LTP News Sharing:
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File
After his sweetheart plea deal fell apart in federal court last month, Hunter Biden and his attorneys have been in negotiations with the Department of Justice to come up with something new. Previously Biden agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and a diversion program for illegal possession of a firearm (usually a felony offense). Violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act were suspiciously absent from the charges given the millions of dollars Hunter raked in from foreign companies and governments.
But when the plea deal disintegrated after U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika found a broad immunity clause hidden in the text, Hunter Biden entered a not guilty plea and left the court house on pre-trial release. He hoped to renegotiate the deal, another move not usually afforded to defendants.
Today, the Department of Justice announced a plea deal is off the table and that Hunter is headed to trial.
“At the hearing on July 26, 2023, the Defendant did not plead guilty and therefore did not waive venue,” Now that the parties are at an impasse, a trial is in order,” court documents state. “After the hearing, the parties continued negotiating but reached an impasse. A trial is therefore in order.”
The court filing came at the same time Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the appointment of U.S. Attorney David Wise, who handled the Hunter Biden plea agreement, as Special Counsel for further criminal investigation.
While Hunter Biden waits for trial, he must abide by conditions of release handed down by Judge Noreika. The conditions including submitting “to supervision by and report for supervision to the Central District of California,” “continuing or actively seek employment,” “communicate in writing all international travel plans and provide supporting documentation, if requested” and more:
1) The defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release.
(2) The defendant must cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample if it is authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 40702.
(3) The defendant must advise the court or the pretrial services office or supervising officer in writing before making any change of residence or telephone number.
(4) The defendant must appear in court as required and, if convicted, must surrender as directed to serve a sentence that the court may impose.
(5) The defendant must sign an Appearance Bond, if ordered.
BREAKING: House Oversight Republicans tracked $20M in foreign sources to Biden Inc
BY ED MORRISSEY | HOTAIR
As always, the first step in any
political scandal is — follow the money. The House
Oversight Committee under Republican chair James Comer
has spent several months doing just that with the
Biden family’s archipelago of limited-liability
corporations (LLCs) and strangely generous oligarchs
in eastern Europe and Central Asia — and they have
struck gold, almost literally.
According to Fox News,
the committee has tracked $20 million in
payments to Biden Inc, and have at least
correlated those transactions to curiously
coincidental actions of family members — including
“squeaky clean” Joe himself:
Comer also released the new report, detailing the transactions. The summary looks
- Committee Staff is Releasing Payments
from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine that Occurred
During Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency: The
Committee has now identified over $20 million in
payments from foreign sources to the Biden family
and their business associates.
- Hunter Biden and Devon Archer Used
Rosemont Seneca Entities to Bring in Millions from
Oligarchs in Europe and Asia: Using
accounts nominally tied to Devon Archer (but using
the familiar “Rosemont Seneca” branding), Hunter
Biden received incremental payments originating from
foreign sources, attempting to hide the source and
size of the payments.
- In February 2014, a Russian Oligarch Sent
$3.5 Million to a Shell Company Associated with
Hunter Biden and Devon Archer: Russian
billionaire Yelena Baturina transferred $3.5 million
to Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a shell company.
Approximately $1 million was transferred to Devon
Archer, and the remainder was used to initially fund
a new company account, Rosemont Seneca Bohai, which
Devon Archer and Hunter Biden used to receive other
- In Spring 2014, a Ukrainian Oligarch
Placed Archer and Biden on the Burisma Board of
Directors and Agreed to Pay them $1 Million Each
per Year: Burisma Holdings’ (Burisma)
corporate secretary, Vadym Pozharsky, worked on
behalf of the Ukrainian oligarch and owner of
Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky. Hunter Biden was
initially hired by Burisma to work as counsel for
the company, and Pozharsky and Zlochevsky met with
Hunter Biden at a conference in Lake Como in Italy
where they decided Hunter Biden would work on the
board of directors with Devon Archer. Then-Vice
President Joe Biden visited Ukraine soon after their
first payments. Payments from Burisma for both Devon
Archer and Hunter Biden were wired to Rosemont
Seneca Bohai. Payments were transmitted in
incremental amounts to Hunter Biden’s different bank
- In April 2014, a Kazakhstani Oligarch
Wired the Exact Price of Biden’s Sportscar to a
Bank Account Used by Archer and Biden: In
February 2014, Hunter Biden met with Kenes Rakishev
at a Washington, D.C. hotel. Rakishev worked closely
with the prime minister of Kazakhstan, Karim
Massimov. In April, Rakishev, a Kazakhstani
oligarch, wired $142,300 to Rosemont Seneca Bohai.
