Below is my column in The Hill on Kevin Morris and the expanding number of roles that he now claims to be playing from lawyer to producer to donor to friend. The multiplicity of roles could present serious problems for Morris as the Biden corruption scandal continues.*
Here is the column:
“Who was the real me? I can only repeat: I was a man of many faces.”
Those words by author Milan Kundera could well have been written for Kevin Morris, a critical figure in the unfolding Hunter Biden scandal.
Morris was largely unknown to most people until he emerged as the Democratic donor who reportedly paid Hunter Biden millions to handle his unpaid taxes and maintain his lavish lifestyle. The Hollywood lawyer and producer portrayed himself as a good Samaritan on a biblical scale — a good man who simply found a desperate stranger on the road and gave him more than $5 million.
His counsel, Bryan M. Sullivan stated that “Hunter is not only a client of Kevin’s, he is his friend and there is no prohibition against helping a friend in need, despite the inability of these Republican chairmen and their allies to imagine such a thing.”
The statement captures the problem for Morris. It is increasingly hard to determine what Morris was at any given moment: Democratic donor, lawyer, friend. Indeed, that problem that some of us have raised for months.
Lawyers are not supposed to pay the bills of their clients. Specifically, California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.” They are required to maintain clear representational boundaries. This is also now the subject of a new bar complaint filed by a conservative legal group this week.
Friends have described Morris as a “rule-breaker” and admit that his relationship with Hunter raises eyebrows. “Certainly it’s not careful, but he’s a gunslinger,” one told the Los Angeles Times. “This is how he rolls.”
But the legal ethics rules are designed to avoid gunslinging generally and ambiguity specifically.
Hunter calls him both his lawyer and his “brother.” Lead counsel Abbe Lowell observed, “I have never in any of my representations of any other client — other than someone who is an immediate family member of one of my clients — known anyone who is like Kevin.”
When the relationship began, Morris was playing the role of loyal Democratic donor.
He was introduced to Hunter at a 2019 political fundraiser by another producer and Democratic deep pocket, Lanette Phillips. Soon thereafter, Morris was giving Hunter copious amounts of money and legal advice. That would include reportedly paying off Hunter’s long-delinquent taxes before criminal charges were filed. It also included paying for Hunter’s lavish lifestyle.
Morris may be most eager to avoid the label “democratic donor” because these payments could be viewed as an unreported campaign donation. Morris was brought in during Joe Biden’s campaign for president. Then, on February 7, 2020, Morris flagged how the taxes represented a “considerable risk personally and politically.” He seems to have sought to resolve that political liability by paying off the taxes and calling it a “loan.”
Those “loans” would continue, and Morris insists that it was all standard “loan” stuff. Except he is not a bank. He was repeatedly referring to Hunter as his “client.”
It is also important that these millions are treated as loans because, if they are actually gifts, they could create a new tax problem. Hunter has to declare such “gifts.”
Few would view Hunter as a good risk for a loan, given his history of stiffing a wide array of businesses and associates. Indeed, he reportedly even faced a complaint over failure to pay for alleged high-end prostitutes. He was even accused of using a credit card connected to his father to pay off an alleged Russian call-girl. Even the art dealer who recently sold Hunter’s art reportedly testified that Hunter never reimbursed him for the costs of the shows.
That art adds an interesting twist to the mysterious role of Morris. Recently, art dealer Georges Bergès blew away White House claims that Hunter had been barred from knowing the names of purchasers under a comprehensive ethics system. He admitted that Hunter knew the identity of 70 percent of the purchasers.
It was not hard. Despite news reports of buyers flocking to buy the art, it turns out it was largely Morris who bought the art. Notably, however, Morris only reportedly paid Bergès’ 40 percent commission on the $875,000 purchases. It is not clear whether Morris used the sales to wipe out part of the loan debt.
That would be a clever way to treat the money as a loan, if it were used for that purpose. You simply have Hunter crank out dubious pieces of art and arrange for an ally to throw art shows in New York. You then have media allies write how buyers were “floored” by Hunter’s talent.
Finally, you pay the commission on the excessive prices for the art while writing off the value of the art as a type of in-kind payment of the loan. While many mocked at the Pablo Picasso-level pricing of Hunter’s art pieces (some works approached half a million dollars), those inflated prices would be useful to count as direct or indirect payments for the loans.
We still do not know how these purchases or the loans were treated, and whether Morris was acting as a donor, friend, or lawyer. Now, Morris is adding a new role to this pile of identities, reportedly supporting a new movie on Hunter Biden.
Call it “Mr. Biden Goes to Washington,” an effective rewrite of Frank Capra’s classic, only the corrupt establishment apparently wins.
