BidenImpeachmentScribd 20240824

Biden Impeachment Inquiry – Congress – Summary – 20240824
Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

https://texasjournal.com/register/
The House Judiciary Committee’s report on the impeachment inquiry of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
paints a damning picture of a corrupt politician who used his power to enrich himself and his family at
the expense of the American people. The report alleges that Biden and his son Hunter engaged in a
pattern of influence-peddling and corruption that spanned multiple countries and involved millions of
dollars in illicit payments.
According to the report, Biden abused his power as Vice President to pressure Ukrainian officials to fire
a prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden served on the board of this Ukrainian energy
company. The report claims that Biden withheld U.S. aid to Ukraine until the prosecutor was removed,
demonstrating an explicit quid pro quo that put his interests ahead of those of the United States.
The report also alleges that Biden lied to the American people about his knowledge of his son’s business
dealings in Ukraine and China, claiming that he had no involvement in Hunter’s activities despite
evidence to the contrary. This pattern of deception and obfuscation continued throughout the
impeachment inquiry, with Biden refusing to release relevant documents and preventing key witnesses
from testifying.
The report further claims that Biden used his position as President to interfere in the 2020 presidential
election by pressuring social media companies to censor information about his family’s corrupt
activities. This abuse of power undermined the integrity of the electoral process and violated the
public’s right to know about the actions of their elected officials.
The House Judiciary Committee’s report presents a disturbing picture of a President who has repeatedly
violated his oath of office and betrayed the trust of the American people. Biden’s actions have
weakened the United States’ standing on the international stage and undermined the rule of law, while
his family has enriched themselves through a web of corrupt dealings that span the globe.
The committee has concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the impeachment of President
Biden for high crimes and misdemeanors, including bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice. The
report calls for further investigation and accountability to ensure that such abuses of power do not
occur in the future and to restore the public’s faith in the integrity of the U.S. government.
Here are the 10 biggest points made in the report:
1. Biden and his family members, particularly his son Hunter Biden, are accused of leveraging the
Biden name for personal financial gain, including receiving millions of dollars from foreign
entities.
2. The report alleges that Biden used his influence as Vice President to pressure Ukrainian officials
to fire a prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden served on the board of this
Ukrainian energy company.
3. Biden is accused of abusing his power by withholding U.S. aid to Ukraine until the prosecutor
investigating Burisma was removed from his position.
Page 1 of 63

4. The report claims that Biden’s actions in Ukraine were not in the best interest of the United
States but rather served his personal and political interests.
5. Biden is accused of lying to the American public about his knowledge of his son’s business
dealings in Ukraine and China.
6. The report alleges that Biden obstructed the impeachment inquiry by refusing to release
relevant documents and preventing key witnesses from testifying.
7. Biden is accused of using his position as President to interfere in the 2020 presidential election
by pressuring social media companies to censor information about his family’s corrupt activities.
8. The report claims that Biden’s actions have undermined the integrity of the U.S. government
and weakened its standing on the international stage.
9. The report alleges that Biden has engaged in a pattern of corruption and abuse of power
throughout his political career, including his time as a U.S. Senator.
10. The House Judiciary Committee has concluded that sufficient evidence supports President
Biden’s impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The report presents a detailed account of the allegations against Biden and his family, including emails,
text messages, and witness testimony. The committee argues that Biden’s actions have undermined the
rule of law, corrupted U.S. foreign policy, and violated his oath of office. The report also highlights the
need for further investigation and accountability to ensure that such abuses of power do not occur in
the future.
This document summarizes “The Congressional Biden Impeachment Inquiry” by—The United States
Congress. Here in its entirety in ten-page increments. It is very useful for research, reports,
assessments, and reviews.
See all of our indispensable summarized books at:
https://texasjournal.com/posts/
Page 2 of 63

Title of Section 1: Constitutional Basis for Impeachment
 The U.S. Constitution grants the House of Representatives "the sole Power of Impeachment."
 It is the House's duty to conduct inquiries into potential "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors."
 The report is prepared by the Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary, and Ways
and Means to assess President Biden's conduct.
Title of Section 2: Evidence of Corruption
 The report claims overwhelming evidence that President Biden engaged in a conspiracy to
monetize his public office for family enrichment.
 The Biden family allegedly received tens of millions from foreign interests, believing such
payments would grant them access to President Biden.
 Specific instances include Vice President Biden attending dinners with foreign business partners
and participating in phone calls that indicated his involvement.
Title of Section 3: Concealment Efforts by the Biden Family
 The Biden family is accused of extensive efforts to conceal their dealings, using complex
financial transactions.
 Funds were laundered through intermediaries, and large transactions were broken into smaller
ones to avoid scrutiny.
 There were substantial efforts to hide President Biden's involvement in the family business
activities.
Title of Section 4: Leveraging Political Influence
 Evidence indicates Hunter Biden and associates leveraged Vice President Biden’s position to
secure favorable outcomes in foreign business dealings.
 Witness testimonies suggest that Hunter invoked his father's name in dealings with various
foreign companies, resulting in significant financial gains.
 Specific examples include Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma and calls to his father for
assistance in business negotiations.
Title of Section 5: Abuse of Office and National Interest
 President Biden’s actions are characterized as "abuse of office," prioritizing family welfare over
national interest.
 The report references precedents from the impeachment of President Trump, defining abuse of
office as using official power for personal gain while neglecting national interests.
Page 3 of 63

Title of Section 6: Mishandling of Classified Information
 The report claims President Biden mishandled classified documents during his time as Vice
President.
 Classified documents were found at several locations, including the Penn Biden Center and his
personal residence.
 Special Counsel Robert Hur's report indicates that Biden retained classified materials and misled
the public about his actions.
Title of Section 7: Justice Department's Treatment of Hunter Biden
 Evidence suggests that the Justice Department provided special treatment to Hunter Biden,
allowing the statute of limitations to expire on serious charges.
 The investigation into Hunter Biden was described as sensitive, with unusual delays and
interventions that benefited him.
 The Biden Administration is accused of misleading Congress about the independence of law
enforcement in Hunter Biden's investigation.
Title of Section 8: Obstruction of the Impeachment Inquiry
 The Biden Administration allegedly obstructed the impeachment inquiry by withholding

documents and preventing witness testimonies.
 The White House's actions are characterized as an attempt to impede the investigation into
President Biden's handling of classified documents.
 Precedents from the 2019 impeachment inquiry of President Trump are cited, indicating that
obstruction can be inferred as harmful to the President’s position.
Title of Section 9: Summary of Findings
 The Committees found that the Biden family received over $27 million from foreign entities
since 2014, implicating Joe Biden’s participation.
 Evidence indicates that Biden's official status was used to secure favorable financial outcomes
for his family.
 The Biden family is accused of leveraging Biden’s political connections to obtain loans and
financial benefits.
Page 4 of 63

Title of Section 10: Procedural Background of the Inquiry
 The Oversight Committee began investigating allegations against President Biden since the start
of the 118th Congress.
 Whistleblower testimonies revealed the Biden Administration's obstruction of the investigation

into Hunter Biden’s dealings.
 The inquiry has involved numerous interviews, subpoenas, and document reviews, culminating
in the current report.
Questions you may be interested in:
1. What specific actions did President Biden allegedly take to monetize his office for family
benefit?
2. How did the Biden family attempt to conceal their financial dealings according to the report?
3. What evidence suggests that the Justice Department provided special treatment to Hunter
Biden during the investigation?
Pages - 0 -- 10
The Constitutional Standard for Impeachment
 The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment.
 During President Trump's impeachment in 2019, House Democrats defined "high Crimes and
Misdemeanors" as including abuse of power, betrayal of national interest through foreign
entanglements, and corruption of office/elections.
 This definition is pertinent to the current impeachment inquiry into President Biden.
Abuse of Power
 Abuse of power is an impeachable offense encompassing self-dealing, obstruction, and misuse

of federal authority.
 It includes using official power for improper personal benefits while neglecting national
interests.
 Professor Jonathan Turley stated that it’s not necessary for the benefit to be received directly by
the President; indirect benefits to family members can also qualify.
 If President Biden participated in his family's influence peddling scheme, it would constitute an
abuse of power.
Page 5 of 63

Betrayal of National Interest
 Betrayal of national interest through foreign entanglements is another form of impeachable

conduct.
 House Democrats previously asserted that this occurs when a President uses foreign affairs
powers for personal gain or harms national security.
 Historical precedents show that pre-office conduct can be included in articles of impeachment.
False Denials and Obstruction
 Maintaining false denials of misconduct or using staff to resist disclosures may also constitute
impeachable offenses.
 Turley indicated that lying about knowledge of family business dealings could be grounds for
impeachment.
 The standard for impeachment does not require the conduct to be criminal; non-criminal
actions that impair the political system can suffice.
Obstruction of Justice or Congress
 Obstruction of justice or Congress is another impeachable offense involving corrupt attempts to

impede investigations.
 The term "corruptly" implies acting with an improper purpose, such as interfering with
investigations due to fear of exposure of wrongdoing.
 The House need not find that the President's actions meet federal obstruction standards; they
only need to reflect constitutional dereliction.
Impediment of Impeachment Inquiry
 Impeding an impeachment inquiry can also amount to obstruction.
 House Democrats noted that abusing office to defy investigators constitutes an unconstitutional
effort to undermine the impeachment process.
 The House can infer that evidence obstructed from view is detrimental to the President's
position.
Evidence of Influence Peddling
 Evidence from bank records, witness testimony, and communications indicates a pattern of
influence peddling involving President Biden.
 Biden allegedly participated in a conspiracy to monetize his public office for family enrichment.
 Payments from foreign sources coincided with Biden's actions that furthered this conspiracy.
Page 6 of 63

Nature of the Biden Family Business Model
 The Biden family’s business model relied on Joe Biden’s political influence rather than legitimate
services or products.
 They sold access to Joe Biden, leveraging his position for financial gain.
 Testimonies indicate that Biden was aware of and facilitated these transactions, demonstrating
a conflict of interest.
Financial Transactions and Patterns
 The Committees reviewed Biden family financial practices from 2009 to present, revealing
complex systems to obscure the source of payments.
 Over $35 million has been traced to Biden family members from foreign and domestic sources,
raising concerns about legitimacy.
 No discernible services justified the substantial payments received by the Bidens.
Role of Joe Biden in Influence Peddling
 Evidence shows that Joe Biden played a critical role in nearly every foreign transaction
investigated.
 His involvement was essential to the Biden family’s influence-peddling operation, which relied
on his political connections.
 Testimonies confirm that Biden frequently interacted with his family’s business associates,
contradicting claims of non-involvement.
Pages - 11 -- 20
Title of Section 1: Hunter Biden's Reluctance to Sign Over Family Brand
 Hunter Biden expressed skepticism about signing over his family's brand, questioning what value
Tony could bring that would justify such a decision.
 He emphasized the importance of reading documents carefully, indicating a strong reluctance to

give control of his family's only asset to someone he deemed a "marginal bully."
Title of Section 2: Attempted Board Position for Joe Biden
 Devon Archer forwarded a draft email intended for a Chinese executive, highlighting Hunter
Biden's efforts to secure a board seat for his father, Joe Biden, in exchange for investment.
 This reflects Hunter Biden's attempts to leverage his father's political connections for business
opportunities.
Page 7 of 63

Title of Section 3: Secrecy and Code in Business Communications
 The Biden family and associates employed secrecy to obscure Joe Biden's involvement in their
business dealings, following a protocol described as “Say it, forget it. Write it, regret it.”
 James Gilliar advised Tony Bobulinski not to mention Joe Biden’s involvement, indicating a
deliberate effort to maintain plausible deniability.
Title of Section 4: Evidence of Joe Biden's Involvement
 Investigations revealed that Joe Biden played a substantive role in reviewing deals involving his
family, often referred to in coded language to avoid direct mention.
 Hunter Biden's reference to his "chairman" was understood by others to mean Joe Biden,
contradicting later claims made by Hunter.
Title of Section 5: Hunter Biden's Communication with Business Partners
 Hunter Biden communicated with Chinese partners about meetings involving his uncle and his
brother, further indicating his family's attempts to involve Joe Biden in business discussions.
 Despite efforts to conceal his involvement, evidence suggests Joe Biden was actively engaged in
these ventures.
Title of Section 6: Testimonies Contradicting Hunter Biden's Claims
 During depositions, witnesses contradicted Hunter Biden's assertion that his "chairman"
referred to a CEFC executive rather than Joe Biden.
 Both Tony Bobulinski and Rob Walker confirmed that Hunter was indeed referring to his father
in these communications.
Title of Section 7: Concealment of Joe Biden's Role
 Hunter Biden and James Biden took significant steps to hide Joe Biden's involvement in their
business dealings, risking criminal liability by misleading Congress.
 Hunter acknowledged in a message that James had been drawn into protecting their father,
suggesting an awareness of the need for secrecy.
Title of Section 8: Financial Gains from Foreign Sources
 Subpoenaed bank records indicated that the Biden family profited significantly from foreign
payments, totaling $18 million between 2014 and 2023.
 These transactions occurred shortly before or after meetings with Joe Biden, implying that the
payments were tied to his influence.
Page 8 of 63

