In 2016, Hunter Biden and his father, Joe Biden, gave an interview in which the son declared, “The single best thing is, family comes first.”
In a gushing account, Salon warned readers that the interview “will make you want to be a Biden.”
That may not be so true today as Hunter has just arrived for hours of questioning about his family’s alleged corruption and influence-peddling. It is likely that he will again put “family first,” but there are obvious penalties if he puts family before the facts in this corruption scandal.
This is a moment that has been building for years. After committing open contempt of Congress with a sensational press conference outside the Capitol, Hunter is presenting a target-rich environment for investigators who have detailed millions that allegedly went to him and his family members from foreign sources in China, Russia, Ukraine and other countries.
Hunter will have the difficult task of maintaining two seemingly conflicting narratives.
On one hand, he has claimed that he was given millions due to his skills and knowledge.
On the other hand, he has repeatedly dismissed embarrassing evidence or his lack of memory as the result of being in the throes of addiction . . . for years.
There are dozens of questions concerning “loans” and transfers to Hunter that will be explored over a full day of questioning. However, five basic questions should be priorities for investigator assuming that Hunter does not simply plead the Fifth Amendment to remain silent.
1. Did Joe Biden know about his business dealings?
President Biden has maintained for years, including during the last presidential election, that he had no knowledge of his son’s business dealings.
President Biden and the White House continued to repeat his denial from the campaign trail in 2019: “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” These denials have continued even after an audiotape surfaced showing President Biden leaving a message for Hunter specifically discussing coverage of those dealings.
Some of us have written for years that Biden’s denial of knowledge is patently false. Hunter previously contradicted that statement.
While Hunter is likely to spin the question as denying his father “did business” with him, he is expected to confirm that he did discuss his dealings with his father, which were referenced in the media for years.
2. The WhatsApp Message
The addiction defense is likely to be raised quickly as Hunter is confronted with testimony and messages suggesting that he directly used his father to coerce foreign sources to folk over a fortune. The House investigators previously discovered the infamous WhatsApp message:
“I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the 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. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
Hunter is expected to claim that it was the drugs speaking and that his father was not sitting next to him. However, it will also prompt follow up questions about repeated references to his father in messages on meetings, dinners, and influence.
3. The Ukraine Call and Reaching Out to Touch Someone
Devon Archer reportedly recounted how, in 2015, Mykola Zlochevsky and Vadym Pozharski, two executives of the corrupt Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, pushed for action from Hunter.
Archer testified that there was nothing subtle in their demands. They pressed Hunter to “get help from D.C.” to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma for corruption. Archer said that Hunter, Zlochevsky and Pozharski stepped away to make a call.
Hunter is again expected to use the addiction defense as being blacked out on the call or its details. However, it will also prompt questions on contacts of Hunter with various administration officials on behalf of clients. The Ukraine call was a direct request for Hunter to, as AT&T once advertised, “to reach out and touch someone.” Those “touches” will be a key to showing that there was not just an offer of influence but deliverables on the promise.
4. The Shokin controversy
In March 2016, Biden bragged he told the Ukrainian government that he would unilaterally withhold a billion dollars of aid unless they removed the top prosecutor Viktor Shokin. In an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018, Biden proudly recounted:
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’…Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
Critics allege that Hunter’s Ukrainian clients complained shortly before that ultimatum about Shokin in a meeting with Hunter and Archer. The House is likely to push Hunter on whether he discussed Ukrainian prosecutor with his father and whether his clients were upset with the inquiries by Shokin.
5. Services and swag
Hunter will be pressed on his receipt of lavish gifts and expense accounts, including a 3.16-carat diamond estimated to be worth $80,000 from Ye Jianming, chairman of Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC.
The question is what services were rendered during such periods. There will also be question of services rendered and the timing of calls and meeting with his father. The House investigators have assembled a time line where major deals or payments were made after his father called into meetings or met with clients. There are emails thanking him for arranging the meetings.
The testimony today could not be more dangerous for Hunter. Any misleading or false claim in the course of this testimony could result in new federal criminal charges. It will be difficult for the Justice Department to run interference on false testimony in an investigation into corruption and special dealing. In other words, time’s up.
In this case, the family cannot come before the facts: the family is the fact that is at issue before Congress.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
This story originally appeared on NYPost