In the movie, a young novice appointed to the U.S. Senate fights the corruption of Washington, where his senior senator has sold access and influence to James Taylor, a wealthy businessman. Taylor scoffs at the notion that the establishment can be challenged. After all, they control the media, and what the public will read and hear. As Taylor assured the senior senator, “I’ll make public opinion out there within five hours! I’ve done it all my life…You leave public opinion to me.”
Morris is still fighting to shape public opinion, and, in Hollywood, movies make reality.
Morris “makes public opinion,” and the media can be expected, again, to assist in those efforts.
Many in Washington believe that Hunter’s stunts in holding a press conference defying his subpoena, and later crashing his own contempt hearing, were literally made-for-television moments. These scenes were captured on film and will no doubt be featured in the new film on his heroic struggle.
The question is the audience for the film. Clearly, in the Beltway, audiences are likely to be sobbing with emotion as Hunter fights against inquiries into influence peddling. They will cheer at Joe Biden’s moment channeling John Wayne, when he declared, “No one f**ks with a Biden.”
However, most audience members would not have felt the same thrill if, at the end of the original movie, the corrupt Sen. Joseph Paine and the wealthy Taylor had emerged as the victors, fighting off the do-gooders and “boy rangers” supporting Jimmy Stewart’s main character.
The question is also who would play Morris — or more accurately, how many would have to play this “man with many faces.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
*Update: After this column ran, counsel for Morris sent me a letter threatening a possible defamation lawsuit while raising exceptions to the general rule against lawyers paying personal costs of clients. Morris appears to object to my statement that “Lawyers are not supposed to pay the bills of their clients…They are required to maintain clear representational boundaries.” He maintains that he is entirely in compliance with ethics rules, which allow for payments, loans, and business transactions with clients under certain circumstances. He cites exceptions to California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a). I have posted a long analysis of the provisions cited by Morris and why I do not see how they would ameliorate the alleged payments and loans in this controversy. You can read that analysis here.
Jonathan: So what are the “many faces” of Kevin Morris and why does he deserve a whole column? Morris is an entertainment lawyer, makes documentaries and movies, is a big Dem donor and befriended Hunter Biden. That makes Morris automatically a target for a column by you.
The Q is whether there is any basis in fact to charge Morris with violating Calif. Bar Rule 1.8.5(a)? In its complaint letter, America First Legal admits “it appears that Kevin Morris may not have had an attorney-client relationship with Hunter Biden”. You also admit as much in your column. Nowhere in its complaint does AFL any evidence of an attorney-client relationship. Any evidence that Morris is the attorney of record in any of Hunter’s legal cases? Hunter’s messy divorce, the criminal prosecutions or the Comer investigation where Abbe Lowell represents Hunter? Nope. So what is this really all about?
First, who is AFL that filed the complaint with the Calif. State Bar? The America First Legal Foundation was launched in 2021 by Steven Miller, DJT’s WH hard-right senior advisor on immigration policies. Miller was the driving force behind DJT’s racist “Muslim ban”. In 2018 he told the head of the US Coast Guard to use a Predator drone to bomb a boat full of migrants. The Commandant told Miller he couldn’t do that because it would be a violation of international law. Miller is playing an active role in planning for a send DJT administration that will focus on changing immigration, e.g., limiting asylum, targeting “sanctuary cities” and re-instating the Muslim ban.
Miller and the AFLF are part of the DJT campaign to use Hunter Biden as a vehicle to undermine the Biden administration. Thus the AFLF complaint that makes claims about Kevin Morris that it can’t back up with facts. Comer could clear up the whole thing by releasing the full transcript of Morris’ interview. Will he do that anytime soon? Don’t hold your breath!
?????
Did you notice that the cited California Rule prohibits paying such expenses or benefits “of a prospective OR existing client.”
You probably know that lawyers (by profession) are often sanctioned under the rules for as little as providing legal counsel to a “prospective” client– if not licensed or admitted to the jurisdictional bar or had license “lapse,” etc (of course, (exempting strictly “friendly/personal advice”)?
The Rule itself cited by the good professor explicitly refers to “a client or potential client.”
(which can trigger either an actual or perceived “attorney-client relationship,” as applicable to the particular infringement at issue)
Here you have the best instance you are likely to get of Republicans NOT being able to link Hunter Biden Misconduct and more failures to Joe Biden.
And you ignore that and jump to the CA bar complaint ?
Morris has claimed he is an attorney for Hunter Biden. You do not have to enter your appearance in a case to be someone’s attorney.
In many instances you are doing your job well if there is no court case where you might have to enter your appearance.