The next day, a payment was made from Rosemont
Seneca Bohai for a sportscar for Hunter Biden in the
amount of $142,300. Archer and Biden then arranged
for Burisma executives to visit Kazakhstan in June
2014 to evaluate a three-way deal among Burisma, a
Chinese state-owned company, and the government of
- Hunter Biden received millions of dollars
in payments from Yelena Baturina, Burisma, and
Kenes Rakishev. Vice President Biden had dinner
with them in the spring of 2014 and 2015 in
But what about Joe Biden?
Comer’s report argues that Joe was “the Brand” for
which all of the payments were made. These payments
were clearly bribes, and Joe was the only value for
which any bribes would have been made at all:
- President Biden Lied About His Family’s
Business Deals. The
Committee has revealed millions of dollars have come
into the Biden family’s bank accounts from foreign
sources, including China, Romania, Kazakhstan,
Russia, and Ukraine. Independent whistleblowers’
sworn testimony from the criminal investigation into
Hunter Biden has corroborated the Committee’s
financial investigation. Testimony from Hunter
Biden’s former business partner, Devon Archer, also
supports the Committee’s findings. No one in the
Biden Administration or in the Minority has
explained what services, if any, the Bidens and
their associates provided in exchange for the over
$20 million in foreign payments.
- Joe Biden was “The Brand” sold around the
world to enrich the Biden family and he was used
to “signal” their access, influence, and power. The
Committee’s investigation has shown that money was
transferred to the Bidens from foreign nationals or
entities based in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine
when Joe Biden was Vice President. Then-Vice
President Biden met—in person, for significant
periods of time—with those individuals or their
representatives. Then-Vice President Biden joined
approximately 20 phone calls on speakerphone with
Hunter Biden’s foreign business associates and
attended dinners with foreign oligarchs who paid
huge sums of money to Hunter Biden.2 Joe Biden, “the
brand,” was the only product the Bidens sold.
- President Biden’s Family is the Vehicle
to Receive Bribery Payments. President
Biden’s defenders purport a weak defense by
asserting the Committee must show payments directly
to the President to show corruption. This is a
hollow claim no other American would be afforded if
their family members accepted foreign payments or
bribes. Indeed, the law recognizes payments to
family members to corruptly influence others can
constitute a bribe.3
For this last claim, Comer
quotes from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act:
“Companies also may violate the
FCPA if they give payments or gifts to third
as an official’s family members,
as an indirect way of corruptly influencing a
foreign official.” FCPA – A Resource Guide to the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Second Edition),
U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Criminal Division) & U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (Enforcement
Division), p. 16 (emphasis added).
Don’t be fooled by the title of
the law. It works
bidirectionally and applies in this
The question is: does it apply
to the Bidens? There do seem to be multiple incidents
where the money bought access to Joe himself:
- After Yelena
Baturina wired $3.5 million to Rosemount Seneca
Thornton in 2014, then-VP Joe Biden had dinner with
her, Hunter, Devon Archer, and others in Washington
DC. “Notably,” the report states, Baturina remains
off the list of sanctioned Russian oligarchs to this
- In the same year,
VP Biden dined with Baturina again and with Kazakh
oligarch Kenes Rakishev and the-Kazakh PM Massimov
in DC along with Archer and Hunter, after Rakishev
wired $142,300 to Rosemount so that Hunter could buy
a sports car. Biden later dined with Massimov,
Hunter, and Archer the following year as well.
- Also in 2015, VP
Biden had dinner with Burisma corporate secretary
Vadim Pozharsky along with Massimov, Hunter, and
Archer. This was a year after both Hunter and Archer
had joined the Burisma board at a salary of $1
million a year.
Does that prove a pay-to-play
for access to the American vice-president? It
certainly would for any other instance under the FCPA
or other bribery/influence-peddling statutes. If any
of us engaged in this level of corruption, the
Department of Justice certainly wouldn’t be shy about
pursuing a prosecution.
Besides, what defense could the
Bidens provide? What
other purpose would foreign oligarchs spend these fortunes?
Neither Hunter nor Archer had any special expertise in
any of their fields. The only possible asset they
could sell for the sums involved was access to The Big
Guy — and VP Biden made sure they could make the sale.
This smells to high heaven, and
thus far, so does the media response to it. American
media outlets spent years chasing their
Russia-collusion tales only to come up entirely empty.
Here we have ample evidence of foreign corruption, and
most of the media simply yawns at it.