Title of Section 9: Breakdown of Payments from Various Countries
 Detailed records show substantial payments from entities in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and
China to Biden-affiliated entities.
 For example, $3.5 million from Yelena Baturina and multiple payments from Burisma Holdings
highlight the financial benefits derived from Joe Biden's position.
Title of Section 10: Implications of Influence-Peddling
 The evidence suggests that the Biden family's business operations were heavily reliant on Joe
Biden's political influence, undermining claims that Hunter was merely selling an "illusion" of
access.
 The documented payments and communications illustrate a pattern of leveraging familial

connections for financial gain, raising ethical concerns regarding influence-peddling.
Pages - 21 -- 30
Title of Section 1: Financial Transactions Involving Bladon Enterprises Limited
 Multiple transactions from Bladon Enterprises Limited to various entities, primarily Robinson
Walker, LLC and Owasco P.C., totaling $1,038,627.08.
 Key dates include payments made between November 2015 and June 2017, with amounts
ranging from approximately $20,000 to over $123,000.
 Robert Biden is frequently listed as a recipient in these transactions.
Title of Section 2: Payments from Stanhope Worldwide Services
 James Biden received multiple payments from Stanhope Worldwide Services, totaling
$1,040,000.00 between December 2016 and July 2023.
 Payments were consistent, with amounts typically around $50,000 initially, escalating to larger
sums later on.
Title of Section 3: Minor Biden Child Transactions
 Minor Biden children received funds through ePlata and other entities, amounting to
$1,031,572.16.
 Transactions occurred between March 2015 and September 2017, indicating financial activity
involving younger family members.
Page 9 of 63

Title of Section 4: Concealment of Foreign Funding Sources
 Hunter Biden utilized intermediary accounts (e.g., Rosemont Seneca Bohai, Robinson Walker,
LLC) to obscure the origins of foreign funds.
 Significant payments were made after meetings with foreign associates during Joe Biden's vice
presidency, suggesting a pattern of financial entanglement.
Title of Section 5: CEFC and State Energy HK Payments
 After Joe Biden left office, State Energy HK wired $3 million to Robinson Walker, LLC, described
as a "thank you" for services rendered.
 Subsequent smaller payments were made to Hunter Biden and his associates, structured to
conceal the source of funds.
Title of Section 6: Structure of Payments to Hunter Biden
 Hunter Biden directed that payments be sent in smaller increments rather than one lump sum,
purportedly to save on wire fees.
 This structuring appears to have been a method to hide income and the source of funds from
China.
Title of Section 7: Role of Rosemont Seneca Bohai
 The Rosemont Seneca Bohai account was pivotal in receiving foreign payments, including those
from Burisma.
 Evidence suggests Hunter Biden had significant control over this account despite Devon Archer
being the named account holder.
Title of Section 8: Lack of Transparency Among Associates
 Close associates like Eric Schwerin lacked visibility into the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account,
which was used to divert foreign payments.
 This lack of transparency indicates an organized effort to manage and conceal financial activities
related to Joe Biden’s public service.
Title of Section 9: Formation of Companies with Minimal Operations
 Numerous companies were created by the Biden family and associates, often with little to no
actual business operations.
 Examples include JBBSR Inc., which received substantial payments without providing identifiable
services.
Page 10 of 63

Title of Section 10: Questionable Consulting Services
 Hunter and James Biden provided vague descriptions of their consulting services, lacking
concrete evidence of value delivered.
 Testimonies from individuals involved in transactions with them revealed uncertainty about the
legitimacy of the services provided, raising concerns about the nature of their business dealings.
Pages - 31 -- 40
Section 1: Inconsistencies in Mr. Yan's Testimony
 Mr. Yan claimed he had no business dealings with the Lion Hall Group despite reimbursing them
for expenses.
 He could not specify the services provided by the Lion Hall Group to Hudson West III, stating, "I
don’t know."
 There is a contradiction between Mr. Yan’s statements and evidence regarding payments made
to the Lion Hall Group.
Section 2: The Biden Family's Business Failures
 Mr. Yan was unable to identify any successful business ventures involving the Biden family.
 Hunter Biden and James Biden have a history of failed business endeavors, yet they received
substantial payments for "access" to projects.
 Rob Walker indicated that CEFC paid Hunter Biden and others as a “thank you” for facilitating
potential business opportunities.
Section 3: Sara Biden's Credit Card and Lack of Services
 Mr. Yan stated he had no relationship with Sara Biden but provided her a company credit card.
 He justified this by saying it was part of "the ask," indicating a lack of oversight on spending.
 Despite having a credit card, Sara Biden did not provide any services related to Hudson West III.
Section 4: Financial Gains from Failed Ventures
 The Biden family received millions in payments and forgiven loans despite their business
failures.
 Committees found no substantive value provided by the Bidens other than access to Joe Biden.
Page 11 of 63

Section 5: Leveraging Political Influence
 Evidence suggests the Biden family exploited Joe Biden's political influence for financial gain.
 Foreign business interests believed they would gain access to Joe Biden if they paid substantial
amounts to his family.
 The Biden family's dealings represent an attempt to commodify Joe Biden's office.
Section 6: Kazakhstani Oligarch's Payment
 A Kazakhstani oligarch wired $142,300 to a bank account used by Mr. Archer and Hunter Biden.
 This payment coincided with a meeting between Hunter Biden and the oligarch, Kenes Rakishev.
 Mr. Archer confirmed that the payment was for Hunter Biden's sports car.
Section 7: Dinner with Foreign Officials
 Hunter Biden celebrated his birthday with foreign officials, including Kenes Rakishev and Yelena
Baturina, while Joe Biden attended.
 The dinner raised suspicions about the nature of the relationships and potential influence
peddling.
 Ms. Buhle noted it was unusual for Hunter's clients to attend a family dinner.
Section 8: Transaction for Hunter Biden's Sports Car
 Following the dinner, Rakishev transferred $142,300 to purchase a sports car for Hunter Biden.
 Hunter Biden claimed ignorance of the source of funds, attributing it to Devon Archer.
 Archer confirmed the connection between Rakishev and the payment for the car.
Section 9: Lack of Legitimate Services Provided
 Hunter Biden admitted to providing no legitimate services to Rakishev.
 His perceived value was primarily through his connection to Joe Biden.
 Archer testified he did not know why Rakishev purchased the car for Hunter.
Section 10: Russian Business Associates and Influence Peddling
 Vice President Biden dined with Hunter Biden and Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina.
 Baturina transferred $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton shortly after the dinner.
 Archer stated Hunter Biden did not provide services to Baturina prior to the payment, raising
concerns about the motivations behind the investment.
Pages - 41 -- 50
Page 12 of 63

Section 1: Ambition and Investment Goals
 The ambition was to grow a business from $17 billion to potentially $100, $200, or $300 billion
in asset management.
 Relationships and access to capital were identified as crucial for this growth.
 Hunter Biden had the potential to gain a billion dollars through equity ownership in Burnham.
Section 2: Hunter Biden's Connection to Russian Investors
 Hunter Biden leveraged his relationship with his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to
engage with Russian investors.
 A significant call on May 4, 2014, involved Hunter, Ms. Baturina (a Russian investor), and Vice
President Biden, which was described as pre-arranged to impress investors.
 Mr. Galanis testified about the call, noting its intent to showcase Hunter's access to political
power.
Section 3: Investment Commitment from Ms. Baturina
 Following the call with Vice President Biden, Ms. Baturina committed to investing between $10
to $20 million in Burnham.
 This investment was confirmed by Devon Archer shortly after the May 4th gathering.
Section 4: Financial Deal Structure
 A financial deal involving Wind Telecom was discussed, indicating a complex structure with
multiple investors including Ms. Baturina.
 The total deal was valued at $440 million, with significant portions of equity and debt involved.
 Hunter Biden’s role was characterized as leadership within Burnham, benefiting from
investments made by others.
Section 5: Sanctions and Political Influence
 Neither the Obama nor Biden administrations placed Ms. Baturina on sanctions lists despite
increasing sanctions against Russian oligarchs.
 The Trump administration later identified her as an oligarch, raising questions about the Biden
administration's decisions regarding sanctions.
Page 13 of 63

Section 6: Business Dealings in Romania
 Hunter Biden and associates leveraged Vice President Biden’s influence to secure payments
from Romanian businessman Gabriel Popoviciu.
 Rob Walker introduced Hunter to James Gilliar, leading to lucrative deals tied to Popoviciu’s
legal issues.
Section 7: Vice President Biden's Anti-Corruption Stance
 In May 2014, Vice President Biden delivered a speech in Romania emphasizing the dangers of
corruption.
 His involvement in anti-corruption efforts coincided with Hunter Biden's business dealings with
Popoviciu, who faced bribery charges.
Section 8: Payments Linked to Corruption Case
 Payments from Popoviciu to Robinson Walker, LLC began shortly after Vice President Biden's
meeting with Romanian officials.
 These payments were linked to Hunter Biden and his associates’ vague roles in assisting
Popoviciu with his legal troubles.
Section 9: Lack of Expertise and Justification for Payments
 Despite receiving substantial payments, Hunter Biden and his associates lacked specific
expertise relevant to Popoviciu’s case.
 Hunter described his role as “an advisor and pseudo legal counsel,” highlighting the
questionable nature of their services.
Section 10: End of Payments and Political Influence
 Payments from Popoviciu ceased after Joe Biden left office, suggesting a direct correlation
between Biden's political influence and the financial arrangements.
 Hunter Biden’s connections facilitated meetings with high-level officials during his father's vice
presidency, further intertwining business interests with political power.
Pages - 51 -- 60
Page 14 of 63

Title of Section 1: Mr. Gilliar's Communication with the White House
 The Committees found no prior business dealings between Mr. Gilliar and the White House
before a specific email.
 Mr. Gilliar was given contact information for the Vice President’s scheduler and National
Security Advisor, suggesting access to discuss Mr. Popoviciu’s criminal case in Romania.
Title of Section 2: Hunter Biden's Business Ties to Romania
 Hunter Biden's engagement with Mr. Popoviciu was influenced by then-Vice President Joe
Biden.
 The Biden family profited significantly from assisting a Romanian official due to Joe Biden's
authority.
 Joe Biden was involved in anti-corruption reforms in Romania while Hunter secured a lucrative
contract related to Popoviciu’s prosecution.
Title of Section 3: Evidence of Favoritism Towards Burisma
 There is substantial evidence that Vice President Biden altered U.S. policy to benefit Burisma, a
Ukrainian natural gas company under investigation.
 Hunter Biden served on Burisma’s board during his father’s tenure as Vice President, coinciding
with Biden's anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.
Title of Section 4: Dinner Meeting with Burisma Officials
 On April 16, 2015, Vice President Biden attended a dinner with Hunter Biden and Burisma
officials, indicating familial involvement in business matters.
 Following the dinner, Burisma's corporate secretary expressed gratitude to Hunter for
facilitating the meeting with his father.
Title of Section 5: Hunter Biden's Connections with State Department Officials
 Hunter Biden met with several Obama Administration officials, including Deputy Secretary
Antony Blinken, during his time with Burisma.
 Evidence from Hunter's laptop indicates he sought advice from Blinken regarding his business
dealings.
Title of Section 6: Hunter Biden's Appointment to Burisma's Board
 Hunter Biden was appointed to Burisma's board shortly after Vice President Biden became the
"point man" on Ukraine policy.
 His appointment followed a meeting with Burisma executives at an economic conference in Lake
Como, Italy.
Page 15 of 63

Title of Section 7: Financial Arrangements with Burisma
 Burisma agreed to pay Hunter Biden and Devon Archer $1 million annually, with payments
documented through bank records.
 Vice President Biden condemned corruption in Ukraine shortly after Hunter received his first
payment from Burisma.
Title of Section 8: Pressure from Prosecutor General Shokin
 Evidence suggests Hunter Biden contacted his father to alleviate pressure from Prosecutor
General Shokin’s investigation into Burisma.
 This led to Vice President Biden conditioning a $1 billion loan guarantee on Shokin's dismissal.
Title of Section 9: Biden's Intervention in Shokin's Investigation
 Vice President Biden's demand for Shokin's firing was unprecedented and deviated from
previous support for him.
 Biden leveraged the loan guarantee as a tool to influence Ukrainian officials regarding Shokin's
removal.
Title of Section 10: Aftermath of Shokin's Dismissal
 Following Shokin's ousting, Ukraine appointed Yuriy Lutsenko as the new prosecutor general,
despite his lack of qualifications.
 Biden welcomed Lutsenko's appointment, signaling continued U.S. involvement in Ukraine's

political landscape post-investigation.
Pages - 61 -- 70
Ongoing Investigations into Burisma and Zlochevsky
 The pretrial investigations against Mykola Zlochevsky are still ongoing.
 Burisma hired Blue Star Strategies, a Democrat lobbying firm, to mitigate the Ukrainian
investigation.
 Evidence shows Burisma also engaged Cravath, Swain & Moore LLP for legal defense against
governmental investigations in Ukraine, retroactively registering as a foreign agent for their
work from 2016 to 2017.
Page 16 of 63