Regardless, Morris/Hunter is instructive in many ways.
First Many of the allegations against Morris conflate immoral or unethical conduct with illegal conduct as if they are the same.
It does not appear Morris has done anything Illegal.
At the Same Timep the Morris/Hunter Saga exposes the hypocracy and double standards of those like you.
Morris’s is conduct is not a crime – just as Trump’s NDA’s are not a crime, Just as Paul Manaforts loans are not a crime.
Nor has Morris violated unconstitutional campaign finances laws.
Does any of this make Morris a good person ? Nope.
What Hunter Biden’s dealings with Morris and other democrats calls to mind is
Fortunate Son.
https://youtu.be/6T-6vxLXj9M?list=FLCFZqA6y3FrzStfAIezElbg
It ain’t me, it ain’t me
I ain’t no senator’s son, son
It ain’t me, it ain’t me
I ain’t no fortunate one, no
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don’t they help themselves, no
But when the taxman come to the door
Lord, the house lookin’ like a rummage sale, yeah
“CERTAINLY I WAS TALKING ABOUT WASHINGTON”
FIVE YEAR PLANS AND NEW DEALS, WRAPPED IN GOLDEN CHAINS
WHO’LL STOP THE COMMUNISTS (LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALISTS, DEMOCRATS, RINOS, AINOS)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Who’ll Stop the Rain?”
John Fogerty
Long as I remember, the rain been coming down
Clouds of mystery pouring, confusion on the ground
Good men through the ages, trying to find the sun
I went down Virginia, seeking shelter from the storm
Caught up in the fable, I watched the tower grow
Five year plans and new deals, wrapped in golden chains
Heard the singers playing, how we cheered for more
The crowd had rushed together, trying to keep warm
Still the rain kept pouring, falling on my ears
And I wonder, still I wonder
Who’ll stop the rain
_______________________
When interviewed by Rolling Stone magazine, John Fogerty was asked, “Does ‘Who’ll Stop The Rain’ contain lyrically specific meanings besides the symbolic dimension?” His response: “Certainly, I was talking about Washington when I wrote the song, but I remember bringing the master version of the song home and playing it. My son Josh was four years old at the time, and after he heard it, he said, ‘Daddy stop the rain.’ And my wife and I looked at each other and said, ‘Well, not quite.'”
Who is AFL ? Who cares ? Is their complaint valid ?
Clearly yes.
Is it going anywhere ? No.
Is Miller seeking to undermine the Biden administration ? Certainly. The majority of americans would like to see that succeed.
I have not yet heard a single Republican including Miller or Trump say anything about immigration beyond that they would enforce the laws that exist.
That said they are free to go through congress to change the laws to something that suits them better. That is democracy.
Democrats controlled the house, senate and WH 2021-2022 – if they had wanted to change immigration laws they were free to do so.
I would be happy to see Comer release transcripts quickly. We still have not seen trascripts of many witnesses to the J6 committee or Faux Trump impeachment uno or Deux. In fact members of congress have not seen those transcripts.
In the meantime you, Lowell, Joe, Morris, Hunter can tell us all what Commer is Wrong about
And when the transcripts are released we can find out who was closer to the truth.
Is Miller a partisan Hack likely to hold a position of power in the next Trump administration ? Certainly.
Exactly like Blinken and Andrew Sullivan.
What is the difference ? When Liiler was in the Trump administration the country did relatively well.
While Blinken and Sullivan are part of a Biden administration that can not do anything right.
Why does this not surprise me at all ?
” Former Department of Homeland Security appointee Miles Taylor claims in an upcoming book that senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller asked then-Coast Guard commandant Adm. Paul Zukunft if the US could use drones to slaughter migrants at sea.
One problem: Both men purportedly involved in the conversation say it never happened”
Tom can add that to your list of lies.
JT ran a whole column on the defamation claims of a HD football coach.
Pretty sure a Lawyer entangled in the Biden Crime syndicate warrants atleast as much attention.
Have not heard from you on the Willis Mess in GA ?
The cat fight there is getting pretty interesting.
Joceynn Wade is claiming that Willis attempted to evade service,
That Willis has lied to the court in her motion for a protective order regarding Joceynn’s subpeona – BTW that is a crime, a small one, but still a crime.
That Willis’s own motion makes clear that she has information material to the divorce.
There is also an uncovered interview of Willis where she asserts that as DA she would never have a romantic relationship with anyone working for her and would fire any subordinate that had a romantic relationship within the office.
