A number of pre-trial motions have been filed in Hunter Biden’s federal tax evasion case, scheduled for trial in Los Angeles in early September, over the last week, and they’re quite revealing as to what evidence the government will be introducing related to Hunter’s foreign business dealings. This won’t be your ordinary tax evasion case, boys and girls (and I’ll be in the courtroom daily to bring RedState readers all of the dirty details).
The biggest revelations are in the Government’s response to a defense motion to exclude evidence, testimony, or reference to allegations of improper political influence or corruption. In response, the prosecutors detailed a scheme they plan to present evidence of in which Hunter Biden was paid through Boies Schiller Flexner law firm by a Romanian oligarch to get a corruption investigation shut down. Hmm, something about that allegation sounds familiar…
The prosecutors wrote:
The government anticipates Business Associate 1 will testify that:
- Business Associate 1 and the defendant were in the lobbying and consulting business together.
- G.P. was a Romanian businessman who was under criminal investigation in Romania.
- G.P. sought to retain Business Associate 1, the defendant, and Business Associate 2, to attempt to influence U.S. government agencies to investigate the Romanian criminal investigation of G.P, and thereby cause an end to the investigation of G.P. in Romania.
- Business Associate 1 and the defendant were concerned that lobbying work might cause political ramifications for the defendant’s father. Business Associate 1 and G.P. signed a “Management Services Agreement” where Business Associate 1’s legal entity would purportedly provide management services to real estate properties in Romania, but that was not actually what G.P. was paying for. In reality, Business Associate 1 and G.P. agreed that Business Associate 1 would receive compensation for work by Business Associate 1, the defendant, and Business Associate 2, to attempt to influence U.S. government agencies to investigate the Romanian investigation of G.P., and Business Associate 1 would pass approximately 1/3 to the defendant as his compensation and approximately 1/3 to Business Associate 2 as his compensation.
That compensation was over $3 million, which was split between Hunter Biden and the two business associates, one of whom is believed to be Chris Boies, David Boies’ son, and part of the firm Boies, Schiller, Flexner.
Arguing as to why the defense motion should be denied and this evidence allowed, the prosecutors wrote:
The first category of evidence the defendant seeks to exclude is any “reference to allegations that Mr. Biden acted on behalf of a foreign principal to influence U.S.policy and public opinion . . .” Motion at 3 (emphasis added). The government does not intend to reference allegations at trial. Rather, the government will introduce the evidence described above, including that the defendant and Business Associate 1 received compensation from a foreign principal who was attempting to influence U.S. policy and public opinion and cause the United States to investigate the Romanian investigation of G.P in Romania.
So, if they aren’t simply referencing allegations, but introducing evidence, why hasn’t David Weiss charged Hunter Biden and business associates 1 and 2 with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act? In July 2023, when Hunter’s failed plea deal was being argued in Delaware, prosecutors said that FARA charges weren’t off the table. What happened? (Jonathan Turley has a great piece going over that in detail that can be read here.)
And then we have Hunter’s work with CEFC. Smart people will understand the humor in the prosecution’s phrasing here:
As alleged in the indictment, the government will also introduce at trial evidence of the defendant’s business dealings with CEFC China Energy Co. Ltd (“CEFC”), a Chinese energy conglomerate, and his compensation for his position on the board of a Ukrainian energy industrial conglomerate. This evidence will not include evidence that the defendant performed lobbying activity in exchange for this compensation. Rather, the evidence will show the defendant performed almost no work in exchange for the millions of dollars he received from these entities.
We also learned that both Hallie Biden and her sister have immunity agreements in exchange for their truthful testimony – so they won’t be charged for any type of drug offenses they might end up testifying to.
Hunter’s attorneys also want to exclude evidence or even reference to his “salacious” expenditures – you know, the expenditures he made when he wasn’t paying taxes:
Mr. Biden moves to exclude any evidence, testimony, or reference to his alleged “extravagant” lifestyle during the time period in question and any salacious details about money purportedly spent on certain personal expenses, including, but not limited to, reference to sex workers, adult entertainment, a sex club membership, pornography, and strip clubs. To the extent the Court is inclined to allow into evidence that Mr. Biden spent money on items other than his taxes in the years charged, Mr. Biden would agree to stipulate that he spent money on other, generalized “personal expenses.”
So, the jury is supposed to just assume that Hunter had so many “personal expenses” that he couldn’t pay his taxes despite earning $11 million during the time in question? That might be worse than just saying what he spent it on.
Of course, Hunter wants to argue that he was too drug-addled to remember to pay his taxes, and that he had no control of his spending, yet he was entering detailed financial agreements with his business partners to circumvent federal laws at the same time. One would have to be drug-addled to buy that argument.
There will be a hearing on these motions on August 21, and RedState will be there in the courtroom.
