” there.1259 SSA Shapley
understood AUSA Wolf’s claim that the search request would not be approved as an “excuse”
AUSA Wolf “hid[] behind” to not even attempt to get it approved.1260 AUSA Wolf continued that
the question of whether to search then-candidate Joe Biden’s guest house “was whether the juice
was worth the squeeze” and that “optics were a driving factor in the decision on whether to
execute a search warrant.”1261
SSA Shapley testified that prosecutors wanted to go as far as removing Hunter Biden’s
name from “electronic search warrants, 2703(d) orders, and document requests” based on what
they thought would get approved.1262 SA Ziegler corroborated SSA Shapley’s statement,
recalling an instance in which he told prosecutors on a team call that he was uncomfortable
removing Hunter Biden’s name from any documents “just based on what might or might not get
approved,” and that he thought doing so was “unethical.”1263
In September 2020, Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue issued a directive to
cease all overt investigative actions due to the impending election.1264 SA Ziegler testified that
during the conference “[DOJ Tax and Delaware USAO] told us essentially that we were on pause
from any overt activities or any activities that could be overt whatsoever.”1265 The following
month, the FBI imposed further restrictions on the number of interviews the IRS could conduct,
which investigators challenged internally as an inappropriate interference.1266 At that time, SA
Ziegler testified, the investigative team were “getting ready to go overt after the election” due to
DAG Donoghue’s instructions.1267 He explained:
And we needed to do a walk-by to make sure where Hunter Biden
lives. That’s typical of our [procedure.] [W]e would go in general
clothes, walk by the residence, see what’s going on, see if there’s
Secret Service. And in an email to Mark Daly, one of the DOJ Tax
attorneys, he says: “Tax does not approve. This will be on hold until
further notice.” I have never in my career . . . had Tax Division, let
alone approve us doing a walk-by or anything like this.
So my response to him was: “I’m sure I’ll get asked. . . . [C]an you
ask for the reasons why, since I think this would still be a covert
action, especially since the U.S. Attorney approved this?” He says:
“Call when free.” And, ultimately, we never were able to do the walk
by the residence until after the election. And that’s ultimately when
1259 Shapley Interview at 14-15. 1260 Id. at 114. 1261 Id. 14-15. 1262 Id. 15. 1263 Ziegler Interview at 25-26. 1264 Shapley Interview at 15. 1265 Ziegler Interview at 24. 1266 Shapley Interview at 15-16. 1267 Ziegler Interview at 24.
232
we went overt and were able to do the activities that day on
December 8th.1268
Then on October 22, 2020, AUSA Wolf informed the prosecution team that U.S. Attorney Weiss
agreed that there was probable cause to search Hunter Biden’s residence, but that they would not
be pursuing a search warrant nonetheless.1269 SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler both testified that
they have never heard a prosecutor say that optics were a driving factor in deciding whether to
execute a search warrant.1270
In December 2020, AUSA Wolf even went so far as to alert Hunter Biden’s defense
attorneys about an impending search warrant for a storage unit owned by Hunter Biden.1271 On
December 8, 2020, SA Ziegler drafted an affidavit in support of the search warrant for the
storage unit.1272 Three days later, on December 11, SA Ziegler and AUSA Wolf had a phone call
during which they disagreed about the plan to search the storage unit, with AUSA Wolf claiming
that “she was worried about what this [search] might do to the relationship with the opposing
counsel moving forward,” and that she would prefer to use a different method1273 to obtain the
documents in the storage unit.1274 SA Ziegler pointed out that AUSA Wolf’s suggestion “affords
[Hunter Biden] the opportunity to ‘decide’ what to turn[]over,” and that “in any other case, this
wouldn’t be the normal course of action that they might take and that [prosecutors] are deviating
now.”1275 Shortly thereafter, AUSA Wolf decided not to pursue the search warrant for the storage
unit.1276 On December 14, SSA Shapley and IRS SAC Kelly Jackson called U.S. Attorney Weiss
to discuss searching the storage unit and he agreed that they could proceed with obtaining a
search warrant if no one accessed the unit for 30 days.1277 Within an hour of the call with U.S.
Attorney Weiss, however, SSA Shapley learned that AUSA Wolf and Tax Division Senior
Litigation Counsel Mark Daly had informed Hunter Biden’s defense counsel about investigators’
plan to search the storage unit, thereby “ruining [investigators’] chance to get to evidence before
[it was] destroyed, manipulated, or concealed.”1278 Investigators were ultimately unable to search
the storage unit.1279
SA Ziegler described AUSA Wolf’s actions in obstructing the search of the storage unit as
“a defining moment for [him] in the investigation” where he realized that “the Delaware U.S.
Attorney’s Office was providing preferential treatment to [Hunter Biden] and his counsel,” and
was “not following the normal investigative process.”1280 SSA Shapley similarly noted that
AUSA Wolf’s actions deviated from the norm, testifying that “there’s no prosecutor [he’s] ever
1268 Ziegler Interview at 24-25. 1269 Shapley Supplemental Production 3, Attachment 6. 1270 Hearing with IRS Whistleblowers About the Biden Criminal Investigation: Before the H. Comm. on Oversight
and Accountability, 118th Cong. At 57 (July 19, 2023) (statements of Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler). 1271 Shapley Interview at 21, 114–15; Ziegler Interview at 26-27, 120. 1272 Ziegler Interview at 26. 1273 Ziegler redacted the method Wolf suggested for obtaining the documents in the storage unit. 1274 Ziegler Supplemental Production 2, Ex. 205. 1275 Id. 1276 Ziegler Interview at 27. 1277 Shapley Interview at 21. 1278 Id. 1279 Ziegler Supplemental Affidavit 2, at 2. 1280 Id.
233
worked with that wouldn’t say, go get those documents.”1281 SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler were
not the only ones upset with these actions, as IRS SAC Kelly Jackson also expressed
“frustration” with the Delaware USAO for “not allowing [the IRS] to go forth with the [search
warrant].”1282
Additional testimony obtained by the Committees shows that Hunter Biden received
numerous other special privileges throughout the course of the investigation due to his last name.
On December 8, 2020, investigators planned to take their investigation overt with a Day of
Action, with roughly ten planned witness interviews, including an interview of Hunter Biden.
But even then, the Justice Department hampered the investigators’ actions. The retired FBI
Supervisor corroborated SA Ziegler’s and SSA Shapley’s testimony that FBI headquarters tipped
off then-President-elect Biden’s transition team about IRS and FBI investigators’ plan to
interview Hunter Biden the following day.1283 He explained:
Q. Did you also receive information that the transition team was
notified as well?
A. I don’t recall that exactly. . . . I know I was upset when I
learned about it.
Q. Why were you upset?
A. I felt it was people that did not need to know about our intent.
I believe that the Secret Service had to be notified for our
safety, for lack of confusion, for deconfliction, which we
would do in so many other cases, but I didn’t understand why
the initial notification.1284
Retired FBI Supervisor provided further details on the irregularity of events that occurred the
morning investigators were to interview Hunter Biden. Specifically, the retired FBI Supervisor
elaborated on how one of his superiors ordered them to stand down and not go to Hunter Biden’s
house to interview the President’s son.1285 He stated:
Q. What happened the next day? Did you learn any information
given now that Secret Service headquarters knows? . . .
A. So, obviously, we were on the West Coast. There were
additional interviews across the country, to include the East
Coast, which was 3 hours ahead. So we were up early. I was
partnered with supervisor number two of the IRS. And as we
got together or while we got together on that morning, I was
1281 Shapley Interview at 115. 1282 Shapley Supplemental Production 3, Attachment 11. 1283 2023 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 33-35; see Shapley Interview at 19; Ziegler Interview at 119-20. 1284 2023 Retired FBI Supervisor Interview at 33. 1285 Id. at 33-35.
234
notified by my assistant special agent in charge that we
would not even be allowed to approach [Hunter Biden’s]
house; that the plan, as told to us, was that my information
would be given to the Secret Service, to whom I don’t know
exactly . . . with the notification that we would like to talk to
Hunter Biden; and that I was not to go near the house and to
stand by.
Q. In your career of 20 years, have you ever been told . . . that
you had to wait outside of a target’s home until they
contacted you?
A. Not that I recall. I mean, there have been times where we
waited for maybe something else operationally to happen,
but, no, not from the point of view of the target, the subject
of the investigation.
Q. And were you able to interview Hunter Biden . . . as part of
your investigation?
A. I was not.1286
During his interview, Retired FBI Supervisor explained how the treatment of Hunter
Biden’s interview was vastly different from interviews of other investigative targets. He stated
that it is “important” for FBI agents conducting a criminal investigation to be discreet about their
intent “to go out and talk with the target of a[n] investigation,” to give themselves “the best
opportunity to have a conversation with somebody and not have them influenced in some way”
and to prevent targets and witnesses from destroying evidence.1287 Such a common-sense tactic
did not occur in Hunter Biden’s case because FBI headquarters tipped off the Biden presidential
transition team about investigators’ plan to interview Hunter Biden.
Other information available to the Committees shows that Justice Department prosecutors
prohibited the investigative team from asking about or referencing Joe Biden during witness
interviews,1288 even though Hunter Biden’s communications about his business ventures often
referenced Joe Biden.1289 In addition, prosecutors also delayed investigators from conducting
1286 Id. 1287 Id. at 25. 1288 Shapley Interview at 18; see also id. at 119 (“There were multiple times where Lesley Wolf said that she didn’t
want to ask questions about dad. And dad was kind of how we referred to him. We referred to Hunter Biden’s father,
you know, as dad.”).
1289 Id. at 14; see, e.g., Michael Goodwin, Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe Biden’s push to make
millions from China: Goodwin, N.Y. POST (Oct. 22, 2020) (quoting Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony
Bobulinski as stating, “The reference to ‘the Big Guy’ in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a
reference to Joe Biden. . . . Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced
asking him for his sign–off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing.”).
237
However, as SSA Shapley told Congress, the line investigators “d[id] not agree with
[AUSA Wolf’s] obstruction on this matter.”1300 IRS Director of Field Operations Michael
Batdorf corroborated SSA Shapley’s testimony, noting that his investigators expressed concerns
about AUSA Wolf stonewalling their efforts to interview witnesses, which required approval
from Weiss’s team.1301
Multiple witnesses corroborated the whistleblowers’ frustration that prosecutors on
Weiss’s team were stonewalling the investigation and “slow-walking” the case.1302 SSA Shapley
stated that, “[i]t was apparent that DOJ was purposely slow-walking investigative actions in this
matter.”1303 Similarly, Ziegler testified that he tried “to point out that the slow-walking and
approvals for everything, a lot of that happened at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware and
DOJ Tax level.”1304
Testimony from SAC Thomas Sobocinski and ASAC Ryeshia Holley, both from the
FBI’s Baltimore Field Office, underscored the whistleblowers’ concern that the Department was
not moving at its typical pace in its investigation of Hunter Biden and instead was “slowwalking” the case.1305 SAC Sobocinski described his frustration with the pace of the
investigation multiple times, testifying that his goal was to get the case to a “resolution.”1306 He
also stated he “would have liked [the investigation] to move faster.”1307 SAC Sobocinski stated:
Q. Was this case moving slow? You said like at least—
A. Yup.
Q. —three dozen times you wanted to get this thing to
resolution. And so that sort of suggests that it wasn’t getting
to resolution and you thought it should be moving [at] a little
faster pace.
A. I would have liked for it to move faster.1308
1300 Id.; Shapley Supplemental Production 3, Attachment 14. 1301 Batdorf Interview at 60–61. 1302 See Shapley Interview at 13 (“It was apparent that DOJ was purposely slow–walking investigative actions in this
matter.”); Ziegler Interview at 92 (“As far as my leadership goes, we’re trying to point out that the slow–walking
and the approvals for everything, a lot of that happened at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware and DOJ Tax
level.”).
1303 Shapley Interview at 13. 1304 Ziegler Interview at 92. 1305 See Shapley Interview at 13 (“It was apparent that DOJ was purposely slow–walking investigative actions in this
matter.”); Ziegler Interview at 92 (“As far as my leadership goes, we’re trying to point out that the slow–walking
and the approvals for everything, a lot of that happened at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware and DOJ Tax
level.”).
1306 Sobocinski Interview at 34. 1307 Id. at 99. 1308 Id.
238
ASAC Holley likewise expressed “overall frustrat[ion]” about the slow pace of the
investigative process.1309 SAC Sobocinski and ASAC Holley’s frustration not only affirms the
whistleblowers’ testimony regarding the pace of the investigation, but it also creates a perception
that the Justice Department sought to purposefully slow down any potential prosecution of the
President’s son.
Special Counsel Weiss even acknowledged that the case “lingered.”1310 Without ever
defending the pace of his investigation, he testified:
Q. Do you have any goal as to when you’d like to bring it to
conclusion?
A. Two weeks ago. No, I say—again, I say that in jest, but no.
Look, I recognize that it’s never good for cases to linger, so
I am interested in efficiency to the extent possible.
Q. It’s been 5 years.
A. I understand that . . . I absolutely do.
Q. So that doesn’t—you just used the term “linger.” That
doesn’t fit the definition of “linger”?
A. I understand your question and appreciate it.1311
However, despite appreciating that the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden had
“linger[ed]” for five years, Special Counsel Weiss refused to provide the Committee with any
sort of timeline for when the investigation would be completed.1312 When asked if he would need
another five years, Special Counsel Weiss stated, “I’m not going to put a timeframe on it” but
“we plan to move as efficiently as possible.”1313
Ultimately, documents and testimony obtained by the Committees to date corroborate the
whistleblowers’ account of the constant roadblocks they encountered to properly investigate
Hunter Biden. The evidence indicates that Weiss’s prosecutors at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s
Office provided special treatment to the Biden family that it would not have provided any other
American in any other investigation.
1309 Holley Interview at 104. 1310 Weiss Interview at 151. 1311 Id. at 150. 1312 Id. at 175. 1313 Id.
239
iv. Two Biden-appointed U.S. Attorneys declined to partner with U.S.
Attorney Weiss to prosecute Hunter Biden in their respective districts.
SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler told Congress that the possible felony tax charges against
Hunter Biden for the 2014 and 2015 tax years involved “the most substantive criminal
conduct.”1314 Those tax years involved income from Hunter Biden’s position on the board of
directors of Burisma Holdings, and most importantly, connected Joe Biden’s official actions as
Vice President to his son’s alleged criminal conduct. During Hunter Biden’s five-year tenure on
Burisma’s board, he was paid up to $1 million annually.1315 Burisma, though, cut Hunter Biden’s
salary two months after Joe Biden left the vice presidency.1316
While Hunter Biden served on the Burisma board, Burisma and its owner were under
investigation by the Ukrainian government.1317 Burisma executives explicitly asked Hunter
Biden to help alleviate the “government pressure from Ukrainian Government investigations into
[its CEO].”1318 In response, Hunter Biden “called D.C.”1319 The Ukrainian government soon
fired the investigating Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin “after then-Vice President Joe Biden
threatened to pull $1 billion in U.S. aid” if Mr. Shokin remained in office.1320 Notably, as the
Washington Post reported, then-Vice President Biden unilaterally decided to change U.S. policy
regarding the loan during a plane ride to Ukraine.1321
During its investigation, IRS investigators discovered one way in which Hunter Biden
evaded paying taxes on his income from Burisma—by having it sent to the bank account of a
company he co-owned with his business partner and then distributing the money to himself while
falsely telling the IRS that the distribution was a nontaxable loan.1322 SSA Shapley explained that
this was a “textbook” affirmative scheme by Hunter Biden to avoid paying taxes.1323 In basic
terms, as SA Ziegler put it, “you can’t loan yourself your own money. It just doesn’t make any
sense.”1324 Notably, IRS investigators could find no evidence typically needed to verify that a
given payment is, in fact, a loan.1325 However, when SSA Shapley informed Tax Division trial
attorney Jack Morgan—whom the Justice Department has blocked from testifying before the
Committees—that there was no such evidence, Mr. Morgan replied that “this is not a typical
case” due to the fact that it involved President Biden’s son.1326
1314 Shapley Interview at 25. 1315 STAFF REPORT, S. COMM. ON HOMELAND SEC. & GOVERNMENTAL AFFS. & S. COMM. ON FIN., HUNTER BIDEN,
BURISMA, AND CORRUPTION: THE IMPACT ON U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY AND RELATED CONCERNS, at 8 (2020). 1316 Bank records on file with the Committees. 1317 STAFF REPORT, S. COMM. ON HOMELAND SEC. & GOVERNMENTAL AFFS. & S. COMM. ON FIN., HUNTER BIDEN,
BURISMA, AND CORRUPTION: THE IMPACT ON U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY AND RELATED CONCERNS, at 8 (2020). 1318 Archer Interview at 34. 1319 Id. at 36. 1320 Steven Nelson, Ukrainian prosecutor whose ouster Biden pushed was ‘threatened,’ says Devon Archer, N.Y.