And as You like broad criminal interpretations, one lawyer pointed out that it can be Argues that the entire Willis/Trump/Rico case can be argued as a corrupt criminal enterprise seeking to transfer to personal benefit, unused covid funds earmarked for the prosecution of the backlog of Covid cases. While this legal claim is a reach – it is less of a reach than Willis’s RICO case against Trump. Just incase it is not clear – the case against Willis is arguably both Federal and RICO.
One of Willis’s potential Defenses ? That as DA she is immune for actions at the outer limits of her official role as DA.
Though it is ieasily arguable that election integrity is withing the domain of the constitutional role of the president. I am not sure how transfering Federal Covid funds to your paramour who then used them to take you on a variety of vacations can possibly be within the scope of the DA’s job.
I do not expect Willis to be prosecuted the case is too much of a stretch, though not half the stretch her case against Trump is.
I do expect that Willis and Wade will be removed. MOst are claiming that will only delay the case, but there are some indications that Trump and company would have to be reindicted, that means a new grand jury, and that would require finding/appointing someone outside the Fulton County DA’s office to take the case who is willing to do so.
Both Democratic prosecutors and republican prosecutors allow their ideological biases to effect how they see the law.
But the Bragg’s and James’s and Willis’s are the exception – even for partisan democrats. Not the rule.
Regardless – even if this proves only a speed bump to proceeding against Trump in GA – which is unlikely.
Trump is still a big winner. This makes the Trump prosecutions look more like a witch hunt.
And of course – this has also exposed that Wade was cooridinating with the Biden WH.
Which aside from exposing another Lie of the Biden’s, opens a new door of inquiry for the house impeachment committee.
Or that Marxist Judge Chutkan slapped smith as politely as she could.
Still saying the obvious – the case is before the DC court of appeals. Chutkan does NOT have jurisdiction.
While Chutkan ordered the suspension of the case – her order was technically moot.
The case is not hers to rule on and Smith can present whatever motions he wants – to the DC court of appeals.
Chutkan’s court is closed for business until a final ruling on the immunity claim occurs.
Or the numerous problems with the Carrol case.
It is Highly unlikely Trump will get anywhere with Kaplan.
But he already has a large number of grounds to pitch the case on appeal.
Carrol admitted on the stand to destroying evidence.
She also admitted to doing so AFTER receiving subpoena’s for all evidence and being ordered to preserve evidence.
Carrol is demanding money because allegedly Trump’s remarks resulted in death threats that allegedly completely terrified her.
Carrol can not prove whether the death threats came after She accused Trump of raping her, or after Trump replied staying she was crazy.
This is relavant because if the death threats preceded Trump’s remarks, she can not establish causation.
You can not claim defamatory damages from another party for emotional distress caused by responses to your Own speech rather than the person you are accusing.
I would further note that third party liability claims are heavily discourged by the courts – except when used against Republicans.
Regardless, Carrol not only deleted alleged threats immediately after her rape allegation – but long after the court cases started.
Following the law – he claim for damages based on death threats is barred.
But this is par for the Carrol case. We are now learning that the DK dress that she claims to have worn when she was raped, that she recently featured on a magazine cover, was not for sale until atleast a few years after the outside window of the time frame she alleges the rape took place. But Kaplan has barred providing that evidence to the Jury.
So we have lots of evidence of Carroll maufacturing evidence, destroying evidence and lying under oath.
And Kaplan ignorin all of this and getting the law wrong.
Dennis McIntyre/Biden’s Baghdad Bob raced to defend his employer, The Big Guy:Jonathan: So what are the “many faces” of Kevin Morris and why does he deserve a whole column?
Remember just a few days ago when our very own Dennis/Bob wrote a lengthy piece condemning one of Trump’s lawyers for being what he claimed was “amateurish”. He posed and strutted his Internet Law Degree to do so, accusing John Say and others of knowing nothing about the law or the legal profession. Well, he’s back! Now Dennis/Bob is here to say Kevin Morris violating not only the regulations of the Bar he is registered under is perfectly okay – but it’s also okay if he was violating campaign finance law, how both he and The Bagman Formerly Known As The Crackhead Kid declared this on income tax returns is not worth looking at, no matter how sus it looks.
Yes indeed, Dennis/Bob is here to inform everyone that there is nothing to see here! After all, why would Americans be interested in any of the accumulating evidence that tears away the feeble facade of lies claiming that The Artist Formerly Known As The Crackhead Kid wasn’t channeling ChiCom and Putin money to The Big Guy; The Big Guy had no idea who his son’s customers were, never spoke to any of them? The Soviet Democrats who demanded Trump be charge for everything and anything including ripping the tag off a mattress demand that this silly idea that Biden sold the country from the Vice President’s office is not worthy of investigation.
This is what a sophomoric Soviet Democrat Apparatchik at work looks like.
