A new transcript from a key Hunter Biden witness undercuts many of the claims Republicans are making about ā€œBiden corruption.ā€

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released the transcript of the testimony of Kevin Morris, a friend of and attorney for Hunter Biden, and his statements undercut everything Republicans have said about the embattled first son.

Morris is a high-powered entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles who met Hunter at a 2019 presidential fundraiser for his father, Joe Biden. Morris has loaned Hunter nearly $5 million in the years since. He testified about his relationship with Hunter in a closed-door committee hearing last week.

Initially, Oversight Chair James Comer just released a list of paraphrased highlights from Morrisā€™s testimony. Comer claimed that Morris informally loaned Hunter the money and does not expect to be repaid until after the 2024 electionā€”or possibly ever. But the transcript shows this couldnā€™t be further from the truth.

In reality, Morris never once mentioned the possibility of forgiving the loans. Instead, he said he has a ā€œ100 percentā€ expectation that Hunter will repay him, and repeatedly states that he and Hunter have a series of promissory notes agreeing the younger Biden will pay back the money.

  • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    6 months ago

    I was thinking that was the case for congressional stuff. I seem to remember a civil deposition that was released early due to mischaracterization in the media. Seems you would need to have a judge in the loop for that. I also could be misremembering the facts anyway.

    Thanks.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      6 months ago

      And I donā€™t think that the courts can impose anything here. Thatā€™s all legislative branch business, separation of powers and such.

      • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        6 months ago

        Right. Just to clarify ā€œseems like you need a judge, *and thatā€™s obviously not the case here as it would be to the civil context.ā€

        Fixed that for me. Thanks again.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          6 months ago

          The cases that have gone to court recently over Congressional subpoenas are really not the judicial branch getting involved with the legislative branch, but rather affirming that the legislative branch has that power and you have to comply. Really the courts are just acting as the teeth for Congress in this case.