POST (Aug. 4, 2023). 1321 Glenn Kessler, Inside VP Biden’s linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor’s ouster, WASH. POST (Sept. 15,
2023)
1322 Shapley Interview at 57-59; Ziegler Interview at 64-66. 1323 Shapley Interview at 58-59. 1324 Ziegler Interview at 66-67. 1325 Shapley Interview at 59. 1326 Id.
241
Q. . . . And what did they tell you about bringing the case in
D.C. or different jurisdictions from yours?
A. We discussed the fact that . . . they wanted me to proceed in
the way it would typically be done, and that would involve
ultimately reaching out to the U.S. Attorney in the District
of Columbia.
I raised the idea of 515 authority at that time because I had
been handling the investigation for some period of time.
And, as I said, they suggested let’s go through the typical
process and reach out to D.C. and see if D.C. would be
interested in joining or otherwise participating in the
investigation.1334
About a month later, U.S. Attorney Weiss called Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for
the District of Columbia, to discuss bringing charges in D.C.1335 Mr. Weiss and Mr. Graves
provided different accounts as to what transpired on that call. Special Counsel Weiss testified
that he asked U.S. Attorney Graves to partner on the case,1336 as he was instructed to do by Main
Justice when they rejected his first request for 515 authority.1337 U.S. Attorney Weiss testified
that he “reached out [to Graves] . . . and basically inquired as to whether his office would be
willing to join us or participate in this case.”1338 When asked to elaborate on what exactly he was
asking U.S. Attorney Graves to partner on, Special Counsel Weiss explained that he “was asking
[Graves] to join in the prosecution of the case,” and whether U.S. Attorney Graves was “willing
to assign someone to be co-counsel in the investigation.”1339 Special Counsel Weiss also
expressed that he had no recollection of asking D.C. for administrative support.1340
Alternatively, U.S. Attorney Graves testified that U.S. Attorney Weiss requested
administrative support, and that Mr. Graves brought up the idea of partnering on the prosecution.
Mr. Graves stated:
1334 Id. at 15-16. 1335 Graves Interview at 16-17, 27 (stating that the call occurred in late February or early March); Weiss Interview at
19, 21, 55 (stating that the call occurred in early March).
1336 See Weiss Interview at 124 (“I asked whether [Graves and Estrada] were interested in joining in or participating
in the case, and they declined to do so[.]”); id. at 192 (“[W]hen I’m asking [Graves] about partnering . . .”); id. at
195 (“[W]e were giving [Graves] the opportunity to join in the investigation.”).
1337 Weiss Interview at 16 (“And, as I said, they suggested let’s go through the typical process and reach out to D.C.
and see if D.C. would be interested in joining or otherwise participating in the investigation.”); id. at 83 (“The first
step was just to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office to see if they wanted to join in the prosecution.”); id. at 86 (“They
said to follow the process, talk to Graves, give him the opportunity to join.”); see also Letter from David C. Weiss,
U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (June 30, 2023) (“If venue for a
case lies elsewhere, common Departmental practice is to contact the United States Attorney’s Office for the district
in question and determine whether it wants to partner on the case.” (emphasis added)). 1338 Weiss Interview at 57. 1339 Id. at 192-93. 1340 Id. at 55 (“Q. Okay. And when you approached Mr. Graves, did you ask him to provide administrative support
as you were exploring the possibility of bringing charges in the District of Columbia? A. I don’t know whether I did
or not, to tell you the truth. It was one conversation, 5 or 10 minutes, and I don’t recall the particulars with respect to
the need for administrative support.”).
242
Q. . . . Can you walk us through your recollection of how the
Hunter Biden case was brought to your office?
A. Yes. To the best of my recollection, in late February or early
March of 2022, then U.S. Attorney Weiss, now Special
Counsel Weiss, called me directly.
Q. Okay. And what did he say?
A. To my recollection, he said that he had a case where there
was a component of that case that he had deemed he wanted
to bring in the District of Columbia.
Q. . . . And what did you say?
A. So, at a high level, without getting into the case specifics,
my recollection was generally . . . asking him whether he
was just looking for the kind of normal administrative
support that any U.S. Attorney would need if they were
going to come and bring a case in another jurisdiction or
have their people bring a case in another jurisdiction, or
whether he was asking for us to join the investigation.
Q. And what was his answer?
A. To the best of my recollection, his answer was that, at a
minimum, it was providing the support but we could discuss
further joining or not.1341
After the call, U.S. Attorney Graves told his criminal division chief and principal AUSA
that he needed to make a decision on partnering with Weiss’s office quickly,1342 presumably
because the statute of limitations on the 2014 and 2015 charges was about to lapse.1343 Although
Graves’s team spent about three weeks analyzing the case—including unspecified case material
they received from Weiss’s office1344—U.S. Attorney Graves indicated that he did not review any
of the case material himself.1345
1341 Graves Interview at 16-17. 1342 Id. at 20, 27, 45. 1343 See Shapley Interview at 54 (“The statute [of limitations] was about to blow in March 2022.”). Prosecutors and
defense counsel later agreed to toll the statute of limitations before it expired in March 2022. Prosecutors ultimately
allowed the statute of limitations to expire in November 2022, despite defense counsel offering to sign another
tolling agreement. Id. at 26, 54. 1344 Graves Interview at 20-21, 80; see also Weiss Interview at 22 (“We provided [Graves’s office] with information
so that they could make an informed judgment on deciding whether to participate in the investigation. But I’m not
going to get into particulars of documentation.”).
1345 Graves Interview at 18-19, 21, 80-81.
243
On March 19, 2022, Graves met with five or six members of his office—including the
principal AUSA; criminal division chief; head of the fraud, public corruption, and civil rights
practice; head of the fraud and public corruption unit; and a line assistant1346—where they
decided not to partner with Weiss’s office on prosecuting the Hunter Biden case.1347 Rather than
share his conclusion with U.S. Attorney Weiss directly, U.S. Attorney Graves “instructed [his]
career prosecutors to convey the decision [not to partner] and the basis for the decision to
[Weiss’s] career prosecutors.”1348 In lieu of partnering, U.S. Attorney Graves simply offered to
provide Weiss’s office with administrative support such as securing time before a grand jury.1349
U.S. Attorney Weiss learned about U.S. Attorney Graves’s decision through his staff.1350 Because
the Justice Department denied U.S. Attorney Weiss’s February 2022 request for § 515 authority
and U.S. Attorney Graves’s refusal to partner, U.S. Attorney Weiss was unable to bring charges
in D.C.
A few months later, U.S. Attorney Weiss again tried partnering with another U.S.
Attorney to bring charges relating to Hunter Biden’s crimes. In August 2022, U.S. Attorney
Weiss asked Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Stephanie Christensen to
partner with his office on prosecuting crimes against Hunter Biden in the Central District of
California.1351
Current U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada testified that, prior to his confirmation, one of the
Acting U.S. Attorneys in his district appointed Assistant U.S. Attorneys from Weiss’s office to
serve as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSAs) in the Central District of California,
meaning they were authorized to bring charges and litigate in that district.1352 U.S. Attorney
Estrada was unsure how many SAUSAs were appointed but knew that there were more than
one.1353 Special Counsel Weiss was unable to provide any information on this matter.1354
About a month later—sometime in late September or early October 2022—U.S. Attorney
Estrada, shortly after being sworn-in as the new Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney, learned of U.S.
Attorney Weiss’s request to partner on the case from career attorneys in his office.1355 U.S.
Attorney Estrada also learned that career attorneys in his office had already informed Weiss’s
office that “they were recommending against partnering or cocounseling [o]n the charges being
contemplated” and that U.S. Attorney Weiss wanted to discuss the matter with U.S. Attorney
Estrada.1356
1346 Id. at 25. 1347 Id. at 23-24. 1348 Id. at 28. 1349 Id. at 17, 31. 1350 Weiss Interview at 19, 21. 1351 Id. at 102. 1352 Estrada Interview at 17-18, 23. 1353 Id. at 18. 1354 Weiss Interview at 102. 1355 Estrada Interview at 14-15. 1356 Id. at 15; see also id. at 87 (“So my understanding was that, at some point shortly after I started, I was told that
there was a request from the District of Delaware to co–counsel, partner on the case; that my career attorneys had
recommended against doing so; that had been communicated to the District of Delaware; and the District of
Delaware then, through Mr. Weiss, wanted to talk to me about it.”).
244
In early October 2022, U.S. Attorney Estrada reviewed three “memoranda analyzing facts
and law” drafted by his staff, Weiss’s staff, and DOJ Tax, which involved “the question of
whether to co[-]counsel.”1357 Estrada refused to disclose any additional details about the
memoranda he reviewed during his interview with the Committee,1358 other than to add that, in
addition to the three memoranda, “there were many legal memoranda that were written and
presented to [U.S. Attorney Estrada] in making this decision of whether or not to agree with the
career attorneys.”1359
Shortly after reviewing the memoranda, U.S. Attorney Estrada met with his staff to
discuss the case and U.S. Attorney Weiss’s request to partner on prosecuting the case.1360 U.S.
Attorney Estrada ultimately agreed with his staff’s recommendation to not partner.1361 On
October 19, 2022, U.S. Attorney Estrada told U.S. Attorney Weiss that he would not partner with
Delaware to prosecute Hunter Biden.1362 Instead, he offered to provide Weiss’s office with
administrative support if they needed it.1363
U.S. Attorney Estrada explained that his decision to not partner with U.S. Attorney Weiss
was due to the crime epidemic plaguing his district and his office’s already-limited resources.
According to U.S. Attorney Estrada, his office “was down 40 AUSAs at the time [of Weiss’s
request to partner], so we were very resource-strapped.”1364 Regarding the crime epidemic
plaguing his district, U.S. Attorney Estrada testified:
We have a Fentanyl epidemic which is one of the worst in the
country[]. We’ve done more death-resulting cases than any other
district in the country. We’re on pace to do more this year than we
ever had before. We’ve got a violent crime epidemic with firearms.
We’ve done more Hobbs Act cases than we ever have in the past 2
years. We have a National Security Section, a division, unlike most
other offices, because we’re the gateway to Asia. And we have the
People’s Republic of China trying to influence our elections, trying
to target some of our individuals. We have a lot of high-profile cases.
We have a Public Corruption Section which has indicted three City
Council members in the past few years and including the sitting
sheriff of Los Angeles County.1365
We also look to the practical impact of limited resources. As I
mentioned, we have over . . . 20 million people in the district, yet, at
1357 Id. at 20, 29, 71. 1358 Id. at 20, 29. 1359 Id. at 29. 1360 Id. at 19-21. 1361 Id. at 21. 1362 Id. at 22; Weiss Interview at 103. 1363 Estrada Interview at 22; Weiss Interview at 103. 1364 Estrada Interview at 32. 1365 Id. at 28.
245
the time I came in, about 140 AUSAs. That’s just over one AUSA
per 100,000 people in the district. At the same time, we’re dealing
with—as I said, we’re the gang capital. We, unfortunately, export
MS-13, Crips gangs, Hispanic gangs, Mexican mafia to the rest of
the country. Our cartels infect the rest of the country. The fraud we
have here infects the rest of the country. So there were a lot of issues
I needed to deal with right there and then which called for
resources.1366
We don’t have enough AUSAs to handle our national security
matters. . . . [E]very AUSA in my office could be doing [Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP)] fraud cases we have so much PPP fraud.
. . . That’s the COVID fraud, COVID-19 money fraud. Every AUSA
in my office could be doing healthcare fraud cases we have so much
healthcare fraud. We have to deploy our resources in the most
effective manner to address the needs of the district. As I mentioned,
we have a fentanyl epidemic. That includes not just death-resulting
cases, it includes going after cartels which are distributing these
pills, not just in powder form but in pill form. We routinely seize
over a million pills at a time from vehicles, and we need to prosecute
those cases. Each pill could be a death. And routinely now we’re
finding cartels transporting fentanyl in liquid form, which is a new
thing that they’re doing. So we have to do those cases.
We have a violent crime crisis where, for a variety of reasons,
including some of the local policies, there has been an increase,
certainly in our view, of violent crime and use of handguns in
crimes. We have taco vendors on the streets getting robbed at
gunpoint. So we are doing more of those types of offenses than we
ever have before. We don’t have enough resources to do those.1367
U.S. Attorney Estrada also testified that on September 19, 2023, just weeks before his
transcribed interview, he had a call with Special Counsel Weiss.
1368 However, he refused to
apprise the Committees as to what was discussed on the call except for stating that the call “did
not involve the question of whether to co[-]counsel on contemplated charges against Hunter
Biden[.]1369 After U.S. Attorney Estrada declined to partner to bring a case against Hunter Biden
1366 Id. at 34. 1367 Id. at 65-66. 1368 Id. at 26. 1369 Id. Weiss similarly acknowledged the call’s existence but also refused to provide further detail. See Weiss
Interview at 149 (“Q. Mr. Estrada testified that there was another conversation in September of 2023. Do you
remember that one? A. Yeah, I don’t want to get into the particulars of any further conversations. I mean, the first
one . . . spoke to my authority. The second one, I just –– it would not be appropriate for me to comment on.”). 1369 Estrada Interview at 17-18, 23.
246
in his district, U.S. Attorney Weiss, at that point in time, was unable to bring criminal charges
against Hunter Biden in any district, save for the gun charge in Delaware.
The Committees have not been able to identify any further attempts U.S. Attorney Weiss
made to bring charges against Hunter Biden in those districts for the tax years of 2014 and 2015
after the Justice Department denied Weiss’s request for § 515 authority and both U.S. Attorney
Graves and U.S. Attorney Estrada refused to partner with him. Even more troubling, while U.S.
Attorney Weiss sought to partner with the two U.S. Attorneys, he and Attorney General Garland
misled Congress and the American people by asserting that U.S. Attorney Weiss had full
authority over the Hunter Biden case. In reality, Biden-Harris Administration political appointees
exercised significant oversight and control over the investigation as U.S. Attorney Weiss had to
seek agreement from other Biden-appointed U.S. Attorneys to bring cases in other jurisdictions
outside of Delaware.1370
v. Prosecutors in U.S. Attorney Weiss’s office intentionally allowed the
statute of limitations to lapse for some of Hunter Biden’s most serious
crimes that also implicated President Biden.
The delays and obstruction by Biden-appointed U.S. Attorneys and Justice Department
officials helped run down the clock on potential criminal charges regarding Hunter Biden’s
under-reported income and tax avoidance that occurred while his father was Vice President. In
October 2021, prosecutors held a “tax summit” where all prosecutors, including Tax Division
attorneys Senior Litigation Counsel Jack Morgan and Tax Division Trial Attorney Mark Daly,
agreed to recommend charges against Hunter Biden for tax years 2014 to 2019, with felony
charges for 2014 and 2018.1371 In line with this agreement, in late 2021, IRS investigators
compiled a SAR that recommended prosecuting Hunter Biden for tax crimes related to the 2014
and 2015 tax years1372 and prosecutors, including AUSA Wolf, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Daly,
agreed with the report’s recommendation.1373 Soon thereafter, though, prosecutors and the Biden
Justice Department’s Tax Division changed their recommendation.
On June 15, 2022, investigators and prosecutors attended a meeting at Main Justice in
Washington, D.C. where Mr. Daly and Mr. Morgan gave a presentation on the reasons not to
charge Hunter Biden for tax crimes committed during the 2014 and 2015 tax years.1374 During
his transcribed interview, the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Matters
1370 See Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice, Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 118th Cong.
(2023) (statement of Merrick Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just.) (asserting that Weiss “has full authority to . . .
bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary”); Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 Justice Department
Budget Request, Before the Subcomm. on Com., Just., Sci., & Related Agencies of the S. Comm. on Appropriations,
117th Cong. (2022) (statement of Merrick Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just.) (“[T]he Hunter Biden
investigation . . . is being run by and supervised by the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware. . . . [H]e
is in charge of that investigation. There will not be interference of any political or improper kind.”); Letter from
David C. Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (June 7, 2023)
(In a letter to Congress, Weiss asserted that he was “granted ultimate authority over this matter, including
responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges . . . .”).
1371 Ziegler Interview at 32-33. 1372 Shapley Interview at 22-23, 42; see Shapley Interview, Ex. 2. 1373 Shapley Interview, Ex. 2; Shapley Interview at 23. 1374 Ziegler Interview at 160-64.