The whole world would be oh so much better if Republicans would just depose people publicly – you know the Way the J6 committee did –
You know failing to turn over, encrypting and then deleting 2Tb of J6 material to deny access to the GOP and the public.
Oh and that nonsense where Subpeona’s are sacred and it is a crime not to roll over for one.
In GA Wade failed to turn over subpeonad material in his divorce proceeding and was held in contempt.
But there are no criminal indictments.
Willis was supeona’d to the divorces hearing and the judge has temporarily stayed the subpeona.
Violating a subpeona is NOT a crime. It can become a crime when the attorney requesting the subpeona persuades the court to9 enforce it.
Fool’s paradise? Or a quote credited to Abraham Lincoln “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time; but can not fool all of the people all of the time”. Defining FOOL: (other than a Democrat who we know by nature are fools waiting for their daily dose of Pyrite [FeS2]): someone who is challenged in discernment, perception, judiciousness and easily tricked with a utopian righteousness by others.
IN this particular case “I’ll give you millions of my money, JUST CALL ME YOUR FRIEND that’s all I need in return”! Democrats suffer from what is called the “Barnum effect” a psychological theory (personal description based on general stereotypes).
This great country The United States of America is headed at ever increasing speed towards the Lemming Cliff, let’s just hope that the Democrats jump first and the sane see the folly of jumping and skid to a stop before their own ruin.
God help us ALL.
Somewhat off topic, but do any of the regulars here know where Jonathan stood on the Blinken-Morrell whopper put forth to dupe the public about Hunter’s laptop?….does he think the 1st Amendment protects consequential public frauds crafted by political pros to tilt a Presidential election?…ex-govt. employees with CIA psy-ops training?
My impression is that JT abhors such conniving exercises of free speech, but thinks they are on a sound legal footing regarding 1A. Am I misreading him on this?
pbinca: I tend to agree with you on the 1A (JT’s responsive approach has been to allow MORE speech to combat a perceived misrepresentation)
BUT I also do not believe the query/approach should be limited to wholly analyzing the Blinken/Morrell misleading statements as a First Amendment issue (for purposes of culpability/liability).
The statement (letter) was crafted by ’51 top intel officials, including the past 5 CIA directors’ and was quoted by Joe Biden in the debates.
To my knowledge, no one in the ‘intel/national security community’ or the DoJ, including the FBI (which had confiscated the laptop) has ever disputed the claim that the laptop *had all the classic hallmarks of Russian disinformation*.
Hence, afaict, absent such a disclaimer, the official U.S. gov. policy remains the laptop has all the classic hallmarks of Russian disinformation. doh. .. and, quite frankly, the media has had some success in supporting such a narrative.
*note. while the FBI does not comment about ‘ongoing investigations’, they recently confirmed for the first time (citation needed) that they do indeed have possession of laptop .. . which should greatly help Rep. Goldman figure out where the laptop/’hard drive’ is, maybe.
Nothing will happen to Kevin Morris. The mainstream narrative for poor little Hunter has now gone from “The Love of a Father” to “The Love of a Friend”. Maybe the next phase in Hunter’s saga will be “For The Love of his Dog” ? It might just work Jonathan …..
@skyraider
Hunter sees himself as the ultimate James Bond/por* star/bon vivant/prince/duke. He is the worst combination of privilege and mafia mentality imaginable, and his sycophants are no different from those of the old Italian mob or the current Mexican drug cartels. Human shallowness, ignorance, and depravity has not been so off the charts since Caligula, and we all know how that ended.
These are the people in charge of our country, and unless we boot them out, we are done. The age of enlightenment will all but end if we do not do things right in our next election, and it is going to be very, very, very ugly, regardless. When sense wins the day, the unhinged are going to redefine the meaning of unhinged. We are going to have to buck up and be prepared for it.
At some point it really needs to register that the elites simply don’t care. We are flotsam to them. The best thing we could do is elect a non-dem pOTUS, pull out of the UN, the WHO, and stop funding the WEF. The globalists need to be shut down, they are able to circumvent our Constitution with their treaties and ‘agreements’, and it has to stop, yesterday. Make the like of John Kerry and Al Gore and the Obamas and the Clintons and the Bidens into the white, privileged babies they actually are. Let us pray we can do this without actual throats being slit.
Lots of typos in there, sorry. But really: social media level compliance (which is the compliance of a teenager, and the M.O. of modern dem elites) or agency over your own life. Pick one, because the time for being asleep is over. And that is parents, politicians – everyone. Take it back, now, because if you don’t that will just be a nice idea in our new (normal) caste society. Progressives especially take note: you are barking for something I guarantee you do not want to live with in your worst nightmares when you are older.