U.S. Support for Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Efforts
 The Obama-Biden Administration believed Ukraine was making progress on anti-corruption

under Prosecutor General Shokin.
 Victoria Nuland expressed the State Department's support for Shokin’s office in a letter dated
June 9, 2015, praising its ambitious reform agenda.
 The U.S. committed resources to assist Ukraine in combating corruption through training and
modernization of law enforcement.
Concerns Over Prosecutor General Shokin's Actions
 U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt highlighted issues with the Prosecutor General's Office
undermining corruption investigations, specifically mentioning the case involving Zlochevsky.
 The IPC concluded that Ukraine had made sufficient progress on reforms to justify a third loan
guarantee, despite concerns about Shokin's effectiveness.
Linking Loan Guarantees to Political Pressure
 Vice President Biden linked the delivery of a loan guarantee to the firing of Prosecutor General
Shokin, pressuring the Ukrainian government.
 Hunter Biden's phone call to D.C. shortly before Biden's speech raised suspicions regarding
potential conflicts of interest related to Burisma.
Drafts of Biden's Speech and Potential Obstruction
 The Oversight Committee sought drafts of Biden's speech to understand any changes made
prior to his visit to Ukraine.
 The White House has refused to release these drafts, leading to speculation that they may
contain information harmful to Biden's position.
Biden Family's Business Deals with Chinese Companies
 Joe Biden falsely claimed during the 2020 presidential debate that his family did not take money
from China.
 Evidence suggests the Biden family earned millions from business dealings with Chinese firms
closely tied to the Communist Party.
Page 17 of 63

Sources of Income from China
 The Bidens' income sources included BHR and CEFC, both of which were connected to the
Chinese government.
 Joe Biden was aware of these business dealings and met with key figures involved in these
transactions.
Hunter Biden's Relationship with Chinese Business Partners
 Hunter Biden traveled with his father to China in December 2013, where he met influential
Chinese businessmen.
 Following this trip, Hunter Biden obtained equity in BHR, a state-backed investment fund.
Formation of Rosemont Seneca Thornton
 Hunter Biden and his associates formed Rosemont Seneca Thornton to pursue business
opportunities with Chinese partners.
 This entity was structured to facilitate investments in BHR, further intertwining the Biden
family's business interests with Chinese entities.
Implications of Biden's Involvement in Family Business Ventures
 Evidence indicates that President Biden knowingly enabled his family's business dealings with
companies linked to the Chinese Communist Party.
 The relationships established during Biden's vice presidency raise questions about ethical
conduct and potential conflicts of interest.
Pages - 71 -- 80
Formation of BHR Partnership
 The BHR partnership was formed in December 2013 by Bohai, Harvest, and Mr. Archer, with
Hunter Biden and Mr. Bulger involved through Rosemont Seneca Thornton.
 Hunter Biden confirmed the participants: "the 'B' in BHR Partners stood for Bohai," the 'H' for
Harvest (associated with Henry Zhao), and the 'R' for Rosemont Seneca Thornton.
Mr. Li's Vision for BHR
 Jonathan Li conceived the idea for BHR in 2011 to support Chinese companies in cross-border
mergers and acquisitions.
 He aimed for diversified ownership to enhance international presence, seeking access to Vice
President Biden’s political influence as a condition for participation in the deal.
Page 18 of 63

Political Influence and Access
 Mr. Li sought preferential access to U.S. Ambassador to China Max Baucus, leveraging Hunter
Biden's connection to his father.
 Jason Galanis testified that access to Vice President Biden was a prerequisite for Hunter Biden
and associates to engage in the BHR deal.
Meeting at the U.S. Embassy
 Former Ambassador Baucus was solicited to arrange a meeting at the U.S. Embassy for BHR,
which was unusual for a financial company.
 The purpose of the meeting was to project power and political influence to Chinese
stakeholders.
Board Membership and Influence
 Hunter Biden and Devon Archer served on the board of BHR while Joe Biden was Vice President,
with Hunter not resigning until October 2019.
 Their positions provided significant influence, as noted by Archer's testimony regarding their
involvement from the beginning.
Joe Biden's Direct Involvement
 Joe Biden maintained contact with Mr. Li, including placing him on a phone call during a dinner
in China and having coffee together.
 Biden also wrote college recommendation letters for Mr. Li’s children, indicating a personal
relationship.
Financial Transactions and Equity Ownership
 On December 6, 2013, Rosemont Seneca Thornton opened a bank account listing Archer and
Rosemont Seneca Partners as beneficiaries.
 Hunter Biden purchased equity in BHR through shell companies, with initial investments
aggregating to meet a 30% ownership threshold required by Chinese regulations.
Equity Structure and Investments
 In 2014, Hunter Biden and Archer created Rosemont Seneca Bohai to hold their equity in BHR,
aiming to raise $4.2 million from partners.
 Each partner needed to invest approximately $420,000 for a 10% share, with reports indicating
that loans were used to fund these investments.
Page 19 of 63

Hunter Biden's Claims vs. Evidence
 Hunter Biden claimed he did not own equity in BHR while his father was Vice President;
however, evidence shows he held at least 20% equity during that time.
 Financial records indicate multiple transactions made by Rosemont Seneca Thornton related to
BHR, contradicting Hunter's claims.
Continued Benefits and Recent Developments
 Hunter Biden received substantial payments from BHR associates, including a $250,000 wire
transfer characterized as a loan.
 Kevin Morris currently holds Hunter Biden's original 10% equity stake in BHR, acquired when he
purchased Skaneateles, a holding company owned by Hunter.
Pages - 81 -- 90
Section 1: Overview of Bohai Harvest (BHR)
 BHR is described as a hedge fund comprised of Chinese nationals that invests in public-private
and infrastructure programs.
 The witness, Mr. Morris, acknowledges familiarity with Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR, but has
never met him.
 Mr. Morris recalls that BHR's investments were primarily in infrastructure.
Section 2: Purchase of Skaneateles from Hunter Biden
 Mr. Morris purchased Skaneateles from Hunter Biden but cites attorney-client privilege when
asked about the reasons for the purchase.
 He believes acquiring BHR equity through Skaneateles was a sound investment based on due
diligence conducted prior to the purchase.
 Despite claiming to have done due diligence, Mr. Morris admits uncertainty regarding
Skaneateles' purpose.
Page 20 of 63

Section 3: Vice President Biden's Intended Role with Harvest Fund Management
 In 2013, Hunter Biden connected with Jason Galanis, leading to discussions about forming a
partnership with Harvest Fund Management.
 There was an expectation that Vice President Biden would join the board of Harvest after
leaving office.
 Mr. Zhao, chairman of Harvest, sought assurance regarding Vice President Biden's involvement
in the potential deal.
Section 4: Business Ventures Involving Hunter Biden and Associates
 Hunter Biden's role in business arrangements with Galanis and Archer became formalized in
early 2014.
 They aimed to merge Burnham Group with other businesses to leverage the Biden name for
financial gain.
 The partnership sought to create a globally recognized brand by combining political influence
with financial services.
Section 5: Value of Hunter Biden's Name in Business Deals
 Mr. Galanis states that Hunter Biden's primary contribution to the business was his family name
and access to Vice President Biden.
 Hunter did not invest personal funds; instead, he provided "relationship capital" which was
deemed valuable for attracting investors.
Section 6: Partnership Between Burnham and Harvest Fund Management
 In 2014, Hunter Biden led efforts to establish a partnership between Burnham and Harvest, a
significant Chinese financial entity.
 Harvest's interest in the partnership was linked to the Biden family's political influence,
particularly Joe Biden's future involvement post-Vice Presidency.
 Mr. Zhao emphasized the need for reassurance regarding Vice President Biden's participation.
Section 7: Evidence of Vice President Biden's Awareness of Business Efforts
 Mr. Galanis testified that Vice President Biden was aware of the business dealings related to the
Burnham-Harvest partnership.
 An instance is recalled where Hunter Biden discussed business progress with Vice President
Biden over the phone in front of Mr. Galanis.
Page 21 of 63

Section 8: Draft Email Indicating Biden's Potential Board Position
 A draft email from Hunter Biden indicates plans for Vice President Biden to sit on the board of
Harvest, highlighting ongoing discussions about this arrangement.
 The term "lean-in" was used in their communications to signify leveraging Vice President Biden's
political influence.
Section 9: Biden Family's Relationship with CEFC
 The Biden family's business relationship with CEFC began while Joe Biden was still Vice
President, involving significant financial interests.
 Hunter Biden and associates explored infrastructure projects with CEFC starting in late 2015.
 Meetings with CEFC executives, including Chairman Ye Jianming, occurred during Biden's vice
presidency.
Section 10: Notable Interactions with CEFC and Gifts Received
 Hunter Biden received a "generous" gift from Chairman Ye during a meeting, speculated to be a
diamond.
 The Biden family's engagement with CEFC was part of broader efforts to expand China's
influence internationally, with connections to the Chinese Communist Party and military.
Pages - 91 -- 100
Title of Section 1: Ongoing Relationship with CEFC
 Hunter Biden, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Gilliar continued to engage with individuals linked to CEFC
for two years.
 They facilitated introductions on behalf of CEFC and allowed the use of the Biden family name to
enhance CEFC's business dealings.
Title of Section 2: Testimony of Tony Bobulinski
 Tony Bobulinski testified about the Bidens' motives in their joint venture with CEFC, indicating
that the Chinese Communist Party aimed to compromise Joe Biden and the Obama-Biden
administration.
 Bobulinski noted that CEFC targeted Hunter Biden as a "weak link" due to the potential for
significant financial gain.
Page 22 of 63

Title of Section 3: The Biden Brand in Business Ventures
 Bobulinski emphasized that "Joe Biden was the brand being sold by the Biden family."
 Hunter Biden's last name was recognized as a key asset in their business dealings with CEFC.
Title of Section 4: Strategic Use of Hunter Biden’s Letterhead
 Hunter Biden's letterhead was used strategically to lend credibility to communications with
CEFC.
 Rob Walker explained that using Hunter's name helped them be taken seriously in international
business contexts.
Title of Section 5: Early Engagements with CEFC
 Evidence suggests that CEFC's outreach to the Bidens began before Joe Biden left the Vice
Presidency.
 In December 2015, discussions were underway regarding a business deal involving the Biden
family.
Title of Section 6: Recruitment of Bobulinski
 James Gilliar recruited Bobulinski in February 2017 to join a significant deal with CEFC, which
had been developing since 2015.
 Bobulinski learned that Hunter Biden was the partner involved in this venture.
Title of Section 7: Compensation Concerns
 Both Hunter and James Biden sought compensation from CEFC for their contributions while Joe
Biden was still in office, but payments were not made due to concerns over propriety.
 Bobulinski indicated that they believed CEFC owed them money for leveraging the Biden name.
Title of Section 8: Miami Meeting and Future Plans
 A meeting in Miami in February 2017 discussed ongoing work with CEFC, including significant
investment deals in various countries.
 Discussions included forming a new Joint Venture entity that would involve the Biden family and
CEFC.
Title of Section 9: Financial Transactions Post-Vice Presidency
 Shortly after a lunch meeting involving former Vice President Biden and CEFC executives, the
Biden family received over $1 million from State Energy HK, a company associated with CEFC.
 This payment occurred shortly after Joe Biden's involvement in the meeting, raising questions
about the timing and nature of the transactions.
Page 23 of 63

Title of Section 10: Payment Structures and Family Involvement
 Payments totaling over $3 million were wired to Mr. Walker's company following Joe Biden's
attendance at a meeting.
 Walker facilitated payments to Hunter Biden, Hallie Biden, and James Biden, indicating a
complex financial arrangement influenced by familial ties and business interests.
Pages - 101 -- 110
Title of Section 1: The Role of the Biden Family in CEFC Payments
 Mr. Gilliar emphasized the Biden family's importance as "the brand" rather than their
substantive contributions to CEFC.
 He expressed concern about Hunter Biden's attendance, stating, “I’m gonna kick his arse if he no
shows,” indicating Hunter's perceived necessity for branding but not for business input.
 There is ambiguity regarding the services provided by Hunter Biden and associates to CEFC in
exchange for payments.
Title of Section 2: Investigations into Hunter Biden's Work
 Special Counsel Weiss concluded that Hunter Biden “performed very little actual work” for CEFC
despite receiving millions from 2016 to 2019.
 Rob Walker described the payments from State Energy HK as a “thank you” for introductions
made on behalf of CEFC.
 A spokesperson for Hunter Biden claimed the payments were “good faith seed funds,” which
was contested by the Oversight Committee.
Title of Section 3: Scrutiny of Payment Legitimacy
 The Oversight Committee argued that the payments sent through Robinson Walker, LLC lacked
legitimate justification.
 Payments were sent to third parties instead of Hunter’s companies, broken into smaller
increments, and mirrored previous amounts sent to James Gilliar’s EEIG.
 This raises questions about the true purpose of the $3 million payment, suggesting it may have
been for access to Joe Biden.
Page 24 of 63