247
within the Department’s Tax Division, Stuart Goldberg, confirmed the whistleblowers’ account
that Tax Division attorneys indeed gave a presentation, but Justice Department counsel who
accompanied Mr. Goldberg would not allow him to discuss the substance of the presentation.1375
During his transcribed interview, SSA Shapley testified that the Biden Justice Department
allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on the 2014 and 2015 tax crimes.1376 Specifically, SSA
Shapley stated that up until a meeting he attended with U.S. Attorney Weiss on October 7, 2022,
he believed, based on statements made by Attorney General Garland and Weiss, that prosecutors
“were still deciding whether to charge 2014 and 2015 tax violations.”1377 During this period,
SSA Shapley explained, prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s legal team entered into agreements to
toll the statute of limitations for crimes pertaining to the 2014 and 2015 tax years.1378 However,
despite the defense counsel’s willingness to toll the statute of limitations on the charges again,
the Biden Justice Department ultimately allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on those years
in November 2022.1379 SSA Shapley cited this decision as yet another example of the Biden
Justice Department disregarding established norms to benefit Hunter Biden, explaining that
“[l]etting a statute of limitations expire in an active criminal investigation is not normal.”1380
In his transcribed interview, Special Counsel Weiss confirmed that the Biden Justice
Department allowed the statute of limitations for the 2014 and 2015 tax year charges to expire.
However, he refused to explain why the charges were allowed to lapse.1381 Specifically, Special
Counsel Weiss testified:
Q. [I]n 2014 and 2015, it’s been well-established by the
whistleblowers, Hunter Biden had in excess of over $1
million in revenue coming in from Burisma that has avoided
tax entirely. Do you think it’s fair that he is able to avoid
paying tax[es] on that gigantic sum of money?
A. Again, that’s something I can’t comment on. That pertains to
the ongoing litigation and our outstanding investigation. I’m
just not at liberty to comment at this time, but there will come
a time.
Q. Even though the statute of limitations has lapsed?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. When is the appropriate time to address why the statute of
limitations was allowed to lapse?
1375 Goldberg Interview at 30-31. 1376 Shapley Interview at 25-26, 54-55, 100. 1377 Id. at 25. 1378 Id. at 54. 1379 Id. at 25-26, 54-55, 100. 1380 Id. at 92. 1381 Weiss Interview at 93-94.
248
A. I’ll address it in the report, but even though the statute of
limitations has lapsed and even though charges won’t be
filed, if there were to be an outstanding tax prosecution, there
is no reason to believe that evidence pertaining to prior
years, or witnesses involved in prior years, wouldn’t be part
of that litigation.1382
Under the guise of the “ongoing litigation and [the] outstanding investigation”—even
though criminal liability cannot result from any investigation given the lapse in the statute of
limitations—the Biden Justice Department refused to explain why it failed to bring charges
against Hunter Biden for the 2014 and 2015 tax years.1383
AUSA Wolf testified that is the role of the line prosecutor to know when the statute of
limitations for a crime is set to expire and that the statute of limitations did not lapse “by
mistake.”1384 She stated:
Q. . . . [I]f you’re working on a case and the statute of
limitations is coming up, are there any procedures DOJ has
to help everyone avoid that?
A. Generally speaking?
Q. Yeah.
A. Not that I’m aware of. As a general matter, as a prosecutor,
you have some sense of what the statute is, and if you’re
coming up on a statute of limitations, you’re aware of it.
Q. Okay. Whose responsibility, as a general matter, is it to
manage that question, that is, the statute’s expiring?
A. Sorry, just so I understand the question, are you asking
who’s supposed to know that the statute is expiring, who’s
tasked with that?
Q. Right.
A. It would be the line prosecutors handling the case to be aware
of the statute of limitations.
Q. And are there any policies or procedures that require a line
prosecutor to confer with the U.S. Attorney or with
supervisory personnel as the statute is coming up on its
1382 Id. at 92-94. 1383 Id. at 93. 1384 Id. at 101-02.
249
deadline?
A. So I actually am not sure. . . . I’m not aware of any certainly
in the Justice Manual. I do not know whether or not there are
formal policies that are included in the District of Delaware
Criminal [] Manual. But as a general matter, it would be
unusual for someone to just unilaterally make that decision.
Q. So if the statute of limitations is about to expire and it does
expire, it’s not by mistake. Is that a fair thing to say?
Atty. I think she’s answered the question.
A. I think – yeah. As a general matter, I would say that is
accurate. I am quite sure that on occasion it happens. But as
a general matter, you’re aware of the statute and when it’s
due to run.1385
This prosecutorial decision is highly significant because those years included Hunter Biden’s
income from and work on behalf of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which relate his
father’s official actions in pressuring Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general. Ultimately, as SSA
Shapley explained, “[t]he purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 years sanitized the most
substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts” in this matter, including “a scheme to
evade . . . income taxes through a partnership with a convicted felon,” and “potential [Foreign
Agents Registration Act] issues.”1386
vi. From the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration, U.S. Attorney
Weiss and Attorney General Garland misled the investigative team and
Congress about U.S. Attorney Weiss’s authority over the matter given the
inherent conflict of interest in Joe Biden’s Justice Department
investigating his son.
Attorney General Garland repeatedly claimed that U.S. Attorney Weiss had full authority
over the Hunter Biden investigation. For example, he testified to Congress that Weiss “has full
authority to . . . bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary”1387 and stated publicly
that Weiss “was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own.”1388 Likewise, Weiss
assured the Committee on the Judiciary that he had “ultimate authority” over the Hunter Biden
1385 Wolf Interview at 101-02. 1386 Shapley Interview at 25. 1387 Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice, Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 118th Cong. (2023)
(statement of Merrick Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just.); see also Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 Justice
Department Budget Request, Before the Subcomm. on Com., Just., Sci., & Related Agencies of the S. Comm. on
Appropriations, 117th Cong. (2022) (statement of Merrick Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just.) (“[T]he Hunter
Biden investigation . . . is being run by and supervised by the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware. . .
. [H]e is in charge of that investigation. There will not be interference of any political or improper kind.”). 1388 AG Garland Maintains David Weiss Had Full Authority Over Hunter Biden Case, C-SPAN (June 23, 2023).
250
investigation.1389 However, the Committees have received documentary and testimonial evidence
from multiple sources, including career Justice Department and FBI officials and three Bidenappointed U.S. Attorneys, confirming that Weiss did not maintain “ultimate authority” over the
Hunter Biden matter. Instead, witnesses described the numerous approvals Weiss needed to
obtain, including from the Biden Justice Department’s Tax Division and other U.S. Attorneys’
Offices, and the complex process he needed to navigate before he could file charges against
Hunter Biden outside of Delaware.
U.S. Attorney Weiss, who was recommended by Delaware’s Democrat Senators and
subsequently appointed by President Trump,
1390 was asked by the incoming Biden Justice
Department in January 2021 to continue to serve as U.S. Attorney for the District of
Delaware.1391 U.S. Attorney Weiss testified he initially spoke to Associate Deputy Attorney
General Bradley Weinsheimer about the Hunter Biden investigation in February 2022.1392 At that
time, U.S. Attorney Weiss sought to obtain special attorney status from the Justice Department
for the purpose of filing charges against Hunter Biden in D.C.1393 However, by Weiss’s own
admission, the Biden Justice Department did not approve his request and instead instructed him
to go through the process of asking the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to partner with him on the
prosecution.1394 Shortly thereafter, on April 26, 2022, Attorney General Garland told the Senate
Appropriations Committee that U.S. Attorney Weiss is “supervising the investigation” and “is in
charge of that investigation.”1395 Almost a year later on March 1, 2023, Attorney General
Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee:
The U.S. Attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full
authority to make those kind[s] of referrals that you are talking
about, or bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary
and I will assure that if he does, he will be able to do that . . . I have
promised to ensure that he is able to carry out his investigation and
that he be able to run it and if needs to bring it in another jurisdiction
he will have full authority to do that.1396
Weeks later, U.S. Attorney Weiss covered for Attorney General Garland, asserting in an
unsolicited letter to Chairman Jordan: “[A]s the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted
ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and
whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the
1389 Letter from David C. Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary
(June 30, 2023).
1390 Josephine Peterson, David Weiss sworn in as Delaware U.S. Attorney, NEWS J. (Feb. 23, 2018); Carper, Coons
release statement on Weiss’ appointment, DEL. ONLINE (Feb. 23, 2018). 1391 Weiss Interview at 11. 1392 Id. at 14-15. 1393 Id. at 15-16. 1394 Id. 1395 Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 Justice Department Budget Request, Before the Subcomm. on Com., Just., Sci.,
& Related Agencies of the S. Comm. on Appropriations, 117th Cong. (Apr. 26, 2022) (statement of Merrick Garland,
Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just.); see Brittany Bernstein, AG Garland: ‘There Will Not Be Interference’ in DOJ’s
Hunter Biden Investigation, NAT’L REV. (Apr. 26, 2022). 1396 Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice, Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 118th Cong., C–SPAN
00:46:48 (Mar. 1, 2023) (statement of Merrick Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just.).
251
prosecution…”1397 However, in a subsequent June 30 letter to the Judiciary Committee, U.S.
Attorney Weiss changed his tune, stating:
I stand by what I wrote and wish to expand on what this means. As
the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, my charging
authority is geographically limited to my home district. If venue for
a case lies elsewhere, common Departmental practice is to contact
the United States Attorney’s Office for the district in question and
determine whether it wants to partner on the case.1398
On July 10, 2023, U.S. Attorney Weiss again shifted his explanation of his authority, this
time in a letter to Senator Lindsey Graham. In that letter, he acknowledged that he had
“discussions” with unnamed “Departmental officials” about seeking Special Attorney status and
“was assured” the authority would be granted.1399 Special Attorney status, U.S. Attorney Weiss
explained, “would have allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without the
partnership of the local U.S. Attorney.”1400 He did not detail the substance of those discussions,
the timing of them, or the officials with whom he spoke.
In other words, in his first letter, Weiss represented to the Judiciary Committee that he
had been granted ultimate authority with respect to the filing of charges. But in his third letter,
Weiss told Senator Graham that he had been assured by unnamed officials that he would be
granted that authority in the future if necessary after going through a specified process, and he
notably provided no explanation of who would make the determination of necessity.1401 These
are inconsistent representations, and it is not possible for both of them to be true. Weiss’s shifting
statements about his authority to bring charges against Hunter Biden, especially his authority to
bring charges outside of Delaware, raise concerns that the Department is attempting to cover up
improper political considerations that factored into the Department’s investigative and
prosecutorial function.
Whistleblower testimony additionally contradicts with U.S. Attorney Weiss and Attorney
General Garland’s statements regarding the scope of U.S. Attorney Weiss’s authority. SSA
Shapley testified that, by fall of 2022, it became apparent that Justice Department decisions
“were being made to conceal from the public the results of the investigation.”1402 On October 7,
2022, U.S. Attorney Weiss finally came clean to his prosecution team that he did not have
“ultimate authority” over the Hunter Biden investigation. On that day, U.S. Attorney Weiss met
1397 Letter from David C. Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary
(June 7, 2023).
1398 Letter from David C. Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
at 1-2 (June 30, 2023). 1399 Letter from David C. Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Sen. Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member, S. Comm. on
the Judiciary (July 10, 2023). 1400 Id. at 1. 1401 Compare Letter from David C. Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary (June 7, 2023), with Letter from David C. Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman,
H. Comm. on the Judiciary (June 30, 2023).
1402 Shapley Interview at 27.
253
U.S. Attorney Weiss’s confession revealed that Biden-Harris Administration political
appointees were in fact controlling the investigation of the President’s son, despite Attorney
General Garland’s sworn congressional testimony to the contrary.1405 SSA Shapley described
how troubling he found this news, coming to the realization that his years long investigation was
now over, noting:
All of our years of effort getting to the bottom of the massive
amounts of foreign money Hunter Biden received from Burisma and
others during that period would be for nothing… I felt misled by the
Delaware United States Attorney’s Office.1406
In his contemporaneous handwritten notes taken at the October 7, 2022 meeting, SSA
Shapley wrote that “[i]nvestigative work essentially complete per U.S. [Attorney].”1407
Additionally, in an email to his superiors sent shortly after the meeting, SSA Shapley explained
that “[n]o major investigative actions remain” with respect to the Hunter Biden investigation.1408
SA Ziegler similarly testified that “the investigative process is 99.9 percent done[.]”1409 During
their interviews, FBI officials substantiated the claim that this investigation was dead in the water
following the October 7 meeting. Specifically, neither SAC Sobocinski nor ASAC Holley could
describe any real or significant progress made in U.S. Attorney Weiss’s investigation after the
October 7 meeting through the August 11, 2023, special counsel announcement.1410 In other
words, at the time of the “red-line” meeting that ultimately led the IRS whistleblowers to shine
the light on misconduct in the investigation, the only remaining decision points were whether to
pursue charges against Hunter Biden.
SSA Shapley testified that what transpired in this meeting became his “red-line” in the
investigation because it fully displayed the Biden Justice Department’s malfeasance, which
spurred him to subsequently come forward as a whistleblower to Congress.1411 The realization of
the prosecutorial misconduct that culminated in this meeting was the final straw for SSA Shapley
and—unable to stand idly by as the Biden Justice Department effectively ended this important
investigation—ultimately induced him to come forward to Congress as a whistleblower.1412
Moreover, the fact that no further progress was made on this investigation following the October
7 meeting highlights the brazen action Biden Justice Department officials were willing to take to
obscure the Biden family’s illegal activities. Without SSA Shapley’s and SA Ziegler’s choice to
come forward as whistleblowers to testify about this injustice, the American people would very
likely still be in the dark about this corrupt behavior.
1405 See Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 Justice Department Budget Request, Before the Subcomm. on Com., Just.,
Sci., & Related Agencies of the S. Comm. on Appropriations, 117th Cong., at 25 (2022). 1406 Shapley Interview at 28-29. 1407 Letter from Mark D. Lytle, Partner, Nixon Peabody LLP, & Tristan Leavitt, President, Empower Oversight, to
H. Comm. on Ways & Means & S. Comm. on Fin. (Sept. 13, 2023) (attaching Shapley’s notes from the October 7
meeting).
1408 Email from Gary Shapley, Supervisory Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv., to Michael Batdorf, Dir. of Field
Ops., Internal Revenue Serv., Darrell Waldon, Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field Off., Internal Revenue
Serv. (Oct. 7, 2022, 6:09 PM) (Shapley Interview, Ex. 10). 1409 Ziegler Interview at 14. 1410 See Sobocinski Interview at 162-63; Holley Interview at 102-03. 1411 Shapley Interview at 28, 134, 171. 1412 Id. at 134.
254
C. After the IRS whistleblowers came forward, the Biden Justice Department
attempted to cover-up its wrongdoing.
The Biden-Harris Administration improperly influenced the course of the independent
IRS and Justice Department investigation into Hunter Biden. According to the available
evidence, the Biden Justice Department shut down certain lines of inquiry and allowed the
statute of limitations to lapse on certain charges. After whistleblowers came forward to detail the
Department’s obstruction, and the Department was compelled to take some prosecutorial action,
the Department tried to push through a plea agreement that imploded in open court. The Biden
Justice Department has made inconsistent statements to the Judiciary Committee about the
independence of its investigation, and President Biden has prejudiced the investigation by
making statements proclaiming his son’s innocence. In short, evidence obtained to date details
how the Biden-Harris Administration has deviated from its typical process to provide the
President’s son special treatment and influence the investigation in a way that is favorable to the
President and his family.
i. After a multi-year investigation, U.S. Attorney Weiss offered Hunter
Biden a lenient plea agreement that fell apart under simple questioning
from the judge.
After a five-year investigation, slow-walked by Biden-appointees and beset by deviations
from standard investigative practices, U.S. Attorney Weiss offered Hunter Biden a favorable plea
agreement involving only two misdemeanor tax crimes and a pretrial diversion agreement for a
felony firearm offense,1413 despite prosecutors’ and investigators’ original recommendation of
charging Hunter Biden with six tax felonies and five tax misdemeanors.1414 Further, it was
revealed during the hearing on the plea deal that prosecutors and defense counsel did not share
the same understanding of the scope of Hunter Biden’s immunity from additional charges.1415
The timing of the public announcement of the plea deal raises the perception that it was designed
to avoid public criticism of the investigation. The Biden Justice Department announced the plea
deal with Hunter Biden mere days before the Ways and Means Committee disclosed the
whistleblower testimony detailing how the Department “provided preferential treatment, slowwalked the investigation, [and] did nothing to avoid obvious conflicts of interest in this
investigation.”1416
According to public reporting, Hunter Biden’s attorney, Chris Clark, began pressuring the
Department to end the Hunter Biden investigation as early as spring of 2022.1417 From mid-2022
to early 2023, Mr. Clark threatened prosecutors that they faced “career suicide” if they pursued
1413 Memorandum of Plea Agreement, United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-274 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2023). 1414 See Shapley Interview, Ex. 2. 1415 See Initial Appearance Plea Hearing, United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-274, No. 23-cr-61 (D. Del. July 26,
2023); Glenn Thrush et al., Judge Puts Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal on Hold, Questioning Its Details, N.Y. TIMES
(July 26, 2023).
