Connect with us

Politics

Weiss Report: Hunter’s drug use can’t explain away not paying taxes on money earned by 'last name'

Published

on

Weiss Report: Hunter’s drug use can’t explain away not paying taxes on money earned by 'last name'

Special Counsel David Weiss’ final report on his years-long investigation into Hunter Biden determined the first son’s drug abuse could not explain away not paying taxes on millions of dollars of income earned off of his “last name and connections.” 

“As a well-educated lawyer and businessman, Mr. Biden consciously and willfully chose not to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes over a four-year period. From 2016 to 2020, Mr. Biden received more than $7 million in total gross income, including approximately $1.5 million in 2016, $2.3 million in 2017, $2.1 million in 2018, $1 million in 2019 and $188,000 from January through October 15, 2020,” Weiss wrote in his final report, which was released Monday. 

“Mr. Biden made this money by using his last name and connections to secure lucrative business opportunities, such as a board seat at a Ukrainian industrial conglomerate, Burisma Holdings Limited, and a joint venture with individuals associated with a Chinese energy conglomerate. He negotiated and executed contracts and agreements that paid him millions of dollars for limited work,” Weiss continued. 

Hunter Biden, 54, had a busy year in court last year, when he was convicted of two separate federal cases prosecuted by Weiss. He kicked off his first trial in Delaware in June, when he faced three felony firearm offenses involving his drug use, before pleading guilty in a separate felony tax case in September. 

DOJ RELEASES SPECIAL COUNSEL DAVID WEISS’ REPORT ON HUNTER BIDEN

Advertisement

Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, and his wife Melissa Cohen Biden, leave the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building on June 07, 2024 in Wilmington, Delaware. The trial for Hunter Biden’s felony gun charges continues today with additional witnesses. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Hunter Biden’s September trial revolved around charges of three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. As jury selection was about to kick off in Los Angeles federal court for the case, however, Hunter Biden entered a surprise guilty plea. 

Weiss continued in his report that Hunter Biden “spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills,” and that he “willfully failed to pay his 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxes on time, despite having access to funds to pay some or all of these taxes.” 

Weiss added that the first son’s previous drug abuse could not explain his failure to pay the taxes. 

HUNTER BIDEN: A LOOK AT HOW THE SAGA SPANNING OVER SIX YEARS UNFOLDED

Advertisement

“These are not ‘inconsequential’ or ‘technical’ tax code violations,” Weiss wrote. “Nor can Mr. Biden’s conduct be explained away by his drug use-most glaringly, Mr. Biden filed his false 2018 return, in which he deliberately underreported his income to lower his tax liability, in February 2020, approximately eight months after he had regained his sobriety. Therefore, the prosecution of Mr. Biden was warranted given the nature and seriousness of his tax crimes.”

Special Counsel David Weiss

U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David C. Weiss. (Fox News screenshot)

Hunter has a well-documented history of drug abuse, which was most notably documented in his 2021 memoir, “Beautiful Things.” The book walked readers through his previous addiction to crack cocaine, before getting sober in 2019. The memoir featured extensively in his separate firearms case in June, when a jury found him guilty of three felony charges related to his purchase of a gun while addicted to substances. 

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

“The evidence demonstrated that as Mr. Biden held high-paying positions earning him millions of dollars, he chose to keep funding his extravagant lifestyle instead of paying his taxes. He then chose to lie to his accountants in claiming false business deductions when, in fact, he knew they were personal expenses. He did this on his own, and his tax return preparers relied on him, because, among other reasons, only he understood the true nature of his deductions and he failed to give them records that might have revealed that the deductions were bogus,” Weiss continued. 

The tax case charges carried up to 17 years behind bars, but the first son would likely have faced a much shorter sentence under federal sentencing guidelines. His sentencing was scheduled for Dec. 16, but he was pardoned by his father, President Biden, earlier that month. 

Advertisement

BIDEN WON’T PARDON HUNTER, WHITE HOUSE REAFFIRMS, BUT CRITICS AREN’T SO SURE

Hunter Biden’s blanket pardon encompassed a decade-period applying to any offenses he “has committed or may have committed” on a federal level. 