Title of Section 4: SinoHawk Holdings and Ownership Structure
 In 2017, Hunter Biden and associates formed SinoHawk Holdings with CEFC, co-owned by
Hudson West IV and Oneida Holdings, LLC.
 Hudson West IV was controlled by Chairman Ye of CEFC, while Oneida included Hunter, James
Biden, Rob Walker, James Gilliar, and Tony Bobulinski.
 Evidence suggests former Vice President Biden may have had an equity stake in the venture.
Title of Section 5: Meetings Between Bobulinski and the Bidens
 Tony Bobulinski met Hunter Biden at the Chateau Marmont to discuss the CEFC deal and
upcoming meetings.
 During discussions, Hunter Biden boasted about his direct access to his father, indicating a close
relationship that could influence business dealings.
 Bobulinski noted Hunter's confidence in contacting his father anytime, highlighting the familial
connection's potential impact on business.
Title of Section 6: Interaction with Former Vice President Biden
 Bobulinski met with former Vice President Biden, Hunter, and James Biden at the Beverly Hilton
before the Milken Conference.
 Hunter Biden excused himself to brief his father on the business matters, indicating a level of
involvement from Joe Biden.
 Bobulinski testified that they discussed business dealings, and Biden seemed aware of the
context surrounding CEFC.
Title of Section 7: Contradictory Testimonies Regarding Meetings
 James Biden denied any meeting took place between him, Hunter, and Bobulinski at the Beverly
Hilton, claiming he only saw his brother briefly.
 Hunter Biden confirmed the meeting occurred, contradicting James Biden's testimony.
 Bobulinski provided text messages corroborating his account of the meeting with Joe Biden.
Title of Section 8: Follow-Up Meetings and Discussions
 After the initial meeting, Bobulinski had further discussions with James Biden about the Biden
family's history and political connections.
 Bobulinski raised concerns about the implications of doing business with the Chinese, to which
James Biden responded with “Plausible deniability.”
 This indicates a possible awareness of the risks involved in their business dealings.
Page 25 of 63

Title of Section 9: Aggressive Claims by Hunter Biden
 During a subsequent meeting with CEFC executives, Hunter Biden aggressively claimed that
CEFC owed the Biden family money for prior work done while Joe Biden was Vice President.
 Bobulinski affirmed that work began as early as 2015, contradicting claims that it started after
Joe Biden left office.
 This suggests a continuity of business interests involving the Biden family during Joe Biden's vice
presidency.
Title of Section 10: Equity Distribution in SinoHawk Holdings
 An email from Gilliar outlined the proposed equity distribution for the joint venture, indicating
specific percentages for each partner.
 Hunter Biden was to hold a portion of equity for “the big guy,” implying a significant role for Joe
Biden in the arrangement.
 This raises further questions about the nature of the Biden family's involvement in SinoHawk
and the implications for Joe Biden's political career.
Pages - 111 -- 120
Title of Section 1: Bobulinski's Testimony on "The Big Guy"
 Mr. Bobulinski identified Joe Biden as “the big guy” referenced in an email from James Gilliar.
 He clarified that “H” stands for Hunter Biden, and the phrase “10 held for H for the big guy”
indicates a financial arrangement involving Joe Biden.
 Bobulinski emphasized that the email was coded due to the sensitive nature of their dealings.
Title of Section 2: Disputing Claims of Ignorance
 Bobulinski accused Rob Walker of lying about not knowing who “the big guy” was.
 He refuted claims made by Hunter Biden and Walker that no one responded to Gilliar’s email.
 Bobulinski provided evidence showing Hunter Biden responded multiple times without
expressing confusion about “the big guy.”
Title of Section 3: Financial Concerns of Hunter Biden
 In his emails, Hunter Biden expressed dissatisfaction with his compensation, stating he needed
more than $850,000 per year due to financial pressures.
 Bobulinski highlighted that Hunter was focused on personal financial issues rather than
clarifying the identity of “the big guy.”
Page 26 of 63

Title of Section 4: Communication Strategy Regarding Joe Biden
 Gilliar advised Bobulinski to avoid mentioning Joe Biden’s involvement in the joint venture to
maintain secrecy.
 Bobulinski testified about discussions with Hunter Biden and Gilliar regarding the need for
discretion concerning Joe Biden’s role.
Title of Section 5: CEFC's Interest in the Biden Name
 Bobulinski stated that CEFC sought to leverage Joe Biden’s political influence for business
advantages.
 He noted that Hunter and James Biden believed they were owed money for using the Biden
name to benefit CEFC.
Title of Section 6: The Biden Family's Role in Business Ventures
 Bobulinski asserted that Joe Biden was not just a participant but an enabler of the family’s
business dealings.
 He claimed that the Biden family's business success was directly tied to Joe Biden's political
status.
Title of Section 7: Hunter Biden's Assertion of Family Legacy
 Hunter Biden communicated the importance of the Biden brand in negotiations with CEFC,
referring to it as a “trump card.”
 He expressed reluctance to sign over control of the family legacy to Bobulinski.
Title of Section 8: Joint Venture Capitalization Details
 The SinoHawk joint venture was to be capitalized with a $10 million investment from CEFC, split
between direct contributions and loans to the Biden family.
 Bobulinski explained that all funds originated from CEFC, despite being structured as loans.
Title of Section 9: Delays and Changes in Funding
 CEFC delayed funding due to concerns about the SinoHawk operation.
 Ultimately, instead of the promised $10 million, CEFC redirected funds to another venture after
excluding Bobulinski and others.
Page 27 of 63

Title of Section 10: Allegations of Fraud and Proprietary Information Theft
 Bobulinski accused Hunter and James Biden of defrauding him by cutting him out of the joint
venture and misappropriating proprietary information.
 He expressed concern over the potential for Hunter and James to control Oneida without his
input, leading to conflicts over the use of funds and business direction.
Pages - 121 -- 130
Title of Section 1: CEFC's Intentions and Hunter Biden's Involvement
 Mr. Zhao assured Hunter Biden that "CEFC is willing to cooperate with the family," indicating
CEFC's focus on political connections.
 The director suggested a meeting between Hunter Biden and Kevin to address ongoing issues.
 Evidence shows Joe Biden was aware of and involved in the SinoHawk deal with CEFC.
Title of Section 2: Formation of Hudson West III
 Hunter Biden and James Biden partnered with CEFC to create Hudson West III after abandoning
original partners for SinoHawk.
 On August 2, 2017, an agreement was executed for joint investments through Hudson West III.
 Hunter Biden's firm, Owasco PC, and Hudson West V equally owned Hudson West III, managed
by CEFC emissary Gongwen Dong.
Title of Section 3: Financial Arrangements and Payments
 Hunter Biden did not contribute capital for his ownership share in Hudson West III.
 Compensation included $100,000 monthly payments and a $500,000 retainer fee for Hunter
Biden, while James Biden received $65,000 monthly.
Title of Section 4: Threats and Political Influence
 Hunter Biden threatened a CEFC official regarding a delayed $5 million loan, invoking his father's
presence.
 He expressed concern over CEFC's commitment and warned of consequences if the issue was
not resolved quickly.
 This incident suggests Hunter Biden intended to leverage his father's influence for financial gain.
Page 28 of 63

Title of Section 5: Communication with CEFC Officials
 Hunter Biden communicated indignation over CEFC's reluctance to provide a $5 million interest-
free loan.
 He emphasized the value of the Biden family's relationship to CEFC, stating they were "the best"
at fulfilling the Chairman's expectations.
Title of Section 6: Lunch Meeting and Family Involvement
 Hunter Biden arranged a lunch meeting with Mr. Dong, mentioning his uncle (Joe Biden) would
attend.
 He confirmed in deposition that he referred to Joe Biden in these communications, indicating

familial involvement in business dealings.
Title of Section 7: Ownership Changes and Continued Payments
 In March 2018, Hudson West V's ownership was transferred to Coldharbour Capital, but Owasco
PC retained its 50% stake.
 Hunter Biden's compensation increased to $165,000 per month despite unclear contributions to
the business.
Title of Section 8: Personal Expenses and Credit Card Use
 Hudson West III allowed the Bidens to use company credit cards for personal expenses, totaling
over $100,000.
 Questions arose about the appropriateness of credit card usage by individuals without formal
roles in the business.
Title of Section 9: Money Laundering Concerns
 CEFC disguised payments to the Biden family through complex networks of shell corporations.
 A bank investigator flagged unusual payment patterns from Hudson West III to Owasco PC,
raising money laundering concerns.
Title of Section 10: Direct Payments to Joe Biden
 Evidence indicated that funds used to pay Joe Biden likely originated from Chinese companies
linked to CEFC.
 A bank investigator noted the lack of documentation for loans and questioned the legitimacy of
payments made to Owasco PC, suggesting potential misconduct.
Pages - 131 -- 140
Page 29 of 63

Hunter Biden's Office Space and Business Ventures
 Hunter Biden’s company, Rosemont Seneca Advisors, began renting office space at House of
Sweden in Georgetown.
 On September 21, 2017, Hunter requested keys for new office mates including Joe Biden, Jill
Biden, Jim Biden, and Gongwen Dong (CEFC emissary).
 He asked to update the office sign to include “The Biden Foundation” and “Hudson West (CEFC
US)” while keeping the lease under Rosemont Seneca’s name.
 Hunter referred to his associates as “partners,” which included family members and CEFC
representatives.
James Biden's Testimony on CEFC
 James Biden testified that CEFC was not affiliated with the Chinese government based on
Hunter's assurances.
 This belief is questioned due to CEFC's known ties to the Chinese government and military.
 Bobulinski testified that Hunter and Gilliar acknowledged CEFC's connections to the Chinese
government.
CEFC's Ties to the Chinese Government
 CEFC is described as a proxy for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with close ties to the
government.
 It was difficult to distinguish between CEFC and the Chinese government due to their
intertwined operations.
 CEFC had layers of Communist Party committees and employed many former military officials,
indicating its state-owned enterprise characteristics.
Biden Family Influence in CEFC Dealings
 The Hudson West III arrangement exemplified the Biden family's influence in business dealings.
 Key characteristics included lucrative deals tied to the Biden name, favorable terms, large
payments to Hunter without substantial contributions, and complex transactions obscuring fund
flows.
 Joe Biden's involvement in these dealings was suggested to be surreptitious.
Page 30 of 63

Hunter Biden's Relationship with Patrick Ho
 Hunter formed a relationship with Dr. Chi Ping "Patrick" Ho, head of the China Energy Fund
Committee funded by CEFC.
 Hunter referred to Ho as “the chief of intelligence of the [P]eople’s [R]epublic of China.”
 Ho was arrested on federal bribery charges related to securing business advantages for CEFC.
Legal Representation and Payment Issues
 Hunter signed an engagement letter to represent Dr. Ho, allegedly for $1 million, but provided
minimal legal services.
 Reports indicate that Hunter only attended one meeting and connected Ho with another law
firm for actual legal work.
 IRS Special Agent Ziegler stated that the payment was likely not for legal fees and was still under
investigation.
Prosecutorial Actions and Redactions
 Prosecutors sought to keep the Biden name out of Ho’s trial, redacting references to Hunter
Biden from evidence.
 Evidence suggests that prosecutors aimed to avoid introducing political dimensions to the case.
 The Committees have requested unredacted documents related to the trial but have not
received responses.
Dr. Ho's Conviction and Aftermath
 Dr. Ho was convicted of bribery and money laundering in December 2018 and sentenced to
three years in prison.
 His activities were linked to China's Belt and Road Initiative, which poses national security
threats to the U.S.
 Following his release, Ho was deported back to Hong Kong.
Financial Benefits to the Biden Family
 The Biden family received various financial benefits likely tied to Joe Biden's official position,
including loans that were often forgiven or interest-free.
 These financial arrangements appeared to leverage the Biden name and political connections
for personal gain.
Page 31 of 63