1416 Shapley Interview at 10-11. 1417 Betsy Woodruff Swan, In talks with prosecutors, Hunter Biden’s lawyers vowed to put the president on the
stand, POLITICO (Aug. 19, 2023).
255
the investigation,1418 demanded meetings “with people at the highest levels of the Justice
Department,”1419 and warned that he would create a “Constitutional crisis” by calling President
Biden to testify as a fact witness for the defense in a potential prosecution.1420 He claimed that a
prosecution of Hunter Biden would “immediately tarnish the credibility of the Department” as
“another example of naked politics influenced by a vendetta of the former President against the
current President.”1421 These threats worked on U.S. Attorney Weiss, who allowed the
investigation to linger and did not pick the case back up until shortly after the whistleblowers
came forward in May 2023.1422
After negotiations with Hunter Biden’s counsel, the Biden Justice Department tried to
push through an unprecedented plea deal, which imploded in open court. The negotiations
culminated in a plea agreement publicly announced on June 20, 2023.1423 The deal would have
had Hunter Biden plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges, plus a diversion agreement to
dismiss a separate felony gun charge if Hunter Biden successfully completed a two-year period
of pretrial diversion supervision.
1424 The one-of-its-kind agreement shifted a broad immunity
provision from the plea agreement to the pretrial diversion agreement, benefiting Hunter Biden
with the aim of preventing the District Court from being able to scrutinize and reject that
immunity provision.1425 It also gave the District Court the sole power to determine whether
1418 Shapley Interview at 27; Ziegler Interview at 122. 1419 Betsy Woodruff Swan, In talks with prosecutors, Hunter Biden’s lawyers vowed to put the president on the
stand, POLITICO (Aug. 19, 2023); see also Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to
Lesley Wolf, Assistant U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del. (Oct. 10, 2022) (requesting meetings with the Attorney General,
Deputy Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and U.S. Attorney for the District
of Delaware); Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to Mark Daly, Senior Litig. Counsel,
Tax Div., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Oct. 10, 2022) (requesting meetings with the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney
General, and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division); Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner,
Latham & Watkins LLP, to Mark Daly, Senior Litig. Counsel, Tax Div., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Jan. 31, 2023)
(requesting meetings with the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division); Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to David Weiss, U.S. Att’y,
Dist. of Del. (Jan. 31, 2023) (requesting meetings with the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division); Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins
LLP, to David Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del. (Feb. 3, 2023) (requesting meetings with the Office of Legal Counsel
and the Office of the Solicitor General); Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to Michael
Horowitz, Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Feb. 8, 2023) (requesting a meeting with the Office of the Inspector
General).
1420 Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to David Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., at 16
(Oct. 31, 2022).
1421 Id. at 19. 1422 Defendant’s Response to the United States’ Motion to Vacate the Court’s Briefing Order at 1, United States v.
Biden, No. 23-mj-274-MN, No. 23-cr-61-MN (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2023); see also Email from Lesley Wolf, Assistant
U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., to Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP (May 18, 2023, 10:02 PM) (on file
with the Committees); James Lynch, Hunter Biden began negotiating plea deal with DOJ right after IRS
whistleblower first came forward, court docs show, DAILY CALLER (Aug. 14, 2023). 1423 Betsy Woodruff Swan, In talks with prosecutors, Hunter Biden’s lawyers vowed to put the president on the
stand, POLITICO (Aug. 19, 2023). 1424 Memorandum of Plea Agreement, United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-274 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2023); Diversion
Agreement, United States v. Biden, No. 23-cr-61 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2023); Josh Gerstein et al., Hunter Biden reaches
plea deal with feds to resolve tax issues, gun charge, POLITICO (June 20, 2023). 1425 Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary et al., to Merrick B. Garland, Att’y Gen.,
U.S. Dep’t of Just. (July 31, 2023); see also Transcript of Record at 46-47, 107, United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj274-MN, No. 23-cr-61-MN (D. Del. July 26, 2023).
256
Hunter Biden breached the pretrial diversion agreement—a prerequisite for the Department to
file the diverted charges against him in the future and a provision benefiting Hunter Biden.1426
While prosecutors understood the immunity provision of the pretrial diversion agreement to only
protect Hunter Biden from additional charges related to his tax returns from 2014 to 2019 and his
illegal gun purchase in 2014, defense counsel interpreted the immunity provision to also shield
Hunter Biden from potential charges related to his foreign business ventures, such as violating
the Foreign Agents Registration Act.1427
On July 26, 2023, Hunter Biden appeared before Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware for a hearing on the plea deal.1428 The plea deal fell
apart when prosecutors and defense attorneys could not provide answers to routine questions.1429
Judge Noreika described the Department’s deal as “not standard” and “different from what I
normally see.”1430 The deal had an unusual structure, involving both a typical plea agreement,
which is presented to the court, and a diversion agreement, which Judge Noreika noted is not.1431
Diversion agreements are not approved by a judge, but by a probation officer.1432
Judge Noreika raised concerns about some “nonstandard terms” contained in the
diversion agreement: (1) the “broad immunity” provision within the pretrial diversion agreement
that would immunize Hunter Biden for not only the gun-related conduct that was the subject of
the agreement, but also his unrelated tax crimes,1433 and (2) the provision that “invokes the Court
or involves the Court as part of that agreement” by prohibiting the government from bringing
charges within the scope of the agreement unless and until Judge Noreika first determined that
the diversion agreement had been breached.1434 Judge Noreika expressed her concerns stating:
I think what I’m concerned about here is that you seem to be asking
for the inclusion of the Court in this agreement, yet you’re telling
me that I don’t have any role in it, and you’re leaving provisions of
the plea agreement out and putting them into an agreement that you
are not asking me to sign off on. So I need you to help me understand
why this isn’t in the written plea agreement.1435
1426 Transcript of Record at 95, United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-274-MN, No. 23-cr-61-MN (D. Del. July 26,
2023).
1427 Glenn Thrush et al., Judge Puts Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal on Hold, Questioning Its Details, N.Y. TIMES (July
26, 2023).
1428 See Betsy Woodruff Swan, In talks with prosecutors, Hunter Biden’s lawyers vowed to put the president on the
stand, POLITICO (Aug. 19, 2023); Michael S. Schmidt et al., Inside the Collapse of Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal, N.Y.
TIMES (Aug. 19, 2023). 1429 See Betsy Woodruff Swan, In talks with prosecutors, Hunter Biden’s lawyers vowed to put the president on the
stand, POLITICO (Aug. 19, 2023); Michael S. Schmidt et al., Inside the Collapse of Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal, N.Y.
TIMES (Aug. 19, 2023). 1430 Transcript of Record at 10, United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-274-MN, No. 23-cr-61-MN (D. Del. July 26,
2023).
1431 Id. 1432 See id. at 51. 1433 Id. at 46-47, 83. 1434 Id. at 92-93. 1435 Id. at 50.
257
Neither prosecutors from the Biden Justice Department nor Hunter Biden’s counsel could
provide a satisfactory explanation to Judge Noreika’s concerns.
First, the government’s promise of immunity, which would usually be in the plea
agreement, was for unexplained reasons included in the diversion agreement—meaning Judge
Noreika would have no authority over it.1436 That immunity provision would immunize Hunter
Biden for not only the felony gun charge subject to the diversion agreement, but also his
unrelated and uncharged tax crimes.1437 Judge Noreika noted that she “looked through a bunch of
diversion agreements that [she] ha[s] access to . . . [but] couldn’t find anything that had anything
similar to that.”1438 She then asked the government, “Do you have any precedent for agreeing not
to prosecute crimes that have nothing to do with the case or the charges being diverted?”1439
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Leo Wise could not provide any precedent for such a
provision.1440
Second, Judge Noreika expressed separation of powers concerns pertaining to the
provision of the pretrial diversion agreement for the gun charge that would prohibit the
Department from bringing charges within the scope of the agreement unless and until Judge
Noreika first determined that the diversion agreement had been breached.1441 Judge Noreika
stated:
Now I have reviewed the case law and I have reviewed the statute
and I had understood that the decision to offer the defendant, any
defendant a pretrial diversion rest[s] squarely with the prosecutor
and consistent with that, you all have told me repeatedly that’s a
separate agreement, there is no place for me to sign off on it, and as
I think I mentioned earlier, usually I don’t see those agreements. But
you all did send it to me and as we’ve discussed, some of it seems
like it could be relevant to the plea.
One provision in particular stands out to me, and that is paragraph
- That paragraph says if the United States believes that a knowing
material breach of this agreement has occurred, it may seek a
determination by the United States District Judge for the District of
Delaware with responsibility for the supervision of this agreement.
It then goes on to say that if I do find a breach, then the government
can either give the Defendant time to remedy the breach or prosecute
him for the crime that is the subject of the information or any other
that falls within the language of the agreement. . . . Do you have any
authority that any Court has ever accepted that or said that they
would do that?1442
1436 Id. at 41. 1437 Id. at 46-47. 1438 Id. at 45. 1439 Id. at 46. 1440 Id. 1441 Id. at 92-93. 1442 Id. at 92-95.
258
When neither Mr. Wise nor Mr. Clark could provide any examples of such an agreement, Judge
Noreika stated her concern that:
[The] provision makes me a gatekeeper to criminal charges and puts
me in the middle of a decision as to whether to bring a charge. And
we already talked about separation of powers and that choice as to
whether to bring charges is . . . the executive branch, not the judicial
branch, so is this even constitutional?”1443
At that point, Mr. Clark finally admitted that the unprecedented gatekeeping provision
was included for political reasons, stating:
There was a desire because of there being as Your Honor has seen a
tremendous amount of political drag with this Defendant that the
normal mechanism that might take place would have the protection
of the Court not in the discretion to bring a charge, but in finding a
breach, and so that that wouldn’t be something that would become
more politicized, but rather would be something that the parties
could rely on, someone we consider a neutral arbiter to determine
the breach, not the charge.1444
Hunter Biden’s lawyers sought to appeal to his unique circumstances as the son of the
President to assert that he should receive atypical and seemingly unprecedented treatment in this
plea deal. Therefore, they came up with an apparently unprecedented and potentially
unconstitutional provision that would prevent prosecutors from filing future charges against
Hunter Biden without judicial approval.1445 Judge Noreika responded:
I understand. Look, I knew why you brought it, okay, I could see
why you would want that provision in here, but . . . the government,
the executive branch has the discretion to bring charges. Here, the
government does not have discretion to continue to pursue this
charge or any other charge unless you include the Court. And that
seems like it’s getting outside of my lane in terms of what I am
allowed to do. And thus, I have concerns about the constitutionality
of this provision. That gives me concerns about the constitutionality
of this agreement because there doesn’t seem to be a separate
severability, and that gives me concerns about whether the
Defendant has the protection from prosecution that he thinks he’s
getting if this agreement turns out to be not worth the paper it’s
written on.1446
1443 Id. at 95. 1444 Id. at 97-98. 1445 Id. at 95-98. 1446 Id. at 98.
259
Judge Noreika concluded that she could not accept the plea agreement and postponed the
proceedings.1447 Hunter Biden’s attorneys and the Justice Department abandoned subsequent
negotiations to modify the plea agreement before the announcement of U.S. Attorney Weiss’s
special counsel appointment.1448
When asked about the failed plea deal, Special Counsel Weiss refused to comment on
Judge Noreika’s rejection of his office’s plea deal for Hunter Biden. He testified:
Q. . . . On July 26th, the date of this plea agreement, Judge
Noreika of U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
declined to accept the Department’s plea and pretrial
diversion agreements, correct?
A. I’m not going to comment on Judge Noreika’s decision at all.
I’m just not going to offer any comment in that regard.
Q. Okay. But she declines to—I mean, I don’t mean to be
difficult here, but—
A. The plea agreement did not go forward.
Q. Okay. Because of the judge?
A. I’m not going to comment on why, who said what, the
judge’s comments. We’re in the matter before the judge as
we speak, so I’m not going to say anything in that regard.1449
After five years of investigating, the only thing U.S. Attorney Weiss had to show for the
investigation as of the summer of 2023 was an unprecedented plea agreement that overtly
appealed to the defendant’s special status as the President’s son to justify special treatment from
the court. This plea agreement fell apart under scrutiny from a federal judge, leading to the
Attorney General’s appointment of Weiss as special counsel. Weiss’s attempted plea deal is an
important part of understanding the extent to which Weiss deviated from standard investigative
practices in this case in a manner favorable to Hunter Biden, and his refusal to answer the
Committee’s questions demonstrates his inability to defend his actions.
The evidence that the Committees have uncovered to date suggests that the Justice
Department had no intention of aggressively acting upon allegations of potential criminal
conduct by Hunter Biden until transparency forced accountability. If not for the whistleblowers
shedding light on the Justice Department’s intentional slow-walking of the investigation and
deviations from standard investigative practices, it seems likely that the Justice Department
1447 Id. at 98-99, 104-09. 1448 U.S. Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Criminal Tax Information Without Prejudice so that Tax Charges Can Be
Brought in a District Where Venue Lies, United States v. Biden, No. 23-mj-274-MN, No. 23-cr-61-MN (D. Del.
Aug. 11, 2023).
1449 Weiss Interview at 138.
260
would have never acted on the investigation. And if not for the questions posed by and concerns
raised by Judge Noreika, the Justice Department would have never filed charges against Hunter
Biden that reflected the seriousness of his wrongdoing.
ii. Hunter Biden’s attorneys have pushed the Biden Justice Department to
investigate witnesses in retaliation for making protected disclosures
regarding Hunter Biden’s alleged criminal conduct.
Hunter Biden’s legal team has engaged in a brazen effort to intimidate and harass the IRS
whistleblowers who exposed irregularities in the Department’s investigation of Hunter Biden,1450
and a former business associate of Hunter Biden who provided information to the FBI regarding
the Bidens’ shady business practices. These tactics have included urging the Department to
prosecute the whistleblowers for their protected disclosures to Congress.1451 Federal law protects
whistleblowers from retaliation,1452 and efforts to intimidate these whistleblowers raise serious
concerns about potential felonious obstruction of the Committees’ investigation.1453 The
willingness of the Hunter Biden legal team to push the Biden Justice Department into
investigating whistleblowers shows the extent to which Hunter Biden believes he can influence
the investigation in a manner favorable to him.
On June 30, 2023, Hunter Biden’s attorney wrote to the Ways and Means Committee,
asserting without evidence that SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler had violated federal law in making
their protected whistleblower disclosures to the Committee.1454 The attorney’s letter slandered
the IRS whistleblowers as “disgruntled agents” with an “axe to grind,” and suggested—again
without evidence—that these men were responsible for leaks to media outlets, including the
Washington Post.
1455 Hunter Biden, through his attorney, also implied that at least one of the
whistleblowers, SSA Shapley, faced “some investigation into his own conduct.”1456 On June 3,
2023, on his own accord, SSA Shapley provided Congress an affidavit that read, in part:
I was not the source for the October 6, 2022 Washington Post article,
nor have I ever had any contact with [the article’s authors] Barrett
or Stein. Because I am so confident of this fact, I hereby authorize
the Washington Post and/or journalists Devlin Barrett, Perry Stein,
or any other Washington Post reporter to release any
communications directly or indirectly to or from me. In this regard,
I am willing to waive any purported journalistic privilege and/or
confidentiality that would have arisen had I been a source for the
Washington Post.1457
1450 See Kimberley A. Strassel, Hunter Biden’s Smear Strategy, WALL ST. J. (July 6, 2023); Letter from Abbe
Lowell, to Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means (June 30, 2023). 1451 See Michael S. Schmidt et al., Inside the Collapse of Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 19, 2023). 1452 See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8)(C), 7211. 1453 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512(b). 1454 Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP, to Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Ways & Means (June 30, 2023).
1455 Id. 1456 Id. 1457 Shapley Supplemental Affidavit at 4.
261
SSA Shapley went on to note that he had “never leaked confidential taxpayer information.”1458
Hunter Biden’s lawyers have also directly urged the Justice Department—the lawenforcement component responsible to Hunter Biden’s father—to act against the whistleblowers.