The Bidens in July 2024

FILE – President Joe Biden, wearing a Team USA jacket and walking with his son Hunter Biden, heads toward Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, July 26, 2024.  (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Weiss’ report also took issue with the president’s pardoning of Hunter Biden, specifically with how President Biden characterized prosecutions of Hunter Biden as “selective” and “unfair.”

HUNTER BIDEN FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS IN GUN TRIAL

“This statement is gratuitous and wrong,” Weiss wrote in his report. “Other presidents have pardoned family members, but in doing so, none have taken the occasion as an opportunity to malign the public servants at the Department of Justice based solely on false accusations.” 

Advertisement

“Politicians who attack the decisions of career prosecutors as politically motivated when they disagree with the outcome of a case undermine the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system,” Weiss wrote in another section of the report. “The President’s statements unfairly impugn the integrity not only of Department of Justice personnel, but all of the public servants making these difficult decisions in good faith.” 

The DOJ sent Weiss’ report to Congress Monday evening, officially bringing the years-long investigation into the first son to a close. 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Lee Zeldin, Trump’s E.P.A. Nominee, Is Short on Environmental Experience

Published

on

Lee Zeldin, Trump’s E.P.A. Nominee, Is Short on Environmental Experience

Of all the government agencies that President-elect Donald J. Trump has threatened to shrink or eliminate, perhaps none has been a greater target than the Environmental Protection Agency.

During the first Trump administration, the nation’s top regulator of air and water pollution and industrial chemicals saw its budget slashed, leading to an exodus of employees and weakened enforcement of environmental rules.

This time, Mr. Trump could go further.

President Biden rebuilt the E.P.A. and used it to enact two powerful climate regulations aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes and power plants. But Mr. Trump has already promised to “kill” the agency’s climate regulations, and people close to the Trump transition have recommended ousting E.P.A. career staff, eliminating its scientific advisers, and closing an office that helps minority communities that disproportionately struggle with polluted air and water. There is even discussion of moving E.P.A. headquarters and its 7,000 workers out of Washington, possibly to Texas or Florida, as a way to shed employees.

The man who would carry out the dismantling is a former congressman from New York, Lee Zeldin, who is set to appear Thursday morning before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Advertisement

The nomination of Mr. Zeldin baffled many, since he has little background in environmental regulation.

But Mr. Zeldin, 44, who ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York in 2022, is a Trump supporter who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election. Friends say he has a long and loyal connection with the president-elect.

“They have a unique bond,” said Chris Berardini, a Republican lobbyist . “Republicans in New York tend to be always close. It’s a very lonely fraternity.”

The two men have something else in common, Mr. Berardini said. Last summer, Mr. Trump survived an assassination attempt at a campaign event. In 2022, Mr. Zeldin was attacked by a man with a pointed weapon at a campaign event. “Those are the subtle threads that weave into a personal relationship,” Mr. Berardini said.

While Mr. Zeldin is not experienced in environmental regulation, he and his allies point to his years representing his Long Island district, which included miles of coastline and had a bipartisan tradition of environmental conservation.

Advertisement

At the same time, Mr. Zeldin appears to have embraced Mr. Trump’s seemingly contradictory position: he says he wants clean air and water while he plans to erase regulations that ensure both, along with limits on the emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels that are linked to stronger droughts, wildfires, floods.

Upon accepting the nomination to head the E.P.A., Mr. Zeldin wrote on X, “We will restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of AI. We will do so by protecting clean air and water.”

Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, who chairs the environment committee, said Wednesday on Fox Business News of Mr. Zeldin that “By being the representative from New York, he’s seen all different types of clean air, clean water issues, and the best way to solve those problems.”

But Ms. Capito, whose home state is a major producer of coal and natural gas, also appears confident that Mr. Zeldin will execute Mr. Trump’s plans.

In a Facebook post last month, Ms. Capito wrote, “Congressman Zeldin understands the need to roll back regulatory overreach, unleash American energy, and allow Americans to build again — all while protecting public health and the environment. His skill set is well suited to implement the agenda of President Trump. ”

Advertisement

Mr. Zeldin has not said much about whether he accepts the established science of climate change but he was a member of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in Congress. However, he voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, the nation’s first major climate law, which pumped at least $370 billion into clean energy programs.

When Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York criticized Mr. Zeldin, he responded on social media, saying, “I just voted NO because the bill sucks.”