James Biden's Financial Ventures and Connections
 James Biden received loans from individuals who previously contributed politically to Joe Biden,
leveraging his brother's name for business opportunities.
 He pursued business ventures with Americore, a healthcare company, despite lacking relevant
expertise.
 James Biden reportedly invoked his brother's name during investor pitches, suggesting that Joe
Biden's political connections were central to his business ambitions.
Pages - 141 -- 150
Title of Section 1: Lack of Documentation for Services Rendered
 Witness could not identify specific services provided by James Biden to Americore.
 The witness stated, “I did not think that he provided services to the debtors,” leading to a
lawsuit against him.
Title of Section 2: Loans to James Biden
 James Biden received two significant payments from Americore: $400,000 and $200,000, both
characterized as loans.
 The first loan of $400,000 was transferred on January 12, 2018, with no supporting
documentation found for its legitimacy.
Title of Section 3: Absence of Loan Documentation
 No promissory note or terms were found regarding the $400,000 loan.
 The witness confirmed, “there was no document referencing a stated interest rate or repayment
terms or collateralization.”
Title of Section 4: Additional Loan Transfer
 A second purported loan of $200,000 was identified, transferred on March 1, 2018, with similar
lack of documentation.
 The witness reiterated that there was no evidence supporting this loan’s legitimacy.
Title of Section 5: Consulting and Marketing Payment
 In June 2018, Americore transferred $10,000 to James Biden for consulting and marketing, but
again, no supporting documentation was found.
 The witness noted, “There wasn’t a consulting agreement that I came across in this litigation.”
Page 32 of 63

Title of Section 6: Mischaracterization of Payments
 James Biden claimed the funds received from Americore were payments for his services, despite
being labeled as loans.
 He indicated he had no intention of repaying the money, stating it was compensation for his
work.
Title of Section 7: Bankruptcy Suit Against James Biden
 Ms. Fox sued James Biden to recover $600,000, asserting that Americore did not receive
equivalent value for the funds disbursed.
 James Biden testified about bringing in a $20 million investment but could not specify legitimate
services rendered.
Title of Section 8: Transfers to Joe Biden
 On the same day James Biden received the $200,000 loan, he paid his brother Joe Biden
$200,000 for a “loan repayment.”
 The timing and amount of these transactions raised suspicions of fraudulent transfer.
Title of Section 9: Other Loans and Forgiveness
 Over 2019, Mr. Lewitt’s fund lent $225,000 to James Biden’s company, which he claimed was
forgiven.
 However, Mr. Lewitt disputed this claim and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when
subpoenaed.
Title of Section 10: John Hynansky's Financial Support
 John Hynansky, a long-time donor to Joe Biden, loaned James Biden over $500,000 after
receiving government loans during the Obama-Biden Administration.
 Hynansky’s loans were risky and involved a second mortgage on James Biden’s vacation home,
which he still owes $97,000.
Pages - 151 -- 160
Page 33 of 63

Title of Section 1: Mr. Hynansky's Business Relationship with the Biden Administration
 Mr. Hynansky benefited from a relationship with the Biden Administration, which allegedly
assisted his business in preparation for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
 Public reports indicate that calls were made to Hynansky’s top executive in Kyiv 13 days before
the invasion.
 Hynansky has not complied with requests from congressional committees for a transcribed
interview regarding loans he provided to Biden family members.
Title of Section 2: Joseph Langston's Financial Support to James and Sara Biden
 Long-time Biden family friend Joseph Langston loaned over $200,000 to James and Sara Biden,
choosing not to recoup the money to preserve their friendship.
 Langston testified about his long-standing friendship with the Bidens, dating back to the late
1990s, including fundraising efforts for Joe Biden's campaigns.
Title of Section 3: Details of Langston's Loans to James Biden
 Langston provided multiple loans to James Biden, primarily through his consulting firm, Lion Hall
Group, under the premise of supporting joint business ventures.
 He stated that he did not know the specific reasons for the loans but understood they were
needed for James Biden's livelihood.
Title of Section 4: Loan Transactions and Amounts
 The Committees identified five loans totaling $212,000 made by Langston to James Biden
between 2016 and 2017.
 Specific transactions included:
 $100,000 on April 18, 2016
 Additional amounts of $34,000, $16,000, $37,000, and $25,000 in subsequent months.
Title of Section 5: Lack of Documentation for Loans
 Langston admitted to having no documentation for the loans, stating he often disposed of
records once he was paid or if he did not intend to pursue repayment.
 He acknowledged that while he had a promissory note at one point, he could not locate it.
Page 34 of 63

Title of Section 6: Financial Distress of James Biden
 James Biden confirmed receiving loans due to financial distress, claiming he anticipated
substantial payments from a deal that ultimately fell through.
 He borrowed $400,000 from Langston, promising repayment within three to six months, but has
not fully repaid the amount.
Title of Section 7: Business Ventures and Financial Arrangements
 Langston indicated that he fronted all the money for various business ventures with James
Biden, who primarily facilitated introductions.
 Despite estimating around $800,000 in loans, Langston stated he had only been repaid $400,000
and had not pursued collection efforts.
Title of Section 8: Friendship vs. Financial Transactions
 Langston expressed that the loans could now be viewed as gratuitous financial aid rather than
formal loans, as he chose not to collect remaining debts to maintain his friendship with James
Biden.
 He noted that he had not communicated with the Biden family since President Biden took office
but still considered them friends.
Title of Section 9: Kevin Morris's Role in Supporting Hunter Biden
 Kevin Morris, a Democrat donor and entertainment attorney, loaned $6.5 million to Hunter
Biden to protect Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
 Morris met Hunter Biden at a fundraiser for Joe Biden's campaign in November 2019, where he
began representing Hunter.
Title of Section 10: Legal Representation and Professional Background of Kevin Morris
 During his testimony, Morris avoided providing specific details about his legal representation of
Hunter Biden, citing attorney-client privilege.
 He acknowledged that he had not represented clients in court or specialized in tax law, raising
questions about his qualifications for handling Hunter Biden's legal issues.
Pages - 161 -- 170
Page 35 of 63

Title of Section 1: Legal Representation Overview
 Mr. Morris is not admitted to practice law in Arkansas but claims familiarity with its court
proceedings.
 He represents Hunter Biden in a broad capacity, overseeing various aspects akin to a general
counsel for high-profile individuals.
 His retainer agreements indicate representation in "all matters," suggesting comprehensive

involvement.
Title of Section 2: Financial Assistance to Hunter Biden
 Mr. Morris provided significant financial assistance to Hunter Biden shortly after meeting him.
 He made numerous payments on behalf of Hunter Biden, which he characterized as loans to

support his lifestyle and cover debts.
 Payments included funding for living expenses, tax debts, and vehicle financing.
Title of Section 3: Nature of Loans Provided
 Mr. Morris confirmed that the loans were structured through promissory notes with standard
terms, including interest rates and repayment schedules starting in 2025.
 He stated that documentation for these loans was often formalized after the funds were
advanced.
 The loans ranged from $640,355 to $2,600,000, indicating substantial financial support.
Title of Section 4: Motivations Behind Financial Support
 Mr. Morris expressed concern for Hunter Biden's sobriety and potential relapse, which
influenced his decision to provide financial help.
 He also mentioned helping other friends in similar situations, indicating a pattern of financial
support for those in need.
 There was an underlying concern about how Hunter's issues could affect Joe Biden's presidential
campaign.
Title of Section 5: Crisis Management Regarding Tax Debt
 Mr. Morris held a "crisis meeting" regarding Hunter Biden's tax liabilities, citing personal and
political risks associated with unpaid taxes.
 An email from Mr. Morris indicated urgency in filing tax returns due to these risks, particularly
during the 2020 election cycle.
 The timing of the crisis meeting coincided with critical moments in Joe Biden's campaign.
Page 36 of 63

Title of Section 6: Testimony on Loan Amounts and Tax Payments
 Hunter Biden acknowledged owing over $6.5 million in loans to Mr. Morris, with a significant
portion used to settle tax debts.
 Mr. Morris confirmed that he paid off at least $1.9 million of Hunter Biden’s tax obligations.
 This financial arrangement raised questions about the motivations behind such large loans
during a politically sensitive time.
Title of Section 7: Political Implications of Financial Transactions
 The loans and payments made by Mr. Morris occurred during Joe Biden's presidential campaign,
raising concerns about potential quid pro quo arrangements.
 Evidence suggested that Mr. Morris's financial support was aimed at alleviating liabilities that
could impact the Biden campaign.
 SA Ziegler noted that the investigation into these transactions was hindered, preventing a full
understanding of their implications.
Title of Section 8: Acquisition of Skaneateles, LLC
 Mr. Morris purchased Hunter Biden's company, Skaneateles, LLC, which owned a stake in a
Chinese investment firm.
 The purchase price was significantly lower than Hunter Biden's original investment, indicating a
strategic financial maneuver.
 Mr. Morris had limited knowledge about the operations of Skaneateles and its business
dealings.
Title of Section 9: Lack of Clarity on Business Operations
 During questioning, Mr. Morris struggled to articulate the purpose and structure of Skaneateles,
LLC.
 He acknowledged being aware of the company's existence but lacked detailed information
about its activities or Hunter Biden's role.
 This lack of clarity raises questions about the transparency of the transaction and its
implications.
Page 37 of 63

Title of Section 10: Summary of Key Concerns
 The financial relationship between Mr. Morris and Hunter Biden presents multiple concerns
regarding legality and ethics.
 The timing of loans and payments suggests potential conflicts of interest related to Joe Biden's
political aspirations.
 Overall, the situation highlights the complexities of financial support within high-profile political
contexts and the need for thorough investigation.
Pages - 171 -- 180
Title of Section 1: BHR Investments and Mr. Morris's Purchase
 Mr. Morris recalls that BHR primarily invests in infrastructure but cannot provide specific details.
 He purchased Skaneateles from Hunter Biden, citing attorney-client privilege when asked about
the reasons for the purchase.
 After consulting with counsel, he stated it was a good investment based on due diligence.
Title of Section 2: Due Diligence vs. Knowledge of Company Purpose
 Mr. Morris claimed to have conducted due diligence on Skaneateles but previously expressed
uncertainty about its purpose.
 His purchase appears aimed at aiding Hunter Biden in divesting from foreign business interests
post-election.
Title of Section 3: Political Connections and Financial Contributions
 Mr. Morris asserts no political motivations behind his relationship with Hunter Biden, despite
their history.
 He met Hunter Biden at a fundraiser for President Biden’s campaign in 2019.
 Mr. Morris has contributed between $500,000 and $700,000 to political action committees,
predominantly Democrats.
Title of Section 4: Hunter Biden's Art Sales and Influence
 Hunter Biden leveraged his family name to sell art at inflated prices after Joe Biden's election.
 He began selling art through gallerist George Bergès shortly after his father became president.
Page 38 of 63

Title of Section 5: Introduction to the Art World
 Hunter Biden met George Bergès in 2019 through mutual connections and began selling art only
after the 2020 election.
 Bergès noted that Hunter Biden had not sold art prior to their partnership and acknowledged
the influence of the Biden name on pricing.
Title of Section 6: Pricing and Buyer Confidentiality
 Critics questioned the high prices of Hunter Biden's artwork, suggesting they were tied to his
family name rather than artistic merit.
 Hunter Biden insisted on knowing the identities of buyers in his initial contract, which is unusual
in the art industry.
Title of Section 7: Changes in Contract Terms
 In a subsequent contract, the requirement for buyer confidentiality was established, along with
an increase in Hunter Biden's commission.
 Bergès testified that revealing buyer identities is typically avoided to maintain gallery
relationships.
Title of Section 8: Notable Buyers and Transactions
 Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali, a prominent Democratic donor, purchased two pieces of Hunter Biden's
art for significant sums shortly after Biden's inauguration.
 Kevin Morris bought $875,000 worth of art, which helped reduce Hunter Biden's debt to him.
Title of Section 9: Tax Implications and Unusual Arrangements
 The arrangement where Morris paid Bergès directly raised questions about tax implications for
Hunter Biden.
 Bergès could not confirm whether Hunter Biden received proper tax documentation for the sale.
Title of Section 10: Ethical Concerns and White House Involvement
 There are allegations of White House involvement in crafting ethical guidelines for Hunter
Biden's art sales, which Bergès denied.
 Former ethics officials criticized the arrangement as lacking transparency and potentially
facilitating bribery.
 Overall, evidence suggests the Biden family's financial gains are closely tied to Joe Biden's
political position, raising concerns about abuse of power.
Pages - 181 -- 190
Page 39 of 63