According to the New York Times, Hunter Biden’s “lawyers have contended to the Justice
Department that by disclosing details about the investigation to Congress, they broke the law and
should be prosecuted.”1459 On October 31, 2023, Chris Clark sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Weiss
falsely accusing SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler of illegally leaking information about the
investigation to the press and demanding they be investigated.1460 Mr. Clark also wrote to Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz (twice),1461 Associate Deputy Attorney General
Bradley Weinsheimer,1462 and Tax Division Senior Litigation Counsel Mark Daly and Delaware
AUSA Lesley Wolf, and Delaware AUSA Carly Hudson1463 demanding that the whistleblowers
be investigated.
On September 18, 2023, Hunter Biden filed a lawsuit against the IRS alleging that SSA
Shapley and SA Ziegler unlawfully disclosed his tax return information and that the IRS failed to
safeguard its records systems.1464 Hunter Biden’s claims are, of course, meritless as SSA
Shapley’s and SA Ziegler’s disclosures were entirely lawful.1465 On May 17, 2024, SSA Shapley
and SA Ziegler filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit to ensure their interests are
represented.1466 SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler informed the court of their two objectives if
permitted to intervene: “(1) move to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety, and (2) cite
to legal authority not yet submitted to the Court by either party, to establish that their
whistleblower activities were completely lawful, pursuant to whistleblower protections built into
federal law[.]”1467
Hunter Biden’s attempted intimidation tactics did not end with the whistleblowers. On
October 7, 2023, Hunter Biden’s attorney sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Graves demanding an
investigation into Tony Bobulinski for concerning statements that Mr. Bobulinski made about
Hunter Biden.1468 Mr. Bobulinski is Hunter Biden’s former business partner who had previously
1458 Id. 1459 Michael S. Schmidt et al., Inside the Collapse of Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 19, 2023). 1460 Letter from Chris Clark to David Weiss, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del., at 2, 15–17 (Oct. 31, 2022) (on file with the
Committees). 1461 Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to Michael Horowitz, Inspector Gen., U.S.
Dep’t of Just. (Feb. 8, 2023); Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to Michael Horowitz,
Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (June 29, 2023). 1462 Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to Bradley Weinsheimer, Associate Deputy Att’y
Gen, U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Apr. 21, 2023).
1463 Letter from Christopher Clark, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, to Mark Daly, Senior Litig. Counsel, Tax Div.,
U.S. Dep’t of Just. et al. (Apr. 21, 2023).
1464 Complaint, Biden v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:23-cv-02711 (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2023). 1465 See 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(5). 1466 See Joint Motion to Intervene as Intervenor-Defendants and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support,
Biden v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:23-cv-02711 (D.D.C. May 17, 2024). 1467 Id. at 2. 1468 Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP, to Matthew M. Graves, U.S. Att’y, Dist. of D.C.
(Oct. 7, 2023).
262
identified President Biden as the “big guy” who would take a stake in a joint venture with a
Chinese energy company closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party.1469 As Hunter Biden’s
former business partner, Mr. Bobulinski has firsthand insight into any related financial
arrangement, including direct knowledge of Joe Biden’s involvement.1470 The demands for an
investigation into Mr. Bobulinski are another shallow effort to discredit and intimidate a potential
witness against Hunter Biden.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers have engaged in a relentless and shameful campaign to have
whistleblowers arrested for making protected disclosures to Congress. They are asking senior
Justice Department officials—officials who serve at the pleasure of the President—to prosecute
witnesses for lawful disclosures that are harmful to the President’s son.
iii. Throughout the federal criminal investigation, President Biden and
senior officials in his Administration made statements that prejudiced the
Justice Department’s investigation and the appearance of impartial
justice.
President Biden and his White House staff have prejudiced the Department’s
investigation into Hunter Biden by making repeated public statements about Hunter Biden’s
innocence.1471 President Biden is the head of the Executive Branch, and Justice Department
officials are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the President. As such, the President’s
statements, as well as those from senior White House officials, risked influencing the
Department’s actions and its decision-making in the criminal investigation of the President’s son,
an investigation which has implicated the President himself.
On September 21, 2021, a CNN producer informed the IRS’s Criminal Investigation
division that he had received “an email from Hunter [Biden] saying he expected all of this ‘stuff’
to go away when his dad becomes President.”1472 Just as Hunter Biden anticipated, upon taking
office, President Biden and his subordinates attempted to wield their official power to make the
investigation go away.1473
1469 Michael Goodwin, Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe Biden’s push to make millions from China:
Goodwin, N.Y. POST (Oct. 22, 2020) (quoting Bobulinski as stating that “[t]he reference to ‘the Big Guy’ in the
much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden.”).
1470 See Ebony Bowden & Steven Nelson, Hunter’s ex–partner Tony Bobulinski: Joe Biden’s a liar and here’s the
proof, N.Y. POST (Oct. 22, 2020). 1471 See, e.g., Jerry Dunleavy, Hunter Biden investigation: How president’s denial of son’s wrongdoing colors DOJ
inquiry, WASH. EXAM’R (May 11, 2023). 1472 E–mail from Justin T. Cole, Dir., Off. of Commc’n, Crim. Investigation, Internal Revenue Serv., to James C.
Lee, Chief, Crim. Investigation, Internal Revenue Serv., & James D. Robnett, Deputy Chief, Crim. Investigation
Internal Revenue Serv. (Sept. 22, 2021, 9:11 AM) (Ziegler Exhibit 506). 1473 See generally Weiss Report.
264
President Biden again defended his son, stating, “[M]y son has done nothing wrong.”1478 He
added, “I trust him. I have faith in him.”1479
Since President Biden and senior White House staff preemptively proclaimed Hunter
Biden’s purported innocence, he has been indicted twice for a litany of offenses, including
multiple felonies.1480 Hunter Biden was even set to plead guilty to two charges before a federal
judge threw out the plea agreement favorable to him, showing that he was not as innocent as the
White House publicly asserted.
1481
Despite their claims, these statements from both President Biden and his senior White
House staff appear to be inconsistent with evidence that the Committees have gathered—
including bank records, discussions with former business associates, interviews with
investigators from the Hunter Biden criminal investigation, and government records from
multiple agencies—that the investigation of Hunter Biden uncovered significant evidence of
criminal activity. The statements by the President and senior White House officials send a strong
signal to Justice Department prosecutors, who ultimately are accountable to the President, that an
investigation into Hunter Biden has no merit. The President’s statements demonstrate he has
facilitated his Justice Department’s failure to live up to its mission of fair and impartial
administration of justice.
iv. The Biden Justice Department only began treating the Hunter Biden case
like any other criminal matter after its special treatment of him was
exposed.
For years, the Department gave Hunter Biden preferential treatment due to his last name.
It was only after its misdeeds were exposed by two whistleblowers and it was publicly
embarrassed in court that the Department began treating Hunter Biden’s criminal activity, at least
as it relates to taxes and firearms, like any other criminal matter.
Following the failed plea deal, U.S. Attorney Weiss requested special counsel status from
Attorney General Garland.1482 On August 11, 2023, Attorney General Garland appointed Weiss
as special counsel to continue the investigation of Hunter Biden.1483 During a meeting between
defense counsel and Special Counsel Weiss’s office on August 29, 2023, it “became apparent to
the parties that they had reached an impasse” in negotiating a resolution to the case.1484 On
September 14, 2023, a federal grand jury in Delaware returned an indictment charging Hunter
1478 Katherine Doyle, Biden defends son Hunter ahead of possible federal tax, gun charges, NBC NEWS (May 5,
2023).
1479 Id. 1480 See Indictment, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023); Indictment, United
States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. Sept. 14, 2023); see also Information, United States v. Biden, No.
1:23-mj-274-UNA (D. Del. June 20, 2023); Information, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. June
20, 2023).
1481 See supra Section II.C.i. 1482 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Appointment of a Special Counsel (Aug. 11, 2023). 1483 OFF. OF THE ATT’Y GEN., ORDER NO. 5730–2023, APPOINTMENT OF DAVID C. WEISS AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
(2023).
1484 Order on Motion to Dismiss at 5–6, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2024).
265
Biden with three felony firearm offenses, including the same unlawful possession charge used in
the original criminal information and two additional felonies for making false statements in
connection with acquiring a firearm.1485 On December 11, 2023, Hunter Biden filed four motions
to dismiss the indictment.1486 On April 12, 2024, Judge Noreika denied three of those
motions.1487 On May 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed Hunter
Biden’s appeal of Judge Noreika’s orders denying his motions to dismiss.1488 The same day,
Judge Noreika denied Hunter Biden’s final pending motion to dismiss1489 and scheduled the trial
to begin on June 3, 2024.1490 On June 11, 2024, the jury in that case found Hunter Biden guilty
on all counts.1491
Sometime after the August 2023 meeting with defense counsel, Special Counsel Weiss
“convened a grand jury in the Central District of California[.]”1492 On December 7, 2023, the
grand jury returned an indictment charging Hunter Biden with three felony and six misdemeanor
tax offenses.1493 The charges included four misdemeanor counts of willfully failing to pay taxes,
two misdemeanor counts of willfully failing to file tax returns, two felony counts of filing false
tax returns, and one felony count of tax evasion.1494
On February 20, 2024, Hunter Biden filed eight motions to dismiss the California
indictment.1495 On April 1, 2024, Judge Mark Scarsi denied all the motions.1496 Judge Scarsi was
especially critical of Hunter Biden’s motion to dismiss for “selective and vindictive prosecution,”
describing it as “remarkable in that it fails to include a single declaration, exhibit, or request for
judicial notice.”1497 Judge Scarsi admonished Hunter Biden for “fil[ing] his motion without any
1485 Indictment, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. Sept. 14, 2023). 1486 See Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Immunity Conferred by Diversion Agreement, United States v.
Biden, No. 1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2023); Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Failure to Charge a
Constitutionally Permissible Offense, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2023); Motion
to Dismiss the Indictment Because Special Counsel Weiss Was Unlawfully Appointed and This Prosecution
Violates the Appropriations Clause, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2023); Motion to
Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution and Breach of Separation of Powers, United States v. Biden, No.
1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2023). 1487 See Memorandum Opinion, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. Apr. 12, 2024) (ECF No. 97)
(denying motion to dismiss based on the diversion agreement); Memorandum Opinion, United States v. Biden, No.
1:23-cr-061-MN (D. Del. Apr. 12, 2024) (ECF No. 99) (denying motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive
prosecution and violation of the separation of powers); Memorandum Order, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr061-MN (D. Del. Apr. 12, 2024) (ECF No. 101) (denying motion to dismiss based on the special counsel’s
appointment and appropriations).
1488 Order, United States v. Biden, No. 24-1703 (3d Cir. May 9, 2024) (per curiam). 1489 Memorandum Order, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN (D. Del. May 9, 2024). 1490 Scheduling Order, United States v. Biden, No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN (D. Del. May 9, 2024). 1491 Gary Grumbach, et al, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, found guilty on federal gun charges after a trial that
laid bare his addiction struggles, NBC NEWS (June 11, 2024). 1492 Order on Motion to Dismiss at 6, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2024). 1493 Indictment, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023). 1494 Id.; see also Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Grand Jury Returns Indictment Charging Robert Hunter Biden
with Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses (Dec. 7, 2023).
1495 Order on Motion to Dismiss at 2-3, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2024). 1496 See id. 1497 Id. at 33; see also Perry Stein, Hunter Biden lawyers gave no evidence tax charges are political, judge says,
WASH. POST (Mar. 27, 2024) (stating that during the hearing on the motions, Judge Scarsi “pushed back the hardest
on the motion claiming that the indictment is the result of ‘selective and vindictive’ prosecution”).
266
evidence,” and “mischaracteriz[ing] the content” of many of the sources he did cite, none of
which met evidentiary standards and which contained “multiple levels of hearsay[.]”1498 This
was not the only instance of Hunter Biden lacking evidence to support his false claims,1499 which
was “a consistent theme across his motions.”1500 Despite the errors, Judge Scarsi denied the
motion, as he did with the others, on substantive rather than procedural grounds.1501 On May 14,
2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Hunter Biden’s appeal of Judge
Scarsi’s decision denying his motions to dismiss.1502 The trial is scheduled to begin on
September 5, 2024.1503
The Justice Department’s recent decision to treat this case like any other criminal matter
is not evidence of its commitment to impartially upholding the rule of law. Rather, it is a selfserving attempt to save face after being caught red-handed providing preferential treatment to the
President’s son.
v. The Biden Justice Department’s unilateral scoping limitations and
inadequate document productions have severely curtailed the
Committees’ ability to gather information.
Since the whistleblowers came forward in the spring of 2023, the Biden Justice
Department has refused to fully cooperate with the Committees’ investigation. In response to the
Committees’ letters seeking pertinent documents, communications, and other information, the
Justice Department, time and time again, failed to substantially comply, citing the Department’s
“ongoing investigation.”1504 The Justice Department also unilaterally and improperly limited the
scope of authorized testimony for witnesses appearing before the Committees. The Department’s
inappropriate scoping limitations have severely hindered the Committee’s ability to conduct
oversight of the Biden Justice Department and its impeachment inquiry.
On June 29, 2023, the Committees requested transcribed interviews with eleven Justice
Department and FBI officials believed to have personal knowledge about the Department’s
handling of the Hunter Biden investigation based on the startling testimony from the IRS
whistleblowers.1505 The Committees asked the Department to make these specific employees
available because “first-hand testimony from [Justice Department] employees is vital for
1498 Order on Motion to Dismiss at 33, 33 n.21, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1,
2024).
1499 See, e.g., id. at 64 (observing that Hunter Biden “fail[ed] to substantiate his allegations that the agents influenced
the prosecutorial decision with anything but speculation”).
1500 Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution and
Breach of Separation of Powers at 6, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2024). 1501 See Order on Motion to Dismiss at 42–55, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1,
2024).
1502 Order, United States v. Biden, No. 24-2333 (9th Cir. May 14, 2024). 1503 Minutes of Hearing, United States v. Biden, No. 2:23-cr-599-MCS (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2024). 1504 See, e.g., Letter from Carlos Felipe Uriarte, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Sept. 22, 2023).
1505 See Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary et al., to Merrick B. Garland, Att’y
Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (June 29, 2023).
267
carrying out [the Committees’] oversight and for informing potential legislative reforms to the
operations and activities of” the Department.1506
Although the Committees have made many requests for documents concerning the
Department’s handling of the Hunter Biden investigation since the beginning of the 118th
Congress,1507 the Committees agreed to proceed with witness interviews without the relevant
documents as a significant accommodation to the Department. But shortly before each interview,
the Department sent each witness a letter that unilaterally limited the scope of what each witness
was authorized to discuss with the Judiciary Committee—limiting approved testimony to only
two topics: (1) statements made by Weiss regarding his authority at an October 7, 2022 meeting,
and (2) statements made by Weiss to Congress regarding his authority in investigating Hunter
Biden.1508 Notably, the Judiciary Committee never agreed to these extreme scope limitations, and
has never even been consulted about whether the limitations would be acceptable.
Throughout the Judiciary Committee’s questioning of witnesses, the Department counsel
who accompanied the witness would often not allow witnesses to answer specific and relevant
questions necessary for the Committee’s investigation. For example, during the transcribed
interview of Mr. Goldberg, the following exchange occurred:
Q. And are you able to tell us anything about what happened
with the Hunter Biden case in terms of the process?
Atty. He is not.
Q. Do you know whether a prosecution report was drafted by
DOJ Tax after receiving the special agent report?
Atty. To the extent there is a general process that applies in all
cases, he can speak to that.
Q. Well, no, I’m asking about the Hunter Biden case. Do you
know whether a prosecution report was prepared by DOJ
Tax?
Atty. And I’m saying he can’t speak about the ongoing
investigation. And so if there—
Q. He’s not asking what was in the report, he’s asking was it
prepared.
1506 See id. 1507 See Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Merrick B. Garland, Att’y Gen., U.S.
Dep’t of Just. (Feb. 28, 2023).
1508 See Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assistant Deputy Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to Thomas J.
Sobocinski, Special Agent in Charge, Balt. Field Off., Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Sept. 6, 2023); Letter from
Bradley Weinsheimer, Assistant Deputy Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to Ryeisha Holley, Assistant Special Agent
in Charge, Balt. Field Off., Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Sept. 8, 2023).
268
Atty. Right. Yes, I understood the question. But the scope of his
authorization does not allow him to speak about the ongoing
investigation, whether it involves the contents or the fact of
something that is prepared as part of the process.1509
Later during the interview, Mr. Goldberg was asked if he “remember[ed] the purpose of
the [June 15] meeting” about the 2014 and 2015 tax year charges.1510 The Justice Department
counsel interjected, “And once we start getting into purpose, what happened at the meeting,
those go beyond the scope of his authorization.”1511
During the transcribed interview of U.S. Attorney Graves, the Justice Department’s
counsel again limited his testimony. For example:
Q. Okay. Do you recall any discussions about a campaign
finance charge related to the Hunter Biden tax matter?
