During his testimony before Congress’ Oversight Committee on February 28, Hunter Biden asserted that he refrained from involving his father, President Joe Biden, in his purportedly corrupt business activities. Nevertheless, several media sources pointed out that his claim appeared to clash with evidence accessible to the public, testimony from witnesses obtained by the committee, and even some of his own previous statements.
In his initial statement obtained by Punchbowl News, the son of the president stated that he did not engage President Biden in his transactions, whether in the capacity of a lawyer, board member, or artist. He emphasized that this fact should invalidate the basis of the investigation against him.
There are recorded instances where he included his father in his business engagements with certain foreign associates. These instances comprised a gathering at the Café Milano in Washington, DC, as well as a journey to Beijing, China, aboard Air Force Two. Additionally, there were meetings at the Naval Observatory, a CEFC China Energy gathering in Washington, a Burisma board session in Dubai, and even a visit from Mexican associates to the White House.
During the deposition, Hunter Biden contested every aspect of the evidence presented, sourced from the impeachment inquiry’s documentation and witness accounts. He implied that numerous elements, primarily extracted from emails, had been tampered with or distorted. Additionally, he went as far as accusing certain witnesses of dishonesty.
After Hunter Biden’s testimony, James Comer, the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, affirmed that the investigation would persist. He elaborated that the forthcoming action would entail holding a public hearing, allowing Congress to address the conflicting statements made by the president’s son in a transparent manner.
In a press briefing, Comer expressed his satisfaction with the deposition, stating that it significantly validated numerous pieces of evidence gathered during the committee’s investigation. He informed journalists that Hunter Biden’s statements warranted careful scrutiny and emphasized that a public hearing would help reconcile any disparities between his remarks and those made by his associates.
