Hunter Biden’s attorney is playing hardball with the GOP-led House Oversight Committee, refusing a request to turn over records from Hunter relating to President Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in his son’s shady overseas business deals, claiming the committee doesn’t have the power to demand them.
Attorney Abbe Lowell cited a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found the then-Democrat-led House was too broad in its requests for former President Donald Trump’s tax returns and financial records. The demands, according to the court, “threatened the constitutional separation of powers,” the New York Post reported.
Referencing “Alice in Wonderland,” Lowell wrote a four-page letter to Oversight Committee chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) in which he called the Committee’s probe of the first son “baseless.”
“Peddling your own inaccurate and baseless conclusions under the guise of a real investigation, turns the Committee into ‘Wonderland’ and you into the Queen of Hearts shouting, ‘sentence first, verdict afterwards,’” he wrote, according to CBS News.
“While your Letter attempts to demonstrate ‘legislative purpose’ for investigating Mr. Biden, it fails nevertheless to address that the Committee’s scope of oversight is limited when dealing with private persons like our client,” he continued. “Rather than engage in back-and-forth letter writing campaigns or any formal proceedings, I would offer to sit with you and your staff, including the ranking member and his staff, to see whether Mr. Biden has information that may inform some legitimate legislative purpose and be helpful to the Committee. I hope that you will engage in this effort.”
In his request for the documents, Comer accused Hunter Biden and his associates of having “peddled influence to generate millions of dollars for the Biden family,” The Post reports.
“Evidence shows that you engaged in foreign business deals with individuals who were connected to the Chinese Communist Party and received significant amounts of money from foreign companies without providing any known legitimate services,” Comer wrote. “You and your associates’ financial conduct raises significant ethics and national security concerns. The Committee requests documents and communications related to our investigation of President Biden’s involvement in your financial conduct.”
The information, Comer argued, was needed by the Committee to determine if President Biden “has compromised our national security at the expense of the American people.”
Lowell’s defiance is the latest move in what appears to be a more aggressive strategy adopted by Hunter Biden’s legal team.
As BizPac Review reported, earlier this month, Lowell fired off a series of letters to the Justice Department and Delaware’s attorney general, demanding that Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, and John Paul Mac Isaac, who owned the computer shop where Hunter abandoned his laptop, be investigated for disseminating the data recovered from the device.
Comer gave Hunter Biden’s team until Feb. 22 to turn over relevant documents dated between Jan. 20, 2009, and Jan. 20, 2021 — the dates Joe Biden was sworn in as Vice President and President, respectively.
Given the scandalous discovery of classified documents found in President Biden’s possession, Comer also requested from Hunter’s attorneys “any document, record, or communication designated classified by any government body, including but not limited to any constituent agency of the US Intelligence Community.”
Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden, and a former business partner of Hunter’s, Eric Schwerin, received similar requests.
Prior to Lowell’s refusal to comply with his request, Comer wrote on Twitter, “The American people deserve transparency and accountability about the Biden family’s influence peddling.”I’m now calling on Hunter Biden, James Biden, and Eric Schwerin to provide @GOPoversight documents, records, and communications critical to this investigation.”
After Lowell’s rebuke, the Kentucky lawmaker retweeted legal analyst Jonathan Turley, who wrote, “Abbe Lowell contested the legitimacy of the inquiry, which could set up a potential subpoena fight.”
“Congress,” Turley stated, “would have the advantage in that conflict.”