Morris’s paying off Hunter’s taxes may be perceived as a campaign contribution by the public, but it is twice removed as far as the laws.
This is no different from the Trump-Cohen-Daniels payments. The public can perceive them however it wishes – but they do not violate the law.
They house can pry into the murky relationship of Morris and the Biden’s – which certainly has all kinds of ethical and shady problems.
It is also certain that the conduct is driven by politics, and that taxes loopholes are being exploited.
If it can be proven that laws were actually broken – there should be consequences. Though I doubt such proof exists,
Regardless as Judge Lerhned Hand noted 100 years ago the desire of a citizen to avoid taxes is NOT a crime.
Do not get me wrong – ethical and perception problems abound in all of this. But I do not see any conduct that at its worst would require payment of additional taxes and penalities.
The Bragg case against Trump should be dismissed – Like this, there is no crime evident.
Personally Morris’s dealings with the Biden’s are more convoluted and smell more rotten – though the Stormy Daniels mess has the element of sex.
But all disdainful conduct is not criminal. Whether it is Trump or Morris.
Morris can not be Hunter’s Friend. his patron, his bank, and his lawyer. But that is an ethical violation that we would hope the Bar took seriously.
It is not a crime.
Personally Campaign finance laws are unconstitutional.
But even presuming they are not.
There is little doubt that Morris’s payment of Hunter’s taxes helped the Biden campaign.
Just as the payments for NDA’s benefited Trump’s campaign.
Every action – even every use of money that benefits a campaign – no matter how indirectly,
It NOT a crime.
Loans
A loan, including a loan to the campaign from a member of the candidate’s family, is considered a contribution to the extent of the outstanding balance of the loan. (Bank loans, however, are not considered contributions if made in the ordinary course of business and on a basis that assures repayment.) An unpaid loan, when added to other contributions from the same contributor, must not exceed the contribution limit. Repayments made on the loan reduce the amount of the contribution. Once repaid in full, a loan no longer counts against the contributor’s contribution limit. However, a loan exceeding the limit is unlawful even if it is repaid in full. Besides being reported as a contribution, a loan must be continuously reported as a debt until it is fully repaid.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/
What is the imputed interest rule?
In a basic sense, the rule states that in any case of a loan between two private parties, there has to be an interest amount paid to the lender. If there is not a set interest rate between the two parties, the IRS will invoke an interest rate of it’s own and tax the lender based on that rate. While the rule seems unfair on paper towards the lender, the cause for this may be the fact that the person receiving the money may be drawing interest on it through a bank or even claiming the loan payments on their tax return and thus cheating the system. It also ensures that money is simply not being laundered through no-interest loans through illegal means or purposes.
https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-are-irs-imputed-interest-rules/
It should be noted that there is an individual campaign contribution limit of $6,600, so this is a bit of a pickle (other donations can be made but the limits are well south of $5 million). I guess that this could all be fixed if, because he is a poor credit risk, Hunter just defaulted on the “loan.” Oops, that might not look good.
Defaulting on loans makes them income and taxable.
Apparently this is not one “loan” but a series of loans, maybe 5 of them with interest and a balloon payment to be made in 2025, per transcript page 113-114 (and elsewhere):
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Morris_Redacted.pdf
Jonathan Turley, in Hollywood there is no reality, only points.
Lots of conflicts of interest, but it seems that the Bidens collect those.
Hunter does not have to report a gift; neither do the rest of us. The donor reports gifts in excess of $17k on IRS form 709 ($18k for 2024). Gifts reported will count against the current lifetime limit of $12.9 million. That limit may revert to a much lower limit if the Trump tax cuts expire in 2025. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes
Alternatively, if Hunter sold something of value for the $5 million, that would be a taxable event. What did he sell? What’s the value of a few invitations to WH events?
The more important question is whether this was really a campaign donation. I’m sure that the FEC is curious, or would be if it were not the Bidens.
We just learned that our government has been tracking expenditures via BofA at a variety of vendors like BassPro and Dick’s Sporting Goods. It’s funny how Janet Yellen wants reporting of all receipts over $600 for the rest of us but probably is totally unconcerned about any of the Bidens’ transactions. Rules for thee but not for me.
The recipient need not report the gift. but a gift of over the yearly limit is income and the recipient must report that.
I’m going to repeat what I wrote above to clarify after reading the transcript. It’s long but answers some questions.
Apparently this is not one “loan” but a series of loans, maybe 5 of them with interest and a balloon payment to be made in 2025, per transcript page 113-114 (and elsewhere):
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Morris_Redacted.pdf
Page 131
He has not yet paid Hunter his share of the purchase price but his business managers and accountants are deciding how to treat the rest of the purchase (after paying the art dealer 40% commission).