Title of Section 1: Financial Transactions Involving the Biden Family
 Millions of dollars have been transferred to Biden family members from foreign sources since
Joe Biden's second term as vice president.
 Witnesses could not identify any value provided by the Bidens to their foreign business partners,
except for access or influence over Joe Biden.
 Allegations suggest that Joe Biden has abused his public trust for personal financial gain through
foreign transactions.
Title of Section 2: Obstruction of Congressional Investigations
 President Biden and his administration are accused of obstructing Congressional investigations
related to his son, Hunter Biden.
 Misuse of official resources to hinder investigations is described as an impeachable offense

according to Professor Turley’s testimony.
 The Committees are investigating the President's actions in obstructing Congress and justice.
Title of Section 3: Hostility Towards Impeachment Inquiry
 The Biden-Harris Administration has shown hostility and unwillingness to cooperate with the
House’s impeachment inquiry.
 Specific actions taken by the White House include preventing testimonies and withholding
documents related to classified materials mishandling.
Title of Section 4: Methods of Obstruction
 The White House obstructed Congressional inquiries in four main ways:
1. Prevented five officials from testifying about classified documents.
2. Asserted executive privilege over subpoenaed materials.
3. Blocked access to documents regarding Biden’s pseudonym email accounts.
4. Hindered access to records from the National Archives, including drafts of a significant speech.
Page 40 of 63

Title of Section 5: Discovery of Classified Materials
 Classified materials were discovered at the Penn Biden Center by Biden's personal attorneys in
January 2023.
 The White House stated these documents were found while preparing to vacate office space
used by Biden.
 Additional classified materials were later found at Biden's residence and the University of
Delaware.
Title of Section 6: Congressional Investigations Initiated
 Following the discovery of classified materials, separate investigations were opened by the
Oversight Committee and Judiciary Committee.
 The appointment of Special Counsel Robert Hur did not exempt the Biden administration from
cooperating with Congressional investigations.
Title of Section 7: Testimonies of White House Officials
 The Oversight Committee sought testimonies from five current and former White House
employees involved in handling classified documents.
 Key individuals included Dana Remus (former White House Counsel) and others who accessed
the Penn Biden Center prior to the classified documents' discovery.
Title of Section 8: Timeline of Document Handling
 The investigation revealed that document handling began well before the publicized timeline of
events.
 Remus initiated efforts to retrieve Biden's files in May 2022, contradicting the White House's
narrative of discovery in November 2022.
Title of Section 9: Mischaracterization of Document Storage
 Testimony from Kathy Chung, a former assistant, indicated that documents were not stored
securely as claimed by the White House.
 Chung packed boxes containing classified materials without them being in a locked closet,
challenging the official narrative.
Title of Section 10: Ongoing Issues with Document Retrieval
 There were delays and confusion regarding the retrieval of boxes containing classified materials
from the Penn Biden Center.
 Communication between staff indicated ongoing concerns about uncollected materials,

highlighting potential mismanagement within the Biden administration.
Page 41 of 63

Pages - 191 -- 200
Discovery of Classified Materials at the Penn Biden Center
 On November 2, 2022, President Biden's personal attorneys "unexpectedly discovered"

classified materials in a locked closet at the Penn Biden Center.
 The Oversight Committee sought documents and interviews with White House employees to
clarify events leading to this discovery.
 Ms. Remus, former White House Counsel, was requested for a transcribed interview but sought
guidance from the White House on her ability to cooperate.
White House's Non-Cooperation with Oversight Committee
 On October 11, 2023, the Oversight Committee requested specific documents and interviews,
including Ms. Remus.
 The White House refused to provide requested documents or make officials available for
interviews, which the Oversight Committee deemed obstruction.
 Evidence indicated that multiple White House employees were involved in reviewing materials
from the Penn Biden Center to prepare for congressional oversight.
Obstruction of Congress Regarding Special Counsel Interviews
 The White House obstructed Congress by withholding audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur’s
interviews with President Biden and his ghostwriter.
 Following the release of Special Counsel Hur’s report on February 5, 2024, the Committees
sought documents related to the investigation.
 Subpoenas were issued to Attorney General Garland for various materials, including audio
recordings of interviews.
Inadequate Response from the Justice Department
 The Justice Department failed to produce requested materials by the deadlines set by the
Committees.
 On March 7, 2024, only incomplete documents were provided, lacking the audio recordings.
 The Committees expressed dissatisfaction with the initial production and reiterated the need for
complete records.
Page 42 of 63

Continued Withholding of Audio Recordings
 Despite reminders and revised deadlines, the Justice Department did not comply with requests
for audio recordings.
 On March 12, 2024, the Department produced redacted transcripts but withheld audio
recordings, claiming they were cumulative.
 The Committees argued that audio recordings are essential for accurate representation of
witness interviews.
Executive Privilege Claims by the White House
 On May 15, 2024, President Biden asserted executive privilege over the audio recordings just
before a scheduled contempt meeting.
 The assertion was criticized as frivolous and an attempt to impede Congressional inquiries into
mishandling classified information.
 The Committees noted that the privilege was waived when transcripts were released to the
media.
Legislative Oversight and Need for Audio Evidence
 The Committees emphasized the importance of audio recordings for assessing President Biden's
mental state and the appropriateness of the Justice Department's decisions.
 They argued that audio recordings provide unique evidence that is crucial for legislative
oversight and potential reforms.
 The transcripts alone were deemed insufficient for evaluating the circumstances surrounding
the decision not to indict President Biden.
Contempt Proceedings Against Attorney General Garland
 The House found Attorney General Garland in contempt of Congress on June 12, 2024, due to
non-compliance with subpoenas.
 Ongoing refusal to provide requested materials was viewed as obstruction of Congress's

impeachment inquiry.
 The Committees highlighted the significance of obtaining all relevant evidence for their
investigations.
Page 43 of 63

Obstruction of Access to National Archives Records
 The Committees learned that NARA held critical records from Biden's tenure as Vice President
relevant to the investigation.
 Requests for access to these records were made under the Presidential Records Act, but the
White House obstructed their release.
 The White House relied on Executive Order 13489 to extend review times, delaying Congress's
oversight capabilities.
Specific Document Requests Related to Hunter Biden
 The Oversight Committee requested drafts of Vice President Biden’s December 9, 2015 speech
to the Ukrainian Rada and communications involving pseudonym emails.
 The White House declined to authorize the release of these documents, citing ongoing reviews.
 The refusal to disclose these records raised concerns about Biden's involvement in Hunter
Biden's business dealings.
Implications of Obstruction on Legislative Oversight
 The White House's actions hindered Congress's ability to conduct thorough oversight regarding
Biden's influence in Ukraine.
 The refusal to release drafts of speeches and related documents limited the Committees'
understanding of Biden's policy decisions during his vice presidency.
 The situation underscored the tension between executive privilege claims and Congressional
oversight responsibilities.
Pages - 201 -- 210
Title of Section 1: NARA's Draft Speech Release and Document Requests
 President Biden’s White House has not allowed the release of draft speeches related to U.S.
policy changes toward Ukraine.
 The refusal to produce these drafts is seen as obstructing Congress from understanding
potential influences on U.S. policy, particularly concerning Hunter Biden's involvement with
Burisma.
 The White House has withheld thousands of documents requested under the Presidential
Records Act for over eight months.
Page 44 of 63

Title of Section 2: Use of Pseudonym Email Addresses
 Evidence suggests that then-Vice President Biden used pseudonym email accounts to
communicate with various individuals, including family and business associates.
 The Oversight Committee requested documents involving Biden's pseudonyms, which resulted
in a large volume of records (over 300,000 pages).
 To date, less than a third of these records have been produced, primarily consisting of irrelevant
materials.
Title of Section 3: IRS Whistleblower Testimony
 IRS whistleblowers provided evidence confirming that Vice President Biden communicated using
aliases, including robinware456@gmail.com and JRBWare@gmail.com.
 Mr. Schwerin confirmed that one of these email accounts belonged to Vice President Biden.
 A significant portion of the emails released by the Ways and Means Committee were sent during
Biden's Vice Presidency, indicating possible misconduct.
Title of Section 4: Obstruction of Criminal Investigation
 In 2023, IRS whistleblowers reported that the Justice Department obstructed the criminal
investigation into Hunter Biden.
 They claimed there were deviations from standard procedures that favored Hunter Biden,
impacting the prosecution of serious charges.
 Specific actions included allowing statutes of limitations to lapse and restricting investigators
from questioning about President Biden.
Title of Section 5: Justice Department's Mission and Values
 The Justice Department's mission emphasizes integrity and impartiality in enforcing federal law.
 The department failed to uphold these standards in the investigation of Hunter Biden, leading to
allegations of preferential treatment.
 The whistleblower testimony highlighted how the investigation deviated from normal processes.
Page 45 of 63

Title of Section 6: Origins of the Hunter Biden Investigation
 Investigations into Hunter Biden began in 2018 due to an unrelated tax investigation revealing
suspicious financial activities.
 The FBI opened its own investigation in February 2019, focusing on potential financial violations,
including money laundering.
 The sensitivity of the case was acknowledged due to Hunter Biden being the son of a prominent
political figure.
Title of Section 7: Merging Investigations and Challenges
 The FBI and IRS investigations were merged, complicating the IRS's ability to conduct its
investigation without interference.
 The FBI had to obtain special approvals to investigate Hunter Biden due to the politically
sensitive nature of the case.
 Witnesses described the investigation as requiring extra caution and oversight compared to
typical cases.
Title of Section 8: Laptop Evidence and Investigative Actions
 The FBI obtained a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden, containing evidence of potential
crimes.
 The authenticity of the laptop was verified, but prosecutors withheld its contents from IRS
agents working on the case.
 This withholding of information raised concerns about transparency and proper investigative
procedures.
Title of Section 9: Special Treatment Due to Political Sensitivity
 The investigation into Hunter Biden was treated differently due to his family's political
significance.
 Witnesses noted that the investigation required closer supervision and additional approvals
because of its sensitive nature.
 Concerns were expressed about the implications of investigating a politically connected

individual in Delaware.
Page 46 of 63

Title of Section 10: Community Dynamics and Investigative Concerns
 The close-knit legal community in Delaware posed challenges for investigators looking into
Hunter Biden.
 Some investigators expressed fears about the repercussions of pursuing a case against the
President's son in his home state.
 Despite these concerns, U.S. Attorney David Weiss downplayed any apprehension regarding the
investigation's political implications.
Pages - 211 -- 220
Title of Section 1: Concerns Over Investigating Hunter Biden
 Weiss did not express fear about investigating Hunter Biden in Delaware, but other officials did.
 A retired FBI supervisor described the case as a “hot potato” that many avoided.
 IRS Director Michael Batdorf noted difficulties in interviewing witnesses and obtaining approvals
from Weiss’s team.
 Hunter Biden's lawyer warned prosecutors against pursuing the investigation, citing potential
career repercussions.
Title of Section 2: Bureaucratic Challenges in Ukraine-Related Investigations
 FBI bureaucrats and Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office officials hindered Scott Brady’s efforts to
vet Ukraine-related information.
 In late 2019/early 2020, the Justice Department coordinated multiple matters related to
Ukraine.
 Brady was tasked with vetting information and passing credible leads to relevant U.S. Attorneys’
Offices.
Title of Section 3: Brady's Vetting Process and Challenges
 Brady confirmed that any public member could provide information for vetting.
 His office assessed credibility using public resources and existing FBI records.
 Brady lacked access to grand jury tools, relying on open-source information for assessments.
Page 47 of 63

Title of Section 4: FBI Headquarters' Reluctance and Delays
 Brady experienced a challenging relationship with the FBI, which was reluctant to act on his
assignment.
 The FBI required excessive approvals for basic investigative actions, leading to significant delays.
 Brady noted that the sensitivity of the case, due to Joe Biden's presidential candidacy,
contributed to these delays.
Title of Section 5: Information Withholding by the FBI
 FBI headquarters instructed agents to limit information sharing with Brady’s office.
 Brady was surprised to learn about the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop only through media
reports.
 The lack of communication resulted in missed opportunities to gather evidence relevant to the
investigation.
Title of Section 6: Communication Issues Between U.S. Attorney’s Offices
 Brady faced regular challenges interacting with David Weiss’s office in Delaware.
 Communication issues began early and required direct involvement from both U.S. Attorneys to
resolve.
 Brady expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and cooperation from Weiss’s team.
Title of Section 7: Deviations from Standard Investigative Practices
 Weiss’s office deviated from standard practices, shielding Hunter Biden from scrutiny.
 Brady’s team struggled to obtain necessary information from Weiss’s office, leading to written
interrogatories.
 The unusual communication dynamics hindered effective collaboration between the offices.
Title of Section 8: Slow-Walking of Investigative Actions
 SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler reported unjustified delays in the Hunter Biden investigation.
 Requests for overt actions were slow-walked to avoid political sensitivities during the election
cycle.
 Investigators felt pressured by the impending election, impacting their ability to proceed with
the case.
Page 48 of 63