Atty. Just even answering yes or no to that question, as I think you
know, gets into questions associated with the ongoing
investigation and prosecution, and it’s outside the scope of
what he’s authorized to discuss.1512
The questions posed to the witnesses are critical to the Committees’ investigation. The
Department’s decision to unilaterally limit witness testimony unnecessarily hinders the
Committees’ oversight and prevents the Committees from gathering all necessary evidence.
Not only did the Department stifle testimony from current employees, but they severely
limited testimony from former employees as well. Prior to her transcribed interview, former
AUSA Lesley Wolf received a similar letter from the Department that put undue and
inappropriate boundaries on the information she could provide to the Judiciary Committee.1513
Because of this letter former AUSA Wolf, acting on advice from the Department and her private
counsel, she claimed she was not “authorized” to provide information sought by the Judiciary
Committee a total of 79 times during her voluntary transcribed interview.1514 At no time during
her interview did former AUSA Wolf provide any explanation for the deviations from standard
investigative procedures identified by the Committees. Due to the Department’s and former
AUSA Wolf’s obstruction, the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Ms. Wolf to provide additional
testimony.1515
1509 Goldberg Interview at 24-25. 1510 Id. at 30. 1511 Id. 1512 Id. at 145. 1513 See Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Associate Deputy Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to Lesley Wolf, former
Assistant U.S. Att’y, Dist. of Del. (Dec. 12, 2023).
1514 See Wolf Interview; Steven Nelson, Prosecutor who allegedly shielded Joe, Hunter Biden testified 79 times
she’s ‘not authorized’ by DOJ to give answers, N.Y. POST (Dec. 21, 2023). 1515 Subpoena from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Jenny Kramer, Couns., Alston &
Bird LLP (Dec. 1, 2023).
269
The Department also directed two Tax Division attorney, Senior Litigation Counsel Mark
Daly and Trial Attorney Jack Morgan, to disregard lawfully issued deposition subpoenas from
the Judiciary Committee because House rules prohibit agency counsel from attending
depositions.1516 As a result, both employees failed to appear for their respective depositions,
despite representations from their personal counsel that they were willing to appear but for the
Department’s directive.1517 The Department’s directives resulted in the Judiciary Committee
being unable to procure the testimony of two witnesses whose knowledge of the day-to-day
operation of the Hunter Biden investigation is critical to this oversight.
The Department’s directives are concerning in light of its earlier requests that the
Judiciary Committee delay the dates of Mr. Daly’s and Mr. Morgan’s depositions to
accommodate their schedules. The Committee agreed to postpone the depositions for nearly a
month as an accommodation to the Department. As it now appears that the Department always
intended to direct Mr. Daly and Mr. Morgan not to appear, the Department’s request to postpone
the deposition seems to have been a bad faith attempt to delay the Committee’s oversight and
evade the Committee’s questions.1518 In addition, the Committee offered “an extraordinary
accommodation” to address the Department’s concerns by allowing “agency counsel to remain
physically present just outside the Committee room in which the deposition will occur and
[permitting] a recess at any time for [the witness] and/or your [his] counsel to consult with
agency counsel about any matters that may arise during the deposition.”1519 The Committee
made this extraordinary accommodation in an unreciprocated act of good faith to address the
Department’s purported concerns and to avoid litigation.1520
Due to the Department’s blatant disregard for the Committee’s constitutional authority, on
March 21, 2024, the Committee filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
to enforce its subpoenas.1521 During a status conference on April 5, 2024, Judge Ana Ryes, a
Biden appointee, “spent nearly an hour accusing Justice Department attorneys of rank hypocrisy”
for instructing Mr. Daly and Mr. Morgan not to comply with the Committee’s subpoenas.1522
Pointing out the irony of the Department’s belief that it could defy the Committee’s subpoenas
when it recently prosecuted and imprisoned former advisor to President Trump, Peter Navarro,
1516 See Deposition of Mark Daly, Senior Litig. Couns., Tax Div., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Oct. 26, 2023) [hereinafter
“2023 Daly Deposition”]; Deposition of Jack Morgan, Tax Div., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Nov. 6, 2023) [hereinafter
“2023 Morgan Deposition”].
1517 See Daly Deposition at 3 (“Mr. Daly’s personal counsel indicated to us that Mr. Daly was willing to appear and
answer our questions. But obviously, he has received an order from the Justice Department not to appear.”); Morgan
Deposition at 4-5 (“Mr. Morgan[] has no per se objection to testifying, but, given the competing constitutional
claims and interests expressed by his employer, the Department of Justice, he will be following his employer’s
directive.”).
1518 See 2023 Daly Deposition at 3; 2023 Morgan Deposition at 5. 1519 Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Mark Daly, Senior Litig. Couns., Tax
Div., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Feb. 22, 2024); Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to
Jack Morgan, Trial Att’y, Tax Div., U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Feb. 22, 2024). 1520 See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 42, Comm. on the Judiciary v. Daly, No. 1:24-cv-815
(D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2024).
1521 See id.; Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Comm. on the Judiciary v. Daly, No. 1:24-cv-815 (D.D.C.
Mar. 21, 2024).
1522 Josh Gerstein & Kyle Cheney, ‘Are you kidding me?’: Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off
Hunter Biden–related subpoenas from House GOP, POLITICO (Apr. 5, 2024).
270
among others, for the same thing, Judge Reyes reminded the Department “there’s this person in
jail right now because you all brought a criminal lawsuit against him because he did not appear
for a House subpoena. . . . And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas willy-nilly because
you just don’t want to show.”1523 Fed up with the Department’s hypocrisy, Judge Reyes rebuked
the Department for “making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other
litigant.”1524 At Judge Reyes’s direction, the Department and the Committee are working to
determine a mutually agreeable path forward to resolve the dispute.
The Department’s response to the Committees’ requests have been wholly inadequate,
and there is no valid basis for the Department to obstruct the Committees’ inquiry other than
shielding President Biden and Department officials from any liability. The Department’s
suggestion that it can dictate the “timing and scope”1525 of the Committees’ oversight because of
the ongoing nature of the Department’s investigation lacks any valid legal basis and severely
curtails the Committees’ ability to gather information from Department witnesses. The
Department’s claim “rests on no constitutional privilege or case law authority” but rather on selfserving opinions unilaterally issued by the Department.1526 The Department’s frivolous assertions
are nothing more than an effort to evade congressional scrutiny.
President Biden and Attorney General Garland have turned the Justice Department into a
shell of its former self. Under their failed leadership, the Justice Department has given up all
pretense of upholding the rule of law and instead appears committed to undermining Congress’s
constitutional obligations in a reckless attempt to hide the corrupt deeds of a weaponized Justice
Department and crooked President. At every turn, the Department made baseless, indefensible,
and sometimes nonsensical claims to justify its obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. Rather
than providing answers, the Department provided excuses. Despite having to overcome countless
obstacles imposed by the Department, the Committees have gathered overwhelming evidence
that Biden-Harris Administration deviated from standard procedures in the criminal investigation
into the President’s son.
D. President Biden had prior knowledge of Hunter Biden’s intent to defy two duly
authorized congressional subpoenas.
On November 8, 2023, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees issued two subpoenas to
Hunter Biden to appear for a deposition after uncovering evidence that Hunter Biden was at the
center of many suspicious transactions involving the Biden family and foreign individuals and
1523 Transcript of Status Conference at 21, Comm. on the Judiciary v. Daly, No. 1:24-cv-815 (D.D.C. Apr. 5, 2024). 1524 Id. at 40. 1525 See Letter from Carlos Felipe Uriarte, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman,
H. Comm. on the Judiciary (July 13, 2023).
1526 Obstruction of Justice: Does the Justice Department Have to Respond to Lawfully Issued and Valid
Congressional Subpoenas, Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 112th Cong. (2011)
(statement of Morton Rosenberg, Fellow, Const. Project); see also William McGurn, Opinion, The ‘Ongoing
Investigation’ Dodge on Hunter Biden, WALL ST. J. (July 10, 2023) (quoting former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew
McCarthy as stating, “The executive branch response of ‘ongoing investigation’ is really a political objection, rather
than a legal one. There is no ‘ongoing investigation’ privilege.”).
271
entities while Joe Biden was Vice President.1527 On November 28, 2023, Hunter Biden’s attorney
responded to Chairman Comer declining to have Hunter Biden appear for a deposition in
accordance with the terms of the subpoena, but instead requesting a public hearing.1528 On
December 1, 2023 Chairmen Comer and Jordan reminded Hunter Biden’s counsel that Congress
has the authority to conduct investigations and compel testimony, and he should not interfere
with or obstruct the investigation.1529 On December 6, 2023, Hunter Biden, through his counsel,
again declined to abide by the terms of the subpoena and reiterated his desire for a public hearing
on December 13, 2023.1530 Later that day, Chairmen Comer and Jordan made clear that if Hunter
Biden did not appear for his deposition the Committees would initiate contempt of Congress
proceedings.1531
On December 13, 2023, Hunter Biden did not appear for his deposition.1532 Instead of
appearing before the Committees pursuant to the terms of the subpoenas, Hunter Biden read a
prepared statement in front of the Capitol.1533 In his prepared remarks, Hunter Biden generally
denied the allegations against him and his family, attacked the Committees and the inquiry, and
renewed his demand for special treatment in how the Committees obtained his testimony.1534 He
read:
Let me state as clearly as I can. My father was not financially
involved in my business, not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board
member of Burisma, not in my partnership with a Chinese private
businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad, and
certainly not as an artist. . . . There is no evidence to support the
allegations that my father was financially involved in my business
because it did not happen.1535
According to an official statement from the White House, it appears President Biden
knew in advance that his son would defy the deposition subpoenas.1536 During a White House
press briefing, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated, “The president was certainly familiar
1527 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, & Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP (Nov. 8, 2023).
1528 Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability (Nov. 28, 2023).
1529 Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, & Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight & Accountability to Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP (Dec. 1, 2023).
1530 Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP, to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Accountability (Dec. 6, 2023).
1531 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, & Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP, (Dec. 6, 2023).
1532 Hunter Biden Deposition; Jordain Carney, Hunter Biden defies Public GOP subpoena, demanding public
hearing at the Capitol, POLITICO (Dec. 13, 2023). 1533 Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, C-SPAN (Dec. 13, 2023), https://www.cspan.org/video/?532415-1/hunter-biden-statement-subpoena-investigation. 1534 Id. 1535 Id. 1536 Brett Samuels, White House: President ‘familiar’ with what Hunter Biden planned to say, THE HILL (Dec. 13,
2023).
272
with what his son was going to say . . . .”1537 The President’s knowledge of his son’s decision to
defy lawfully issued Congressional subpoenas and obstruct oversight into his family’s illegal
activity raises additional questions that are relevant to the impeachment inquiry, particularly
whether President Biden instructed him to defy the subpoenas. Other questions for consideration
include whether President Biden assured his son that he would not be prosecuted if Congress
were to refer a criminal contempt charge to the Justice Department; and what other government
officials, if any, were aware of Hunter Biden’s intent to criminally defy duly authorized
subpoenas. On December 27, 2023, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees sent a letter to the
White House asking for information about President Biden’s prior knowledge of his son’s
defiance of the Committees’ subpoenas,1538 but the White House has not complied with this
request.
On January 5, 2024, after Hunter Biden defied two legally issued subpoenas, Chairmen
Comer and Jordan announced that their respective committees would hold a markup on January
10 to consider resolutions recommending that Hunter Biden be held in contempt of Congress.1539
Before the Oversight Committee could begin the markup, Hunter Biden, along with his attorney,
made a surprise appearance at the Committee, despite defying his subpoena—a criminal act.1540
Despite this political stunt, both Committees approved the reports and recommended Hunter
Biden be held in contempt.1541
After the Committees approved the report, Hunter Biden agreed to appear for a
deposition before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees on February 28, 2024.
1542
Following the deposition, Chairman Comer invited Hunter Biden and his business associates to
testify at an Oversight Committee Hearing concerning Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in the
Biden family’s business dealings.1543 Despite Hunter Biden demanding a public hearing from the
start, he declined to attend.1544
On December 27, 2023, the Committees asked the White House for documents and
information regarding President Biden’s foreknowledge of his son’s intent to defy duly
1537 Press Release, White House Briefing Room, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC
Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby (Dec. 13, 2023).
1538 See Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Edward Siskel, Assistant to the President & White House Counsel, White
House (Dec. 27, 2023). 1539 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Comer Announces Markup of Resolution to Hold
Hunter Biden in Contempt of Congress (Jan. 5, 2024).
1540 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, What They Are Saying: Hunter Biden Fails to Make a
Point with Stunt Appearance to Distract from Contempt of Congress (Jan. 11, 2024).
1541 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Oversight Committee Approves Resolution
Recommending the House of Representatives Find Hunter Biden in Contempt of Congress (Jan. 10, 2024); Brooke
Singman, House committees formally recommended to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress, FOX NEWS (Jan.
10, 2024).
1542 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Comer & Jordan Statement on Hunter Biden
Deposition (Jan. 18, 2024).
1543 Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Comer Invites Hunter Biden & His Business
Associates to Testify at a Hearing Examining Joe Biden’s Role in His Family’s Influence Peddling (Mar. 6, 2024).
1544 Kevin Breuninger, Hunter Biden declines to attend public hearing on House impeachment inquiry, CNBC (las
updated Mar. 18, 2024).
273
authorized subpoenas.
1545 President Biden’s conduct here, including his unwillingness to respond
to the Committees’ request for information, taken in light of his many other acts to undermine the
Committees’ investigative efforts, is part of a larger scheme to corruptly obstruct the
impeachment inquiry.
E. Impeachment inquiry witnesses lied to the Committees to protect Joe Biden.
On June 5, 2024, the Committees sent Attorney General Merrick Garland and Special
Counsel David Weiss a 60-page criminal referral of Hunter Biden and James Biden. The criminal
referral is related to the interviews of Robert Hunter Biden and James Biden before the Oversight
and Judiciary Committees.
Hunter Biden and James Biden provided false testimony to the Oversight Committee and
the Judiciary Committee, in what appears to be a conscious, calculated effort to insulate Joe
Biden from the duly authorized impeachment inquiry. The Committees recommended that both
Hunter Biden and James Biden be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements), and,
additionally, that Hunter Biden be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (perjury)
i. Hunter Biden was a direct beneficiary of foreign money funneled into the
Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account
Hunter Biden’s use and control of the entity known as Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC
(RSB), has been an important element of the Committees’ investigation. As discussed in this
report, Rosemont Seneca Bohai’s bank account received payments from foreign individuals
shortly before and/or after Joe Biden met with them. It is also an entity that Eric Schwerin—the
business partner of Hunter Biden and bookkeeper for then-Vice President Joe Biden—did not
have visibility into. Evidence reviewed by the Committee also shows that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Enforcement Division investigated Hunter Biden’s connection to
RSB and a criminal scheme involving it.
The RSB account was initially funded by a wire from Russian billionaire Yelena
Baturina.1546 In February 2014, Ms. Baturina wired $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton;
$1 million was then transferred to Mr. Archer, and the remainder was used to fund RSB.1547
Prior to RSB receiving this wire, Vice President Biden joined a dinner that Ms. Baturina attended
at Café Milano in Washington D.C in the spring of 2014.1548 This relationship greatly benefitted
Ms. Baturina, who avoided the Biden-Harris Administration’s addition of several Russian
oligarchs to a public sanctions list after Russia invaded Ukraine.1549
1545 Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability & Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Judiciary, to Edward Siskel, Assistant to the President & White House Counsel, The White House (Dec.
27, 2023).
1546 Third Bank Memo at 2, 14, 18. 1547 Id at 2. 1548 Id. at 2, 10-11. 1549 Id. at 11 (citing John Hyatt, The Russian Oligarch Billionaires Who Haven’t Been Sanctioned, FORBES (Apr. 7,
2022)).
274
In 2014 and 2015, Hunter Biden received income from Burisma, a Ukrainian energy
company, into the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account.1550 As board members of Burisma, Hunter
Biden and Mr. Archer were paid $1 million per year, or approximately $83,333 per month.1551
Hunter Biden received payments from Burisma to the RSB account until late 2015, at which
point Hunter Biden began receiving Burisma money into his corporate account, Owasco P.C.1552
Importantly, Hunter Biden’s Owasco account and other bank accounts existed during the time
period he was receiving wires from Burisma.1553 Devon Archer testified that he and Hunter
Biden set the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank account up, in part because the Burisma payments
were viewed as revenue for their shared business. Mr. Archer testified:
Q. … So why was Hunter Biden not receiving this money in his
Owasco account, where his name would be affiliated with?
