Hunter Biden is set to appear before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee by December 4, as confirmed by the committee’s Chair, James Comer. Comer, who represents Kentucky, announced this during a recent interview.
The committee, under Comer’s direction, has issued subpoenas to Hunter Biden and several of President Joe Biden’s family members and associates. This action forms part of an investigation into allegations of influence trading linked to the President’s family.
Comer expressed his expectations for Hunter Biden’s appearance before the committee, stating a deadline of December 4. Despite not having received a response from Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Comer remains confident about the subpoena’s effectiveness, especially following a retaliatory legal move against former President Donald Trump linked to Hunter Biden’s federal gun case.
Comer criticized the Biden family’s alleged attempts to deflect blame onto Trump for their financial dealings with China and Romania. He emphasized the committee’s readiness to question Hunter Biden, citing possession of bank records that could potentially reveal more about these transactions.
One of the individuals summoned by the committee is entertainment attorney Kevin Morris. Morris is reported to have provided Hunter Biden with substantial financial assistance to settle IRS debts. Comer suspects Morris’s involvement in what he believes to be an ongoing influence peddling operation occurring during Joe Biden’s presidency.
The committee’s investigation has uncovered financial records indicating the creation of over 20 shell companies by the Biden family, most of which were established during Joe Biden’s vice presidency in the Obama administration. These companies are suspected of being used to obscure payments from foreign entities.
Comer also highlighted recent financial transactions involving the Biden family, totaling half a million dollars, which the White House has described as loans from various sources. He expressed skepticism over these explanations, noting the lack of evidence of repayment or interest on these so-called loans, and suggested that these funds might be tied to influence peddling activities.