Title of Section 9: Specific Instances of Delayed Action
 Investigators prepared to seek search warrants in March 2020 but faced delays after Biden
became the presumptive nominee.
 By June 2020, it was evident that the Justice Department was intentionally delaying the
investigation.
 Shapley raised concerns about discrepancies between normal procedures and the handling of
the Hunter Biden case.
Title of Section 10: Evidence of Political Influence on Investigative Decisions
 AUSA Wolf prohibited investigators from looking into messages involving now-President Biden.
 Investigators sought location data to establish probable cause but were denied.
 Documents revealed attempts to redact references to Joe Biden in search warrant attachments,
indicating efforts to shield him from scrutiny.
Pages - 221 -- 230
Title of Section 1: Search Warrant Considerations
 SSA Shapley perceived AUSA Wolf's reluctance to pursue a search warrant for Joe Biden’s guest
house as an excuse to avoid the effort.
 AUSA Wolf indicated that "optics" influenced the decision-making process regarding executing
search warrants.
 Prosecutors aimed to remove Hunter Biden's name from various legal documents to increase
approval chances.
Title of Section 2: Investigative Actions Paused
 In September 2020, Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue ordered a halt to overt
investigative actions due to the upcoming election.
 SA Ziegler testified that the IRS was instructed to pause all overt activities, which they found
inappropriate.
 The FBI imposed restrictions on interviews, delaying planned investigative actions until after the
election.
Page 49 of 63

Title of Section 3: Search Warrant Decisions
 On October 22, 2020, AUSA Wolf stated that U.S. Attorney Weiss acknowledged probable cause
to search Hunter Biden’s residence but chose not to pursue it.
 Both SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler had never encountered a prosecutor who cited optics as a
reason for not executing a search warrant.
Title of Section 4: Obstruction of Evidence Collection
 AUSA Wolf informed Hunter Biden's defense attorneys about an impending search warrant for
his storage unit, compromising the investigation.
 SA Ziegler expressed concerns over AUSA Wolf's preference for alternative methods to obtain
evidence, which he deemed unethical.
 Ultimately, investigators could not execute the search warrant due to prior notification to the
defense.
Title of Section 5: Special Treatment for Hunter Biden
 Testimonies revealed that Hunter Biden received preferential treatment during the
investigation, including advance notice of interviews.
 Investigators were frustrated by the Justice Department's interference, which hindered their
ability to conduct interviews and gather evidence.
Title of Section 6: Restrictions on Witness Interviews
 AUSA Wolf prohibited investigators from asking about Joe Biden during witness interviews,
despite relevant communications involving him.
 Investigators faced delays in conducting interviews with key witnesses, including Hunter Biden's
children, due to directives from prosecutors.
Title of Section 7: Slow Progress of Investigation
 Multiple testimonies indicated that the investigation into Hunter Biden was being deliberately
slowed down by the DOJ.
 SAC Sobocinski and ASAC Holley expressed frustration over the slow pace, emphasizing the need
for resolution.
Title of Section 8: Prosecution Recommendations
 Evidence suggested that Hunter Biden willfully evaded federal income taxes, with specific
recommendations for prosecution under Title 26 USC.
 AUSA Wolf agreed with the prosecution recommendation for charges against Hunter Biden,
indicating acknowledgment of substantive criminal conduct.
Page 50 of 63

Title of Section 9: Venue and Jurisdiction Issues
 Venue for potential charges against Hunter Biden would vary based on tax years, with some
charges applicable in D.C. and others in California.
 U.S. Attorney Weiss sought special attorney status to file charges outside Delaware but was
instructed to collaborate with other U.S. Attorneys instead.
Title of Section 10: Conclusion and Ongoing Challenges
 The investigation faced numerous roadblocks, leading to perceptions of preferential treatment

for Hunter Biden.
 Despite acknowledging the prolonged nature of the investigation, Special Counsel Weiss did not
provide a timeline for its conclusion, highlighting ongoing challenges in prosecuting the case.
Pages - 231 -- 240
Title of Section 1: Initial Discussions on Jurisdiction and Investigation
 U.S. Attorney Weiss was advised to follow the typical process for bringing a case in D.C., which
involved contacting the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves.
 Weiss raised the idea of seeking § 515 authority due to his ongoing investigation but was
encouraged to reach out to D.C. first.
 A month later, Weiss contacted Graves to discuss potential charges in D.C., with differing
accounts of their conversation emerging from both parties.
Title of Section 2: Divergent Accounts of the Call Between Weiss and Graves
 Special Counsel Weiss claimed he asked Graves to partner on the case and inquire about co-
counseling.
 Weiss stated he did not recall asking for administrative support during the call.
 Conversely, Graves testified that Weiss requested administrative support and suggested
partnering on prosecution.
Title of Section 3: Decision-Making Process in D.C.
 After discussions, Graves informed his team they needed to decide quickly on partnering due to
impending statute of limitations issues.
 Graves's team analyzed the case for three weeks but he personally did not review any materials.
 On March 19, 2022, Graves decided against partnering with Weiss’s office, opting instead to
offer administrative support.
Page 51 of 63

Title of Section 4: Subsequent Attempts to Partner with Other U.S. Attorneys
 Following Graves's refusal, Weiss sought to partner with Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie
Christensen in California in August 2022.
 Estrada, the new U.S. Attorney, learned of Weiss's request and found that his staff
recommended against partnering.
 Estrada ultimately agreed with his staff's recommendation and declined to partner with Weiss.
Title of Section 5: Resource Constraints in the Central District of California
 U.S. Attorney Estrada cited significant resource constraints in his district, including being down
40 AUSAs.
 He highlighted pressing issues such as a fentanyl epidemic and violent crime, which required
prioritization of resources.
 Estrada emphasized the need to focus on local crime issues rather than taking on additional
cases like Hunter Biden's.
Title of Section 6: Communication and Decisions Regarding Hunter Biden's Case
 Estrada communicated his decision not to partner with Weiss directly, instead instructing his
prosecutors to relay the message.
 Weiss learned of this decision through his staff, leaving him unable to bring charges in D.C. or
elsewhere.
 The Justice Department's denial of Weiss's request for § 515 authority further complicated the
situation.
Title of Section 7: Statute of Limitations and Prosecutorial Delays
 Prosecutors held a "tax summit" in October 2021, agreeing to recommend charges against
Hunter Biden for tax years 2014-2019.
 Despite initial recommendations, the Biden Justice Department later changed its stance, leading
to the expiration of the statute of limitations for 2014 and 2015 charges.
 Whistleblowers indicated that the DOJ allowed the statute of limitations to lapse, which is
considered abnormal in active investigations.
Page 52 of 63

Title of Section 8: Misleading Statements by DOJ Officials
 Attorney General Garland and U.S. Attorney Weiss made statements asserting that Weiss had
full authority over the Hunter Biden investigation.
 Evidence suggests that Weiss required multiple approvals from other U.S. Attorneys and
divisions within the DOJ before proceeding with charges.
 This discrepancy raises concerns about the level of oversight and control exerted by political
appointees over the investigation.
Title of Section 9: Conflicts of Interest in the Investigation
 Weiss, appointed by Trump but retained by the Biden administration, faced inherent conflicts of
interest given the nature of the investigation involving President Biden's son.
 Weiss's attempts to obtain special attorney status for filing charges outside Delaware were
denied by the Biden Justice Department.
 The narrative presented by Garland and Weiss regarding Weiss's authority contrasts sharply
with the operational realities described by various officials.
Title of Section 10: Conclusion on Authority and Oversight
 The Committees have found that Weiss did not maintain ultimate authority over the Hunter
Biden matter, contrary to public assertions.
 The complex approval process required for Weiss to file charges indicates significant oversight
from the Biden administration.
 The investigation's handling raises questions about transparency and accountability within the
DOJ concerning politically sensitive cases.
Pages - 241 -- 250
Title of Section 1: U.S. Attorney Weiss's Shifting Statements
 U.S. Attorney Weiss initially claimed he had ultimate authority over filing charges in the Hunter
Biden case.
 In a June 30 letter, Weiss stated his authority was limited to Delaware and that he would need
to collaborate with other U.S. Attorneys for cases outside his district.
 By July 10, Weiss acknowledged discussions about seeking Special Attorney status, which would
allow him to file charges independently outside Delaware.
 These inconsistent statements raise concerns about potential political influences affecting the
investigation.
Page 53 of 63

Title of Section 2: Whistleblower Testimony Contradicts Official Statements
 SSA Shapley testified that by fall 2022, it was clear that Justice Department decisions were being
made to conceal investigation results.
 On October 7, 2022, Weiss admitted to his prosecution team that he did not have "ultimate
authority" over the Hunter Biden investigation.
 Weiss revealed that he was denied special counsel authority by the Main DOJ, contradicting
earlier claims of having full control.
Title of Section 3: Investigative Process and Political Influence
 Shapley's notes indicated that investigative work was essentially complete as of October 7,
2022.
 The meeting on that date marked a turning point, leading Shapley to become a whistleblower
due to perceived prosecutorial misconduct.
 Both IRS and FBI officials confirmed that no significant progress was made post-October 7,
indicating a halt in the investigation.
Title of Section 4: Cover-Up Attempts by the Biden Justice Department
 Evidence suggests the Biden Justice Department influenced the IRS investigation into Hunter
Biden, shutting down inquiries and allowing statutes of limitations to lapse.
 After whistleblowers came forward, the DOJ attempted to push through a lenient plea
agreement that ultimately failed in court.
 The DOJ's inconsistent statements regarding the independence of the investigation raised
further concerns about preferential treatment for Hunter Biden.
Title of Section 5: The Failed Plea Agreement
 U.S. Attorney Weiss proposed a plea deal involving only two misdemeanor tax crimes after a
lengthy investigation.
 This deal was significantly less severe than initial recommendations for multiple felony charges.
 The timing of the plea announcement coincided with the release of whistleblower testimony,
suggesting an attempt to mitigate public backlash.
Page 54 of 63

Title of Section 6: Legal Maneuvering by Hunter Biden’s Defense Team
 Hunter Biden's attorney pressured the DOJ to conclude the investigation and threatened career
repercussions for prosecutors if they continued.
 The plea agreement included unusual provisions that raised constitutional concerns, particularly
regarding judicial involvement in prosecutorial discretion.
 Judge Noreika expressed skepticism about the legality and standard practices surrounding the
plea agreement during the court hearing.
Title of Section 7: Judicial Concerns Over the Plea Deal
 Judge Noreika highlighted nonstandard terms in the plea agreement, including broad immunity
provisions that could shield Hunter Biden from unrelated charges.
 She questioned the constitutionality of requiring judicial approval for future prosecutions based
on the diversion agreement.
 The judge ultimately rejected the plea deal, citing concerns over its structure and implications
for separation of powers.
Title of Section 8: Implications of the Failed Plea Agreement
 The collapse of the plea deal underscored the extent to which the DOJ deviated from standard
practices in favor of Hunter Biden.
 Weiss's refusal to comment on the judge's rejection of the plea deal indicated a lack of
accountability within the DOJ.
 The failed agreement illustrated the challenges faced by the DOJ in pursuing serious charges
against Hunter Biden.
Title of Section 9: Retaliation Against Whistleblowers
 Hunter Biden's legal team engaged in efforts to intimidate IRS whistleblowers who disclosed
irregularities in the investigation.
 They suggested that the whistleblowers should be prosecuted for their disclosures, raising
concerns about obstruction of justice.
 Such tactics reflect Hunter Biden's belief that he can influence the investigation to his
advantage.
Page 55 of 63

Title of Section 10: Conclusion on Investigation Integrity
 The evidence gathered indicates that the DOJ had little intention of acting on allegations against
Hunter Biden until forced by external pressures.
 The actions of the whistleblowers were crucial in bringing transparency to the investigation
process.
 Without these disclosures, it is likely that the DOJ would have continued to avoid serious action
against Hunter Biden, highlighting systemic issues within the department.
Pages - 251 -- 260
Whistleblower Allegations and Legal Actions Against Them
 SSA Shapley asserts he has “never leaked confidential taxpayer information.”
 Hunter Biden's lawyers have urged the Justice Department to prosecute whistleblowers for
disclosing investigation details to Congress.
 Chris Clark, Hunter Biden’s attorney, accused SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler of illegal leaks and
demanded investigations into them.
 Hunter Biden filed a lawsuit against the IRS claiming unlawful disclosure of his tax return
information, which is deemed meritless as the disclosures were lawful.
 SSA Shapley and SA Ziegler sought to intervene in the lawsuit to protect their interests and
assert the legality of their whistleblower activities.
Intimidation Tactics Against Potential Witnesses
 On October 7, 2023, Hunter Biden's attorney requested an investigation into Tony Bobulinski, a
former business partner who could provide damaging testimony.
 Bobulinski previously identified President Biden as the "big guy" in a business deal with a
Chinese company linked to the Communist Party.
 The request for an investigation into Bobulinski is seen as an attempt to intimidate a potential
witness.
Campaign Against Whistleblowers by Hunter Biden's Lawyers
 Hunter Biden's legal team has been accused of attempting to intimidate whistleblowers who
made protected disclosures to Congress.
 They are seeking prosecution of witnesses for lawful disclosures that could harm Hunter Biden's
reputation.
Page 56 of 63