Page 132
He didn’t expect to receive any favor or benefit from President Biden or his administration if he bought Hunter’s art nor has he.
It’s like Al Capone and Charles Manson morphed into one person and got elected POTUS. May as well call Morris, or any dem henchmen, Nitti or Squeaky. No one, including Trump, feckless though they may be, could be so depraved and unethical if they spent a lifetime working on it. There is nothing to redeem in the dem administration or party. Just nothin’. May we pry the country from their wicked, sticky fingers.
I wonder how many fhb paintings engoron the corrupt believes it would take to buy maralago? 20?
Dear Prof Turley,
Big time Producers like Morris don’t care about the money. They want The Credit.
‘Stoking the star-maker machinery behind the popular song. .. they deal in dreamers and telephone schemers.’
.. . I was a free man in Paris.
*sometimes you Wag the Dog, .. sometimes the dog wags you
Maybe Disney would be interested in making it!
A movie about Hunter Biden as flawed hero, fighting his inner demons and those dastardly Republicans who are trying to, ahem, harm him.
Sounds like a comedy and not in the way they would intend.
A full length documentary could be interesting, spelling out everything from getting busted for popping positive on a piss test in the Navy, to the Ukraine scandal, the 20 some shell companies, shaking down a Chinese business man, to his “artwork” and those who bought them.
Of course toss in all the sex, drugs, lavish lifestyle.
That would be much more interesting to watch.
Upstate – a better idea is a situation comedy like The Office. Hunter could come up with a crazy idea every week and the his paid minders would try to extricate him from jail or mob violence. Occasionally, the Big Guy would appear on secret zoom screen giving him an assignment to bribe a foreign government. Coke dealers and prostitutes would walk continuously through the office. Process servers would also show up, but Hunter would hide in his secret room until they left. Kevn Morris would come in with bags of money when needed.
Let us not say that we were not warned……over and over and over again ad nauseum……..
FYI, the two documents you link to in describing how Hunter Biden and Kevin Morris met do NOT support the claim that Lanette Phillips introduced them. One link is to a CBS story and the other is to a House Oversight press release.
Phillips’ name is not mentioned in the CBS link at all. The CBS story does link to a New York Times story about how Hunter and Morris met. However, I did not access that NYT story. It may make the connection that Phillips introduced Biden to Morris.
The other link is to a House Oversight press release. In it the claim is that Lanette Phillips introduced Hunter Biden to George Berges. Berges is described as “Hunter Biden’s art gallerist”.
Again, this is a sideshow. Where is the link to Joe Biden? What did Joe Biden do in office to reward Morris for his support of Hunter?
I have little doubt that both Morris and Hunter broke laws. But unless it can be linked to Joe it is politically irrelevant.
Republicans should focus on how Joe Biden violated explicit US policy on Dec 9 2015 when he refused to sign the $1b loan guarantee unless Poroshenko fired Shokin. The State Department memos he received said he “will sign” it. Separately, they advised him to recommend that Shokin be fired. The linkage of the two was NOT US policy and was the invention of Joe Biden. Was this in response to the call “to D.C.” made by Hunter on Dec 4 with Zlochevsky and Pozharski? Was it in return for the $10b in bribes Zlochevsky claimed to have paid “two Bidens” as reported by the FBI in the Form 1023?
What if anything has Joe Biden done for China as a result of the largesse showered upon Hunter and the Penn Biden Centre?
These are the consequential questions, not whether Kevin Morris made improper payments to Hunter Biden. Focus exclusively on links to Joe Biden’s use of his office.
Daniel, great observations! You are correct. This is a sideshow, though a curious sideshow.
I have no doubt that the conduct of Morris and Hunter are immoral and unethical.
But thus far they do not appear to be criminal.
Did Morris get any benefit from the Biden administration ? That is a fair question and should be investigated.
While I do not see a crime in the Morris/Hunter affair – YET, that does not mean there is nothing there.
I am not interested in the Tax nonsense – The IRS should determine if Taxes and penalties are due – and I strongly suspect they are.
But tax evasion as a crime is and should be far harder to prove than Failure to properly pay taxes resulting in interest and penalties.
And I am not interested in the once removed campaign finance allegation any more than the Stormey Daniels NDA.
Everything that benefits a political campaign is not a political contribution.
The lead hinting more strongly at criminal conduct is the purchase of Art by Hunter that was followed by a political appointment to a Biden administration position. That is a crime, and does involve Joe.