During Mr. Zeldin’s tenure in the House, he voted against clean water legislation at least a dozen times and clean air legislation at least half a dozen times, according to a scorecard by the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group.

However, he has boasted about securing federal funds to improve the health of Long Island Sound, and he voted for a bill that would require the E.P.A. to set limits on PFAS, damaging chemicals that are persistent in the environment and the human body. The E.P.A. under the Biden administration has set strict limits on chemicals in drinking water. In 2020, he voted against legislation to slash E.P.A.’s budget.

Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the environment committee, said he met with Mr. Zeldin Tuesday and had “a good, candid conversation.”

Advertisement

Still Mr. Markey questioned his qualifications to run the E.P.A., and expressed skepticism about his commitment to guard the air and water from polluting industries.

“I’m not convinced his top priority is protecting communities and our environment,” Mr. Markey said.

On climate change, Mr. Markey said Mr. Zeldin “said he believed that human activity contributes to climate change.” But he said, “My questions go to what the E.P.A. priorities would be under his leadership.”

Lisa Friedman contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

House Dems push Garland to drop charges, release second part of Jack Smith report

Published

on

House Dems push Garland to drop charges, release second part of Jack Smith report

House Judiciary Democrats penned a letter Wednesday asking outgoing U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the charges against President-elect Donald Trump’s former co-defendants in the classified documents case. 

They want Trump’s valet Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, to walk from the charges so that Garland can release the second volume, which is related to the classified documents case, of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report. Smith resigned from the Justice Department on Friday. Garland said he will not release the second volume because both men still face prosecution. 

The Democrats believe that Trump will pardon both men, so Garland should drop the charges now or the report will not come out. 

“While we understand your honorable and steadfast adherence to Mr. Nauta’s and Mr. De Oliveira’s due process rights as criminal defendants, the practical effect of this position is that Volume 2 will almost certainly remain concealed for at least four more years if you do not release it before President-elect Trump’s inauguration on January 20,” the letter obtained by Fox News says. 

FORMER TRUMP CO-DEFENDANTS WANT JUDGE TO BLOCK SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH REPORT

Advertisement

Trump drives a golf cart accompanied by aide Walt Nauta prior to the start of day three of the LIV Golf Invitational – Bedminster at Trump National Golf Club on Aug.13, 2023, in Bedminster, New Jersey. (Mike Stobe/Getty Images)

“The public interest, however, now demands that the President-elect must not escape accountability to the American people,” they added. “Accordingly, to the extent the tangential charges against Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira stand in the way of the overriding imperative of transparency and truth, the interests of justice demand that their cases be dismissed now so that the entirety of Special Counsel Smith’s report can be released to the American people.”

The letter was signed by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, as well as Democratic committee members Reps. Jerry Nadler and Dan Goldman of New York; Eric Swalwell, Ted Lieu, J. Luis Correa, Sydney Kamlager-Dove and Zoe Lofgren of California; Hank Johnson and Lucy McBath of Georgia; Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Pramila Jayapal of Washington; Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania; Joseph Neguse of Colorado; Deborah Ross of North Carolina; Becca Balint of Vermont; Jesus G. “Chuy” Garcia of Illinois; and Jasmine Crockett of Missouri. 

Walt Nauta gets out of SUV at Miami courthouse

Walt Nauta, a personal aide to Trump, arrives at the Alto Lee Adams Sr. US Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida, on Aug. 10, 2023.  (CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images)

“We obviously do not condone the sycophantic, delinquent, and criminal behavior that Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira are charged with,” the letter says. “However, Donald Trump was plainly the mastermind of this deception operation to conceal and abuse classified material, a fact made clear by his being charged with 32 counts of willfully retaining these classified documents, while his co-defendants were charged with lesser offenses related to obstructing the investigation, largely at Mr. Trump’s direction. By virtue of DOJ policy prohibiting the indictment or prosecution of a sitting president, Mr. Trump has dodged any criminal accountability for his own wrongdoing. Mr. Trump’s 2024 victory saved him from a public trial and robbed the American people of the opportunity to learn the meaning and details of his unpatriotic, reckless, and intentional abuse of national security information.” 