Influence of President Biden on Justice Department Investigations
 President Biden and senior officials have publicly stated Hunter Biden's innocence, potentially
influencing the Justice Department's investigation.
 Statements from the President risk undermining the impartiality of the investigation into Hunter
Biden, which implicates the President himself.
 A CNN producer reported that Hunter Biden expected the investigation to cease once his father
became President.
Public Statements by President Biden Regarding Hunter Biden's Innocence
 President Biden has repeatedly defended Hunter Biden, asserting confidence in his son's actions
and denying any wrongdoing.
 Despite these public assertions, Hunter Biden has faced multiple indictments for serious
offenses, contradicting the claims of innocence made by the President and his staff.
Evidence Contradicting Claims of Innocence
 Evidence gathered by Committees suggests significant criminal activity by Hunter Biden,

contrary to public statements of innocence from President Biden and his administration.
 The President's comments may signal to prosecutors that the investigation lacks merit,
impacting the Justice Department's operations.
Justice Department's Treatment of Hunter Biden's Case
 Initially, the Justice Department provided preferential treatment to Hunter Biden due to his
familial connections.
 Following public exposure of this preferential treatment, the Department began treating the
case more like standard criminal matters.
 Special Counsel status was granted to U.S. Attorney Weiss to continue the investigation after a
failed plea deal.
Indictments and Legal Proceedings Against Hunter Biden
 Hunter Biden was indicted on multiple felony firearm offenses and later faced additional charges
related to tax evasion.
 His motions to dismiss the indictments were largely denied by judges, highlighting the lack of
evidence supporting his claims of selective prosecution.
Page 57 of 63

Obstruction by the Justice Department in Congressional Oversight
 The Biden Justice Department has been accused of obstructing congressional inquiries by
limiting document production and witness testimonies.
 The Department cited ongoing investigations as a reason for non-compliance with requests for
information from congressional committees.
Legal Disputes Over Congressional Subpoenas
 Hunter Biden was subpoenaed to testify before Congress regarding suspicious transactions
involving foreign individuals.
 The Justice Department's refusal to comply with subpoenas has led to legal action by
congressional committees to enforce compliance.
 Judge Reyes criticized the Department for its hypocrisy in failing to adhere to congressional
subpoenas while prosecuting others for similar defiance.
Pages - 261 -- 270
Title of Section 1: Hunter Biden's Subpoena Defiance
 On November 28, 2023, Hunter Biden’s attorney requested a public hearing instead of
complying with a deposition subpoena.
 Chairmen Comer and Jordan emphasized Congress's authority to compel testimony on

December 1, 2023.
 Hunter Biden reiterated his refusal to comply with the subpoena on December 6, 2023, insisting
on a public hearing.
Title of Section 2: Consequences of Non-Compliance
 On December 13, 2023, Hunter Biden did not appear for his deposition but read a prepared
statement outside the Capitol.
 In his statement, he denied allegations against him and his family, asserting that President Biden
was not financially involved in his business dealings.
 The Committees threatened contempt of Congress proceedings if Hunter Biden continued to

defy the subpoenas.
Page 58 of 63

Title of Section 3: Presidential Knowledge and Implications
 An official White House statement indicated President Biden was aware of Hunter's decision to
defy the subpoenas.
 Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed the President's familiarity with Hunter's planned
remarks.
 This raised questions about whether President Biden instructed Hunter to defy the subpoenas
and if he assured him of immunity from prosecution.
Title of Section 4: Congressional Requests for Information
 On December 27, 2023, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees sought information from the
White House regarding President Biden’s prior knowledge of Hunter's actions.
 The White House did not comply with this request, further complicating the investigation.
Title of Section 5: Contempt Proceedings Initiated
 On January 5, 2024, Chairmen Comer and Jordan announced plans to hold a markup on January
10 to consider resolutions recommending Hunter Biden be held in contempt of Congress.
 Despite initially defying the subpoena, Hunter Biden made a surprise appearance at the
Committee before the markup could begin.
Title of Section 6: Hunter Biden's Deposition Agreement
 Following the contempt recommendation, Hunter Biden agreed to appear for a deposition on
February 28, 2024.
 After the deposition, Chairman Comer invited Hunter and his associates to testify regarding Joe
Biden’s alleged involvement in their business dealings, which Hunter declined.
Title of Section 7: Evidence of False Testimony
 On June 5, 2024, the Committees sent a criminal referral to Attorney General Merrick Garland
and Special Counsel David Weiss regarding false testimonies by Hunter and James Biden.
 The referral suggested a calculated effort to protect Joe Biden from the impeachment inquiry.
Title of Section 8: Financial Transactions and Foreign Influence
 Hunter Biden benefited from foreign payments funneled into the Rosemont Seneca Bohai
account, particularly from Russian billionaire Yelena Baturina.
 Payments from Burisma were also directed to the RSB account, raising concerns about the
nature of these transactions and their timing relative to Joe Biden's meetings with foreign
individuals.
Page 59 of 63

Title of Section 9: Hunter Biden's Attempt to Distance Himself
 During his deposition, Hunter Biden provided conflicting statements about his involvement with
RSB and its bank accounts.
 He claimed no control or knowledge of the RSB account, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.
Title of Section 10: SEC Investigations and Tribal Bond Scheme
 The SEC investigated a tribal bond scheme involving Hunter Biden’s associates, leading to
subpoenas for documents related to RSB.
 Hunter Biden's connection to RSB was highlighted as part of the broader investigation into
fraudulent activities linked to tribal bonds.
Pages - 271 -- 280
Corporate Resolution and Hunter Biden's Role
 Hunter Biden identifies himself as "the duly elected, qualified, and acting Secretary of Rosemont
Seneca Bohai LLC."
 A corporate resolution was adopted authorizing Hunter Biden to enter into a contractual
obligation with Gvoxe Prix Motors.
 The resolution was signed on April 29, 2014.
SEC Subpoena and Investigation
 On March 16, 2016, the SEC issued a subpoena to Hunter Biden regarding Hughes Capital
Management.
 The subpoena required documents related to payments made to or received from RSB and any
ownership interests held by Hunter Biden.
 Hunter Biden's counsel emphasized the importance of confidentiality due to his father's position
as Vice President.
Exclusion from SEC Indictments
 On May 11, 2016, the SEC announced indictments related to a tribal bond scheme but did not
mention Hunter Biden.
 Hunter Biden invoked his father's title to deter investigations into his involvement in RSB.
Page 60 of 63

Criminal Referral for False Statements
 On June 5, 2024, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees referred Hunter Biden to the Justice
Department for lying under oath.
 Bank records indicated foreign companies wired millions into the RSB account intended for
Hunter Biden, contradicting his claims of no affiliation.
False Testimony Regarding RSB Account
 Hunter Biden denied knowledge of foreign payments into the RSB account during his deposition.
 His statements were contradicted by documents he signed, indicating he was the beneficial
owner and secretary of RSB.
James Biden's False Statements to Congress
 James Biden denied attending a meeting with Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Tony Bobulinski at
the Beverly Hilton Hotel on May 2, 2017.
 Evidence, including text messages, confirmed the meeting occurred, contradicting James Biden's
testimony.
Obstruction of Jason Galanis's Testimony
 The Biden Justice Department allegedly obstructed Jason Galanis's case to prevent him from
testifying about Hunter Biden's crimes.
 Galanis was sentenced for fraudulent schemes involving tribal bonds and claimed he had
information implicating Hunter Biden.
Denial of Home Confinement for Galanis
 Galanis applied for home confinement under the CARES Act, which was initially approved but
later denied after congressional inquiries began.
 The timing of the denial raised concerns about political motivations behind the decision.
Allegations of Retaliation Against Galanis
 Galanis reported being a victim of sexual harassment and assault while in BOP custody, with
ongoing investigations into the allegations.
 He claimed that his willingness to testify against the Biden family led to retaliation from the DOJ.
Page 61 of 63

Conclusion: Obstruction and Abuse of Power
 President Biden is accused of obstructing congressional inquiries and investigations into Hunter
Biden's activities.
 The Biden Justice Department allegedly acted in concert with Hunter Biden, delaying
investigations and allowing statutes of limitations to lapse.
 The situation raises serious concerns about corruption and the need for constitutional remedies.
Pages - 281 -- 290
Impeachment Allegations Against President Biden
 Joe Biden's actions are seen as violations of the impeachment provisions in the Constitution,
specifically regarding "abuse of power, foreign entanglements, corruption, and obstruction of
investigations."
 The Committees' investigation suggests that the Biden family has engaged in a "global influence
peddling racket" with President Biden's knowledge and cooperation.
 The Biden family's dealings involved adversarial nations like China and Russia, indicating
significant foreign entanglements.
 To conceal Joe Biden's involvement, the family used "an extensive network of shell or third
parties’ companies," code names, and other tactics for "plausible deniability."
Obstruction and Evolving Narratives
 The Biden administration has attempted to suppress evidence of the President's involvement in
his family's business dealings.
 Whenever new evidence emerged contradicting the White House's narrative, the administration
altered its story.
 President Biden has struggled to maintain a consistent account of his role, leading to "outlandish
statements and outright denials" that conflict with documented evidence.
Page 62 of 63

Evidence of Corruption and Accountability
 Testimonies and documents indicate that President Biden was aware of, participated in, and
benefited from his family's influence peddling activities.
 Despite avoiding accountability thus far, the Committees aim to ensure that political influence is
not commodified and that public officials prioritize national interests over personal gain.
 The inquiry has revealed that Biden abused his public office by prioritizing his family's financial
interests.
 The ongoing fact-finding efforts are hindered by President Biden's obstruction, yet the evidence
collected so far constitutes "impeachable conduct."
 The Committees are presenting their findings to the House of Representatives for further
evaluation and potential action.
Pages - 291 -- 300
Page 63 of 63

BidenImpeachmentScribd 20240824

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BidenImpeachmentScribd 20240824

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BidenImpeachmentScribd 20240824

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biden Impeachment Inquiry – Congress – Summary – 20240824

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Here are the 10 biggest points made in the report:

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

See all of our indispensable summarized books at:

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Title of Section 1: Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

Title of Section 2: Evidence of Corruption

Title of Section 3: Concealment Efforts by the Biden Family

Title of Section 4: Leveraging Political Influence

Title of Section 5: Abuse of Office and National Interest

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Title of Section 6: Mishandling of Classified Information

Title of Section 7: Justice Department's Treatment of Hunter Biden

Title of Section 8: Obstruction of the Impeachment Inquiry

 The Biden Administration allegedly obstructed the impeachment inquiry by withholding

Title of Section 9: Summary of Findings

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Title of Section 10: Procedural Background of the Inquiry

 Whistleblower testimonies revealed the Biden Administration's obstruction of the investigation

Questions you may be interested in:

The Constitutional Standard for Impeachment

 Abuse of power is an impeachable offense encompassing self-dealing, obstruction, and misuse

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Betrayal of National Interest

 Betrayal of national interest through foreign entanglements is another form of impeachable

False Denials and Obstruction

Obstruction of Justice or Congress

 Obstruction of justice or Congress is another impeachable offense involving corrupt attempts to

Impediment of Impeachment Inquiry

 Impeding an impeachment inquiry can also amount to obstruction.

Evidence of Influence Peddling

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Nature of the Biden Family Business Model

Financial Transactions and Patterns

 No discernible services justified the substantial payments received by the Bidens.

Role of Joe Biden in Influence Peddling

Title of Section 1: Hunter Biden's Reluctance to Sign Over Family Brand

 He emphasized the importance of reading documents carefully, indicating a strong reluctance to

Title of Section 2: Attempted Board Position for Joe Biden

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Title of Section 3: Secrecy and Code in Business Communications

Title of Section 4: Evidence of Joe Biden's Involvement

Title of Section 5: Hunter Biden's Communication with Business Partners

Title of Section 6: Testimonies Contradicting Hunter Biden's Claims

Title of Section 7: Concealment of Joe Biden's Role

Title of Section 8: Financial Gains from Foreign Sources

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Title of Section 9: Breakdown of Payments from Various Countries

Title of Section 10: Implications of Influence-Peddling

 The documented payments and communications illustrate a pattern of leveraging familial

Title of Section 1: Financial Transactions Involving Bladon Enterprises Limited

 Robert Biden is frequently listed as a recipient in these transactions.

Title of Section 2: Payments from Stanhope Worldwide Services

Title of Section 3: Minor Biden Child Transactions

Want More Summaries Like This? Register!

Title of Section 4: Concealment of Foreign Funding Sources

Title of Section 5: CEFC and State Energy HK Payments

Title of Section 6: Structure of Payments to Hunter Biden