I would further note to those on the left – While SOME of what has been dug up by Republicans aasbolutely proves public corruption beyond any doubt. Every element is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the Zolchefsky driven firing of Shokin.
That does not mean ever allegation of Public corruption involving the Biden’s has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The law does not require investigators to prove a crime before they investigate.
Further once you establish that ONE allegation has all the required elements of a crime, we are free to infer the many other instances of similar conduct are also criminal.
What has Morris received in return for his supposed good will to Hunter and Joe? Has the supposed loan been paid back by Hunter? Assume Morris is charging a fair interest rate to avoid IRS issues? Loan being paid back? How? in payments? maybe valuable Hunter art? Favors? Access? Perhaps the House will find out as well as get a copy of the supposed loan agreement? As well how about a true Independent valuation of Hunter’s Art that Morris paid $1000000?
Great Question. I’ll add my question. Why did the DoJ bar investigation into all of those unanswered questions?
The IRS treats us lowly mortals with strict rules about gifts and loans. A person can receive 18,000 in gifts without tax consequences. Loans must come with a minimum interest rate determined by the IRS. A person would have to earn 1,000,000 pretax income for ten years to service a 5,000,000 loan, more if it is an unsecured loan. U.S.Treasury and the IRS can establish if Hunter’s artwork has an established history of value or if this is an aggressive money laundering scheme. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. A third grader could do it (probably better than the current federal agencies).
Fear not. We can depend on Joe Biden’s Department of “Justice” to fairly and honestly investigate Joe Biden’s Internal Revenue Service. And when (not if), the IRS is cleared of even the smallest hint of corruption after a rigorous 15 minute investigation, our faith in the perfection of Joe Biden’s administration will be upheld.
I am perfectly happy to see the morally and ethically dubious conduct of the bide clan exposed to sunlight.
But so far the Morris affair smells rotton, but is not leading to a crime.
And NO I do not want the IRS trying to decide what the value of Hunter’s artwork is any more than Engron should be deciding what the value of Trump’s properties are.
“Value is subjective”.
The only valid price for anything is what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to.
Government has no business EVER second guessing free exchange PERIOD.
Do I think the Art “sales” are fishy ? Absolutely. Bring them out into the sunlight.
Are they political ? Certainly. Do they violate campaign finance laws ? NO.
Are they efforts to circumvent tax laws ? yup. Are they crimes ? NO.
There is nothing here that is a crime anymore than Trump’s paymnets fo ran NDA or Manafort’s loaning himself money from foreign income.
If they did not dot their i’s and cross their T’s – then they owe taxes and interest and penalties.
But none of this is criminal.
But the purchase of a Hunter painting by a person seeking an appointment in the Biden administration, and afterword getting that appointment – that could be a crime.
That also fits in perfectly with the Biden family MO.
I imagine even the most loyal of Democrat shills gets tired of covering up for Alzheimer’s Joe and his greedy, grasping spawn. I know the Dems were scraping the bottom of the barrel when they ran Joe in 2020 but Joe is more like what a cattle rancher would scrape off the sole of his boot.
may the Rule of Law rest in peace…it is DEAD
True that. And with it our country.
Things get curiouser and curiouser – interesting how we all knew there was something ‘unreal’ about Hunter’s sudden art fame. It may not have been the influence peddlers that we assumed were overpaying for his creations, yet the truth is equally shady.
Hunter’s art dealings are as shady as schiff, and with near certainty are unethical and immoral efforts to circumvent tax, campaign finance, and influence peddling laws. But they do not appear to be crimes,
With certainty the
Media should be doing a better job of reporting them.
Certainly the IRS should be looking into whether these efforts to work arround tax laws might still have left someone with a substantial tax liability. I fully expect at some point someone is going to have to pay some serious taxes and penalties.
But this does not rise to the level of a Crime. Nor BTW did Manafort loaning himself money from his foreign income.
It is and should be very hard to prove intent in criminal tax evasion.
It is well established that deliberately trying to avoid taxes is NOT sufficient intent to charge a crime.
Not only must the means by which taxes are avoided be a crime, but you must KNOW that it is a crime.
Manafort loaning himself money from foreign income is legal. Failure to properly document it and to repay the loans is not a crime, but does convert the loans to income and subject you to high taxes and penalties.
The Morris five card monty game may prove to be a successful ruse to avoid taxes. Or like Manafort it may fall short.
But that does not make it a crime.
All of this belongs int he public eye as we are talking about shady conduct of the president, and involving a political campaign.
The house should be investigating the crap out of this, as should the IRS and NYT.
But absent some evidence not present – the Morris/Hunter affair is rotten, immoral, and unethical, but not criminal.