A. I don’t have an answer to that. I actually don’t know.
Atty. Well, you answered that in part before. Did you view these
payments as personal payments to you and Hunter, or was
that revenue for—
A. Revenue for our business. But at the end of the day, that was
how we set it up. There were investments made from it. You
know, it’s all—I see all . . . in here. And it just kind of
happened from there. I don’t . . . that’s all I know.1554
Mr. Biden also received $142,300 through the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account from a
Kazakhstani oligarch for the purchase of a sportscar.1555 In February of 2014, Hunter Biden met
a Kazakhstani oligarch, Kenes Rakishev, at the Hay Adams Hotel in Washington D.C.1556 Mr.
Rakishev requested a visit from Secretary of State John Kerry to Kazakhstan, to which Mr.
Archer responded, “if we have some business started as planned I will ensure its planned
soonest.”1557 On April 22, 2014, Mr. Rakishev wired $142,300 from his Singaporean entity,
Novatus Holdings, to the RSB bank account.1558 The RSB account wired out $142,300 the next
day to a New Jersey-based car dealership to purchase an expensive sportscar for Hunter
1550 Id.; Archer Interview at 16, 18-19 (Hunter Biden’s agreement with Burisma ensured that received $83,000 per
month, which would be paid through RSB); see also Archer Interview at 28-29 (Mr. Archer testified that it was
Hunter Biden’s value to Burisma was the Biden brand—meaning his relationship to then Vice President Joe Biden);
see also Archer Interview at 30 (“Well, I think there was – there are particular, you know, objectives that Burisma
was trying to accomplish. And a lot of it’s about opening doors, you know, globally in D.C. And I think that, you
know, that was the, you know – and then obviously having those doors opened, you know, send the right signals,
you know, for Burisma to, you know, carry on its business and be successful.”).
1551 Third Bank Memo at 14-16. 1552 Id. . 1553 Archer Interview at 67; Schwerin Interview at 15-17. 1554 Id. at 67-68. 1555 Id. at 58; Third Bank Memo. 1556 Third Bank Memo at 11 (citing Email from Kenes Rakishev to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer (Feb. 5, 2014)
(on file with the Committees)). 1557 Id. 1558 Id.
275
Biden.1559 Mr. Archer testified that the purpose of this wire was “[f]or Hunter’s car.”1560 This
wire occurred around the same time that then-Vice President Biden attended a dinner with Kenes
Rakishev, Karim Massimov, Yelena Baturina, Hunter Biden, and Devon Archer at Café Milano
in Washington D.C., and one week after another dinner in which Vice President Joe Biden and
Karim Massimov, among others, dined again at Café Milano in Washington, D.C.1561 Rakishev
maintained ties to Karim Massimov, then prime minister of Kazakhstan, who was sentenced to
18 years in prison for treason, abuse of power, and attempting a coup, in April of 2023.1562 As a
result, while engaging in business with Hunter Biden, a Kazakhstani oligarch dined with thenVice President Biden shortly before wiring Hunter Biden $142,300 for a luxury car.
ii. Hunter Biden attempted to distance himself from RSB during his
deposition.
In his deposition before the Committee, Hunter Biden provided conflicting testimony
about his involvement and knowledge of RSB, and more specifically, bank accounts associated
with RSB.1563 Interestingly, the use of “Seneca” in RSB has ties to Hunter Biden. In his
deposition before the Committees, Hunter Biden stated:
—originally Devon’s firm was Rosemont Capital. Originally my
firm was Seneca Global Advisors. I changed the name of the firm to
Rosemont Seneca Partners, which is not Rosemont Seneca Partners,
which is not Rosemont Seneca Thornton, and it’s not Rosemont
Seneca Bohai. If Devon sets up accounts on his own under those
names, they were not at my behest, not for my benefit, and not in –
I had not control or understanding of.1564
According to Mr. Archer, “Rosemont Seneca Bohai was set up to hold the equity of
BHR,” which stands for Bohai Harvest Rosemont [Partners],1565 which was supposed to be a
private equity fund based in China to engage in cross-border investments.1566 Notably, Hunter
Biden did have an equity interest in BHR, which was held by Mr. Archer in the RSB account,
which constitutes a direct benefit to Hunter Biden.1567
Hunter Biden further denied that the RSB account was “affiliated with” him. He testified:
Q. And then I want to also discuss a second portion of – another
10 percent that was purchased out of the Rosemont Seneca
Bohai account to purchase another 10 percent equity into
1559 Id. 1560 Archer Interview at 62. 1561 Third Bank Memo at 12. 1562 Id. at 11 (citing Sentence passed in the case of Massimov K. and others, Court of Astana City (translated using
Google Translate) (Apr. 24, 2023), https://astana.sud.kz/rus/news/vynesen-prigovor-po-delu-masimova-k-i-drugih). 1563 Hunter Biden Deposition at 25-28. 1564 Hunter Biden Deposition at 25. 1565 Archer Interview at 15. 1566 Hunter Biden Deposition at 19-20. 1567 Id. at 33-34.
276
BHR Partners. Were you aware that, in December of 2014,
that there was another 10 percent purchase out of the
Rosemont Seneca Bohai account for 10 percent of BHR
Partners?
A. No, not directly aware, no. Again, I would like to state for
the—for everybody here is that neither of these accounts
were under my control nor affiliated with me. Any of this is
outside of my knowledge.
1568
He testified further that he had no control or authority over the RSB accounts. Hunter Biden
explained:
Q. . . . Did you receive payments from other foreign sources
into the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account?
A. Again, you say “foreign sources.” The people that I did
business with that were from other countries other than the
United States, the answer is, yes; I have received—but not—
I don’t know whether they went into Rosemont Seneca
Bohai or that they went into Rosemont Seneca Thornton. I
had no control. I have no authority over those accounts, and
I have no view inside of it. There was no transparency to me
that I know of.1569
The RSB account held Hunter’s equity interest until 2017 when that equity was
transferred to Skaneateles prior to its sale to Kevin Morris.1570 Hunter Biden testified, under
oath, that he had an interest in BHR, prior to its transfer to Kevin Morris. He stated:
A. What I’m telling you is that I sold my equity interest in BHR,
and part of that arm’s length transaction is the assumption of
the loan, and that loan is between Jonathan Li and the equity
holder.
Q. And that equity holder is Kevin Morris, correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What you did is in 2017 you took your BHR equity, which
was being held by Devon Archer in the Rosemont Seneca
Bohai account, and you transferred it into Skaneateles. Isn’t
that correct?
1568 Id. at 24-25. 1569 Id. at 26. 1570 Id. at 33-34.
277
A. I don’t know how exactly that—the transactions worked, but
I do know that Skaneateles was the holder of the equity.
Q. And you sold Skaneateles to Kevin Morris, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you also have over $6.5 million loans with Kevin
Morris, correct?
A. I do not know the exact amount that I have with Kevin
Morris, but yes, I have loans with Kevin Morris.”1571
Notably, Mr. Morris could not testify as to the purpose of Skaneateles. Mr. Morris stated:
Q. What kind of company was Skaneateles?
A. I mean, I don’t know. An LLC, I think.
Q. But did it sell shirts? What was it? I mean, what was the
purpose of the company?
A. I think it’s—again, . . . I’m not to the point sure, but it was
an LLC and . . . I think it—Hunter actually had a very simple
corporate structure personally. I think this was one that was
for some purpose that I can’t remember. . . .1572
Mr. Morris did admit, however, that Skaneateles only owned the BHR equity. He
testified:
Q. What else did Skaneateles own?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Does it own anything else?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. But sitting here today, you’re not exactly sure what
Skaneateles—
A. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t have anything else.1573
1571 Id. at 33. 1572 Morris Interview at 147-48. 1573 Id. at 149.
278
Mr. Morris purchased Skaneateles, and therefore Hunter Biden’s equity in BHR, in 2021,
after Joe Biden was elected President.1574 He did so because although Hunter Biden was not on
the RSB account,1575 in addition to holding Hunter’s equity interest in BHR, the RSB account
was a funnel for additional foreign money of which Hunter Biden was a direct beneficiary. Bank
records reviewed by the Committee revealed that Hunter Biden received wires from RSB to
personal accounts from money originating from several foreign sources, including Russia,
Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.1576
Hunter Biden tried to distance himself from RSB, in part, because the RSB Bank Account
was directly implicated in a tribal bond scheme in which several individuals were ultimately
convicted of defrauding investors in purchasing fraudulent Native American tribal bonds and
violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and other rules.1577
As early as 2016, attorneys within the SEC’s Enforcement Division were investigating a
tribal bond scheme that implicated several of Hunter Biden’s business associates. During the
SEC’s investigation, the SEC subpoenaed numerous individuals and entities for documents,
communications, and testimony, including Devon Archer, RSB, and Hunter Biden himself.1578
On March 11, 2016 the SEC issued a subpoena to RSB, requesting documents,
agreements and communications relating to the bonds, as well as documents identifying all bank
or brokerage accounts in RSB’s name or over which RSB has control and associated institution
names and account numbers, an organizational chart identifying all direct and indirect beneficial
owners of RSB, documents relating to RSB’s formation, and documents identifying the business
purpose of RSB.1579
RSB was directly implicated in the scheme.1580 As described in the Complaint, “On or
about October 1, 2014, Rosemont purchased the entirety of the Second Tribal Bond Issuance, the
face amount of which was $15,000,000.”1581 In an interview with the Committee, Devon Archer
testified that “Hunter was a corporate secretary of RSB,” and that they “had a handshake 50-50
ownership.”1582
1574 Id. 1575 Archer Interview at 16. 1576 See generally Third Bank Memo. 1577 Press Release, U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n, SEC Charges Individual Who Headed Fake Investment Manager
Used In Tribal Bonds Scheme (Nov. 16, 2016); Press Release, U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n, SEC Charges New
Defendant in $43 Million Tribal Bonds Scheme (June 26, 2019); Brendan Pierson, New York jury finds three guilty
of $60 mln tribal bond fraud, REUTERS (June 28, 2018). 1578 Press Release, U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n, SEC Charges Individual Who Headed Fake Investment Manager
Used In Tribal Bonds Scheme (Nov. 16, 2016); Press Release, U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n, SEC Charges New
Defendant in $43 Million Tribal Bonds Scheme (June 26, 2019); Brendan Pierson, New York jury finds three guilty
of $60 mln tribal bond fraud, REUTERS (June 28, 2018); Subpoena from U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n to Devon
Archer (on file with the Committees); Subpoena from U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n to Rosemont Seneca Bohai (on
file with the Committees); Subpoena from U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n to Hunter Biden (on file with the
Committees). 1579 Subpoena from U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n to Rosemont Seneca Bohai (on file with the Committees) 1580 Complaint at 30, United States v. Galanis, No. 1:15-cr-00371-RA (S.D.N.Y. 2016). 1581 Id. 1582 Archer Interview at 64-65.
279
iii. Documents provided to the Committee on Ways and Means prove that
Hunter Biden lied during his deposition.
In May 2024, the Committee on Ways and Means released additional evidence proving
that Hunter Biden was involved in RSB.1583 In 2014, Hunter Biden identified himself as having a
role in RSB.1584
According to Hunter Biden, he was the beneficial owner of RSB.1585 A May 14, 2014
letter from Hunter Biden, on Rosemont Seneca Partners letterhead, directs Burisma to pay his
monthly salary to the RSB account:
Please let this letter act as confirmation that Hunter Biden is the
beneficial owner of Rosemont Seneca Partners, and of the bank
account in the name of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC.
Mr. Biden has executed the Service Agreement with Burisma
Holdings Limited dated 18th April, 2014, and according to subclause 5.1 of the Agreement serves Burisma Holdings Limited as
Member of the Board of Directors; and he has the will and requests
the company Burisma to pay his monthly fees (salary) to the
Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC bank account…1586
1583 H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Meeting on Documents Protected Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6103,
Executive Session Materials Released (May 22, 2024).
1584 Id. 1585 Exhibit 901. 1586 Exhibit 901.
282
iv. Hunter Biden relied on the Vice President’s title to deter an investigation
into his role in RSB.
The SEC also issued a subpoena to Hunter Biden on March 16, 2016, relating to In the
Matter of Hughes Capital Management.1588 Among other things, the subpoena compelled
documents and concerning payments that Hunter Biden made to or received from RSB,
documents sufficient to identify any ownership interest possessed by Hunter Biden in RSB,
documents identifying any position he held with respect to RSB, and documents concerning
RSB’s communications purchase of a $15 million bond issued by the Wakpamni Lake
Community Corporation in October 2014.1589
The Committees also possess Hunter Biden’s response through counsel, dated April 20,
2016, which states:
The confidential nature of this investigation is very important to our
client and it would be unfair, not just to our client, but also to his
father, the Vice President of the United States, if his involvement in
an SEC investigation and parallel criminal probe were to become
the subject of any media attention.1590
On May 11, 2016, the SEC published a press release—announcing the indictments of
seven individuals relating to the tribal bond scheme—excluding any mention of Hunter
Biden.1591 Hunter Biden’s reference to then-Vice President Biden in an SEC and parallel
criminal investigation encapsulates his continuous invocation of Joe Biden’s name and title to
attain personal benefit.
v. The Committees referred Hunter Biden to the Justice Department for
lying while under oath.
On June 5, 2024, the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee sent a criminal
referral to the Justice Department based on several false statements made by Hunter Biden
during his testimony before the Committees, including false statements made by Hunter Biden
regarding RSB.1592
The subpoenaed bank records for the RSB account illustrate that while Hunter Biden was
not listed as a client or contact, foreign companies wired millions of dollars into the RSB account
intended for Hunter Biden, and many payments were made using the RSB credit card on Hunter
Biden’s behalf.1593
1588 Subpoena from U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n to Hunter Biden. 1589 Id. 1590 Id. 1591 Press Release, U.S. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n, SEC Charges Father, Son, Others in Tribal Bonds Scheme (May
11, 2016).
1592 Referral at ¶ 19. 1593 Referral at ¶ 20.
283
During his deposition before the Committee, Hunter Biden repeatedly emphasized that he
had no control or affiliation to the RSB account. According to the Committee’s Referral, Hunter
Biden made the following false statements regarding his involvement with the RSB account:
a. Hunter Biden did not know if foreign payments were made into the Rosemont
Seneca Bohai Bank Account;
b. The Rosemont Seneca Bohai Bank Account was not for his benefit;
c. He had no understanding of or affiliation with the Rosemont Seneca Bohai Bank
Account; and
d. Hunter Biden had no control or authority over the Rosemont Seneca Bohai Bank
Account. 1594
Hunter Biden sought to separate himself from the RSB account because it was the
conduit of millions of dollars of foreign payments received by him and was directly implicated in
a fraudulent scheme in which two of his business associates have been sentenced. His false
statements, however, are directly contradicted by documents that he signed representing himself
as the beneficial owner and secretary of RSB.
vi. The Committees referred James Biden to the Justice Department for
making false statements to Congress.
As previously discussed, on May 2, 2017, Joe Biden, James Biden, Hunter Biden, and
Tony Bobulinski met at the Beverly Hilton Hotel.1595 This meeting was a material fact to the
investigation because Joe Biden has publicly denied discussing business with Hunter Biden and
James Biden.1596 This meeting proved Joe Biden made misleading statements regarding his
knowledge of and involvement in his family’s foreign business endeavors.
The Committees asked James Biden about the meeting, and he denied being present. He
testified:
Q. When you were at the [Beverly Hilton H]otel, do you recall
having a meeting with Hunter Biden and Tony Bobulinski
and Joe Biden?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. It’s your testimony here today that meeting never took place?
A. Yes, sir.
1594 Referral at ¶ 25. 1595 Hunter Biden Deposition at 141-42; Bobulinski Interview at 47-52, 104. 1596 See Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Joe Biden Lied At Least 16 Times About His
Family’s Business Schemes (Aug. 24, 23).
284
Atty. That he was present for.
A. That I was present for.1597
The Committees sought to clarify if James Biden could not remember the meeting or was
denying the meeting occurred. James Biden’s counsel clarified “You asked him if he had a
meeting with Bobulinski and Hunter. He said no to that, a meeting.”1598 In complete contrast to
James Biden’s testimony, Hunter Biden and Tony Bobulinski both testified they met with Joe
Biden at the lobby bar in the Beverly Hilton Hotel in the presence of James Biden.1599 In
addition, Mr. Bobulinski produced text messages to the Committees that corroborate
Hunter Biden’s and Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony that there was a meeting on May 2, 2017 with
Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, James Biden, and Tony Bobulinski.1600 During the interview, the
Committees showed James Biden a text message from him to Tony Bobulinski stating, “I’ll get
back to you 15 min! Let’s meet at same place as last night! Jim[.]”1601 The Committees again
asked James Biden whether Joe Biden was at the meeting, he responded:
Q. And then the first text, which appears to be from you, says,
“I’ll get back to you 15 min! Let’s meet at same place as last
night! Jim.”
Do you remember what you’re referring to when you say
that?
A. It could have been the bar. I don’t know.
Q. Well, did you go to the Beverly Hotel bar the night before
the Milken Conference?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Do you recall whether you were at the bar with Hunter
Biden, Tony Bobulinski, and Joe Biden?
A. That I know did not happen.
Q. Who were you at the bar with?
1597 James Biden Interview at 100. 1598 Id. at 101. 1599 Hunter Biden Deposition at 141-142; Tony Bobulinski Interview at 47-48. 1600 See Text from Hunter Biden to Tony Bobulinski (May 2, 2017, 3:56 PM); see also Text from Tony Bobulinski
to James Biden (May 2, 2017, 11:40 PM). 1601 See Text from James Biden to Tony Bobulinski (May 3, 2017, 7:36 AM).
285
A. I could have been there just with Tony Bobulinski. I could
have been there with Hunter as well. But my brother was
never there.1602
The Committees provided another opportunity for James Biden to correct himself with
additional questioning about whether Tony Bobulinski ever met with Joe Biden. He stated:
Q. But it’s your testimony here today that Tony Bobulinski
never met Joe Biden in your presence? Is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And it’s your testimony here today that Tony Bobulinski,
you’re not aware of him meeting with Joe Biden while you
were not in the room.
A. Correct. He never, to my knowledge, met with my
brother.1603
Given the testimony from Hunter Biden and Tony Bobulinski and the text messages, the
evidence shows that a meeting occurred on May 2, 2017, at the Beverly Hilton Hotel and that Joe
Biden, Hunter Biden, Tony Bobulinski, and James Biden were present for the meeting.
James Biden knowingly made a false statement to the Committees because he completely
denied any meeting between Joe Biden and Tony Bobulinski occurred, despite the Committees
requesting clarification if he could not remember and showing him text messages that disproved
his testimony. James Biden lied about this meeting for at least two reasons. First, Joe Biden has
denied publicly that his family received money from China and that he ever met with his family’s
business associates. If James Biden admitted that Tony Bobulinski, a business associate who was
leading a Chinese business deal, met with his Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, then Joe Biden’s lies
would be exposed because of his testimony. Second, the Oversight Committee has traced money
from James and Sara Biden’s bank accounts to Joe Biden that was funded by a CEFC related
company, and Jim Biden therefore wanted to distance Joe Biden from any involvement in his
family’s Chinese-related business ventures.1604
The Committees gave James Biden several opportunities to correct his claim that Joe
Biden did not attend the meeting, but the evidence proves his statements regarding this meeting
were knowingly false.
1602 James Biden Interview at 103. 1603 Id. at 134-35. 1604 See generally Fourth Bank Memo.
286
F. The Biden Justice Department prevented the home confinement of Jason
Galanis with the explicit goal of stopping him from testifying to Congress about
Hunter Biden’s most serious crimes that implicated President Biden.
In addition to obstructing the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden, the Biden Justice
Department has politicized Hunter Biden’s business associate’s, Jason Galanis’s, case and his
time in prison as a result of his attempts to shed light on his illicit work with the Biden family on
international business deals. On September 24, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York sentenced Mr. Galanis “to 189 months in person for his participation in
multiple fraudulent schemes,” including “defrauding the clients of an investment advisory firm”
and “for his role in a scheme to defraud a Native American tribal entity and the investing public
of tens of millions of dollars in connection with the issuance of bonds by the tribal entity.”1605
Mr. Galanis, along with others, including Devon Archer, “engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
misappropriate the proceeds of bonds issued by the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation,” a
Native American tribal entity, and “to use funds in the accounts of clients of asset management
firms” that Mr. Galanis controlled “to purchase the Tribal Bonds, which the clients were then
unable to redeem or sell because the bonds were illiquid and lacked a ready secondary
market.”1606 Mr. Galanis and his co-defendants also misappropriated the proceeds of the tribal
bonds “for their own personal use.”1607 On February 23, 2024, Mr. Galanis testified that he has
“24 months left” on his sentence.1608
Hunter Biden was an informed beneficiary of the same illegal and fraudulent business
dealings that landed Mr. Galanis in federal prison. Notably, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s
Office in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) went extremely lightly on Mr. Galanis’s
accomplices. For example, the SDNY did not indict Hunter Biden at all despite the available
documentation that he was a partner in the same crime.1609 Mr. Galanis stated:
In fact, Hunter Biden and Devon’s company, Rosemont Seneca
Bohai, received $15 million of the Tribal bond fraudulent scheme to
be invested in the Burnham Group. I believe the SDNY’s
prosecution strategy was intended to protect Hunter Biden and,
ultimately, Vice President Biden.1610
Further, in 2015 and 2016, four-years prior to Mr. Galanis’s conviction and sentencing, he
offered the SDNY information on a “pay-for-play for foreign nations being conducted by Archer
and Biden.”1611 The SDNY, however, “was not interested,” which surprised Mr. Galanis’s
defense lawyer, who “remarked that he had never seen the SDNY reject information about
criminal conduct, especially paper-based information that could be corroborated independently
1605 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Jason Galanis Sentenced In Manhattan Federal Court For Multiple Securities
Fraud Schemes (Sept. 24, 2020).
1606 Id. 1607 Id. 1608 Galanis Interview at 105. 1609 Id.at 13. 1610 Id.at 13. 1611 Id. at 58.
287
from my statements.”1612 Likewise, in another peculiar event, Mr. Galanis had proffered
information to the SEC about “Russian money laundering using Rosemont entitles,” but “[t]he
U.S. Attorney office took the unusual step to quash the scheduled follow-up by the SEC . . . .”1613
In December 2020, Mr. Galanis submitted a petition for commutation with the Office of
Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice that highlighted Hunter Biden’s role in the illegal
activities.
1614 Mr. Galanis submitted this petition knowing that it could incur the wrath of the
incoming Biden-Harris Administration and its Justice Department—fears that came to fruition.
Mr. Galanis provided his testimony against the Biden family to the Committees while serving as
an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). As a result of his willingness to
inform on the Biden family’s involvement in illicit activity, he believes BOP has retaliated
against him. He testified that he has been the “victim of a pattern of retribution by the
Department of Justice in order to prevent my home confinement, which would have allowed full
and free access to congressional investigators.”1615
In particular, Mr. Galanis alleged that his application for home confinement under the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was initially approved by
local BOP officials in Florida and California, was subsequently denied by SDNY prosecutors for
political reasons.1616 On February 4, 2023, Mr. Galanis applied to the BOP for home confinement
pursuant to the CARES Act.1617 His application proceeded through the process as normal. In
March 2023, the U.S. Probation Office serving the San Diego location of the Southern District of
California approved Mr. Galanis’s post-confinement residence.1618 The warden of the BOP
facility where Mr. Galanis resided at the time, FPC Pensacola, later signed off on the application,
and Mr. Galanis’s application went on to the Residential Reentry Management (RRM) center in
Long Beach, California.1619 On June 9, 2023, the Long Beach RRM approved Mr. Galanis’s
request for home confinement and reached out to the SDNY regarding the application’s
approval.1620
On June 12, 2023, the Oversight Committee announced that it had subpoenaed Mr.
Galanis’s business partner, Devon Archer, to testify about his relationship with Hunter Biden and
the Biden family’s business activities.1621 Around the same time as the Oversight Committee’s
announcement, an SDNY Assistant U.S. Attorney, Negar Tekeei, responded to the Long Beach
RRM with her “strongest objection,” and threatened to go “hard on this” to the BOP Director if
Mr. Galanis’s application went any further.1622 On June 22, 2023, a BOP official informed Mr.
1612 Id. at 58-59. 1613 Id. at 59. 1614 Id. at 13. 1615 Id. at 15. 1616 Id. at 13-16. 1617 Id. at 13-14. 1618 Id. at 13-14. 1619 Id. at 13-14. 1620 Id. at 14. 1621 Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Matthew L. Schwartz,
Managing Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (June 12, 2023). 1622 Galanis Interview at 14.
288
Galanis that his application had been denied on June 13—the day after the Oversight
Committee’s announcement.1623
On August 8, 2023, Mr. Galanis appealed the denial of his home confinement to the
warden of FPC Pensacola, who subsequently denied his appeal on the erroneous grounds that the
“amount of time” he requested on home confinement “was not appropriate.” On September 22,
2023, Mr. Galanis appealed the warden’s denial to the Southeast Regional RRM and, after
receiving no response, he appealed to the BOP Central Office.
On February 8, 2024, the Committees informed BOP that they intended to interview Mr.
Galanis at the BOP facility where he presently resides, FPC Montgomery.1624 The next day, the
BOP Central Office sent Mr. Galanis its denial of his appeal, which was dated January 4, over a
month earlier. In this denial, BOP changed its reasoning from an “inappropriate amount of time”
for home confinement to the “CARES Act has expired.” This reason, however, is also not a
proper basis for denial. Per BOP practice, and consistent with basic due process, anyone who
applied for home confinement prior to expiration of the CARES Act—and whose appeal rights
have not been exhausted—remained eligible to be considered under the Act.1625 In fact, Mr.
Galanis initially applied for home confinement on February 4, 2023, well before the May 31
expiration of the CARES Act.1626 Three days after Mr. Galanis sat for a transcribed interview
with the Committees, BOP gave Mr. Galanis its final denial of his home confinement application
under the CARES Act.
The timing of advancements in Congress’s investigation into President Biden’s illegal
activity and the Department’s change of heart with respect to Mr. Galanis’s home confinement—
which would have allowed Congress to interview Mr. Galanis regarding his knowledge of the
Biden family’s crimes with more ease—raise concerns. Furthermore, Mr. Galanis testified that
the reasons stated for BOP’s reversal of his home confinement has shifted. According to Mr.
Galanis:
With each appeal stage, the BOP reason for my denial changed. For
example, first, it was that there was too much time left on my
sentence. This is not a valid reason for the denial.
Next, it was that the CARES Act expired on May 10, 2023. This
rationale is contrived and is contradicted by the approval on June
9th, a date after the purported May 10th expiration. Moreover, the
BOP policy is that all CARES Act applications submitted before
May 10th were to be processed, which I witnessed firsthand with
fellow inmates being released well into late summer. I was being
treated differently.1627
1623 Id. at 14. 1624 Id. at 15. Mr. Galanis transferred to FPC Montgomery in August 2023. 1625 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Final Rule Issued for Home Confinement Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief
and Economic Security (CARES) Act (Apr. 4, 2023).
1626 Galanis Interview at 14. 1627 Id. at 14.
289
Additionally, Mr. Galanis testified that beginning in January 2023, while in BOP custody,
he was the victim of sexual harassment and assault by a BOP staff member.1628 When Mr.
Galanis notified authorities of these attacks, BOP staff immediately removed him from FPC
Pensacola.
1629 However, as of July 2024, the investigation into the allegations remains
incomplete and evidence indicates that the culprit remains employed with the BOP.1630
The Biden Justice Department’s actions against Mr. Galanis appear to be an alarming
abuse of power.
President Biden obstructed lawful Congressional inquiries and has abused his power to
obstruct, unduly influence and delay federal investigations into his son, Robert Hunter Biden,
hindering investigators from uncovering the facts surrounding the Biden family’s influence
peddling and his involvement thereof.1631 President Biden has obstructed Congress’s
impeachment inquiry by failing to provide relevant documents and also preventing his
Administration from turning over relevant documents.
Under the standard adopted by House Democrats in 2019—“[w]here the President
illegally seeks to obstruct such an [impeachment] inquiry, the House is free to infer that evidence
blocked from its view is harmful to the President’s position”1632—the House may fairly conclude
that the evidence is probative of President Biden’s criminal conduct.
President Biden’s failure to produce relevant documents and his obstruction of Congress
“gives rise to the inference that the evidence is unfavorable to him,” that earlier drafts of his
speech to the Ukrainian Rada, before his call to his son and before he called an audible, do not
include claims that the Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needed reform;
1633 that the
White House knew President Biden had willfully retained and had still possessed classified
documents as early as May of 2021 and covered it up until after the 2022 midterm elections; that
he used pseudonym emails to interact with and coordinate the activities of Biden family business
associates; that he is unfit to serve as President of the United States. Such obstruction alone is a
high crime and misdemeanor under the Constitution.
1634
President Biden, however, has also abused his office to obstruct criminal investigations
into his son, Hunter Biden. President Biden and his subordinates and agents have “prevented,
obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice . . . to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal
the existence of evidence” related to Hunter Biden’s criminal investigation, which implicates his
own wrongdoing. The American justice system operates on the adversarial principle—that is, the
1628 Id. at 14-15. 1629 Galanis Interview at 14-15. 1630 Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime & Fed. Gov’t Surveillance
of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 118th Cong. (July 23, 2024).
290
process pits parties with adverse interests against each other on a theory that through each side’s
zealous advocacy, the truth will emerge and justice will be done.1635 For the process to work as
designed, it presumes that the prosecutor and the defendant will engage in “partisan advocacy on
both sides of a case” to ensure that “the guilty be convicted and the innocent go free.”1636 The
Biden Justice Department, however, for a long time was not an adversary of the President’s son,
Hunter Biden. They were the opposite; they were, in the words of one long-time federal
prosecutor, “in cahoots.”1637
The Biden Justice Department impeded, delayed, and obstructed the criminal
investigation into Hunter Biden by permitting the statute of limitations to lapse on several serious
charges against him, withholding evidence from disinterested line investigators, prohibiting line
investigators from inquiring about President Biden, and sharing information with Hunter Biden’s
attorneys.1638
To ensure that the Justice Department, which President Biden controls by virtue of his
Constitutional position, knew exactly where he stood, the President publicly claimed that his son
was innocent of the charges that his Department was investigating. Thereafter, the Biden Justice
Department offered Hunter Biden an unprecedent plea agreement—that was so ill-devised it fell
apart in open court under the most basic questions—and openly targeted witnesses that dare to
speak out about the President’s and his son’s criminal conduct. This is not the adversarial system.
This is not justice. This is obstruction and corruption, and it deserves a constitutional remedy.
.
1635 See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 655–57 (1984). 1636 United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 655 (1984) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 1637 Andrew C. McCarthy, The fix was in for Hunter Biden—until a hero judge stepped up, N.Y. POST (July 26,
2023).
1638 Shapley Interview at 10.
291
CONCLUSION
Joe Biden has exhibited conduct and taken actions that the Founders sought to guard
against in drafting the impeachment provisions in the Constitution: abuse of power, foreign
entanglements, corruption, and obstruction of investigations into these matters. The Committees
investigative work has revealed that the Biden family—with the full knowledge and cooperation
of President Biden—has engaged in a global influence peddling racket from which they made
millions of dollars. The Biden family’s influence peddling was vast and involved entities and
individuals from some of America’s greatest adversaries, such as China and Russia. Clearly
aware of the political risks associated with Joe Biden’s participation in this scheme, the Biden
family and their business associates sought to conceal his involvement by funneling money
through an extensive network of shell or third parties’ companies, using code names, and
engaging in other obfuscatory tactics designed to maintain, as James Biden described, “plausible
deniability.”
As the Committees, whistleblowers, witnesses, and a few brave media outlets that
pursued leads regarding the Biden family’s business dealings, President Biden, the Biden-Harris
Administration, and senior White House officials have sought to bury the President’s
involvement in his family’s conspiracy to monetize his high office. Whenever the Committees
produced new evidence refuting the White House’s narrative, the White House changed its story.
President Biden has not been able to maintain a consistent narrative regarding his role in these
schemes and has resorted to making outlandish statements and outright denials that are provably
false with bank records and other evidence.
To date, the testimony and documents received by the Committees show President Biden
knew about, participated in, and benefited from his family’s influence peddling conspiracy.
While President Biden to date has avoided accountability for his corruption, the Committees are
dedicated to ensuring that political influence is not for sale and that those entrusted to hold public
office are committed only to promoting the country’s interests, not their own. As both president
and vice president, Joe Biden has abused his office of public trust, putting his family’s financial
interests above the interests of the American people. Although the Committees’ fact-finding is
ongoing amid President Biden’s obstruction, the evidence uncovered in the impeachment inquiry
to date already amounts to impeachable conduct. The Committees present this information to the
House of Representatives for its evaluation and consideration of appropriate next steps.