DOJ RELEASES FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH’S REPORT ON INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

Advertisement

Judge Aileen Cannon will hear arguments over Volume 2 in Fort Pierce, Florida, on Thursday. Garland released Volume 1, focused on the election interference case, earlier this week. 

Attorneys for Nauta and De Oliveira earlier this month asked Cannon to keep the special counsel report out of the public eye. 

Carlos De Oliveira exits SUV to attend Miami court hearing

Carlos De Oliveira, property manager of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, arrives at the Alto Lee Adams Sr. U.S. Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida, on Aug. 10, 2023. (EVA MARIE UZCATEGUI/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira all pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging they conspired to obstruct the FBI investigation into classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago

Smith was tapped by Garland in 2022 to investigate both the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump’s keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Florida residence. 

It is customary for a special counsel to release a final report when his or her work is done, detailing the findings of their investigation and explaining any prosecution or declination decisions they reached as a result of the probe. It’s up to Garland whether to release it publicly. In Smith’s case, the prosecution decision is immaterial, given Trump’s status as president-elect and longstanding Justice Department policy against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president. 

Advertisement

 

Garland is expected to give his farewell address to the Justice Department on Thursday afternoon.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Republican bill would ban transgender girls from high school sports in California

Published

on

Republican bill would ban transgender girls from high school sports in California

On the first day of the California Legislature’s new session, Assemblymember Kate Sanchez, an Orange County Republican, introduced a bill that would ban transgender high school students from competing on girls’ sports teams.

“Young women who have spent years training, sacrificing and earning their place to compete at the highest level are now being forced to compete against individuals with undeniable biological advantages,” Sanchez, of Rancho Santa Margarita, said in a video posted to social media.

“It’s not just unfair,” she added. “It’s disheartening and dangerous.”

Sanchez’s proposed law, called the Protect Girls’ Sports Act, is almost certain to fail in a Legislature controlled by a Democratic supermajority with a record of embracing inclusion for LGBTQ+ Californians.

But her introduction of it — notably, as her first bill of the session — underscores the persistent Republican emphasis on transgender issues, which continue to shape policy debates in California, where Democratic leaders have cast the state as a bulwark against President-elect Donald Trump, whose opposition to trans rights was central to his campaign.

Advertisement

Sacramento Democrats have blasted Sanchez’s bill as a political stunt, saying it is an unnecessary attack against transgender youth, who make up a tiny portion of California’s school-age population.

Supporters and opponents of banning transgender athletes from girls’ sports attend a meeting of the Riverside Unified School District board on Dec. 19.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Assemblymember Chris Ward, chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, said in a statement that the caucus, whose members are all Democrats, “will not stand by as anyone attempts to use kids as political pawns.”

Advertisement

“Attacking kids is a failed 2024 issue,” said Ward (D-San Diego). “We are surprised the Assembly member introduced her first bill targeting a very small, vulnerable population of kids rather than using the opportunity to address key issues of affordability, housing and more that are impacting Californians.”

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, which researches public policy around sexual orientation and gender identity, estimates that about 1.4% of American teenagers ages 13-17 — about 300,000 individuals nationwide — identify as transgender. Fewer play sports.

While polls show that most Americans support protecting LGBTQ+ people from discrimination, they are deeply divided on issues involving queer children, especially kids who identify as transgender or nonbinary.

In a nationwide poll conducted last year for The Times by NORC at the University of Chicago, about two-third of adult respondents said transgender girls and women should never or only rarely be allowed to participate on female sports teams.

“Regardless of where Sacramento Democrats are on this issue, they’ll need to face facts,” Sanchez said in a statement to The Times, noting public opinion on the issue.

Advertisement

On the other side of the political aisle, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) last week introduced the Transgender Privacy Act, which would automatically seal all court records related to a person’s gender transition in an effort to protect them from being outed or harassed.

“The incoming Trump Administration and Republican Congressional leadership have made clear that targeting and erasing trans people is among their highest policy priorities, and California must have our trans community members’ backs,” Wiener said in a statement about his Senate Bill 59.

A coalition of LGBTQ+ supporters listens to speakers during a press briefing

Supporters of LGBTQ+ students at a Dec. 19 Riverside Unified School District board meeting where demonstrators called on the district to “save girls’ sports.”

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Sanchez’s Assembly Bill 89, would require the California Interscholastic Federation, which regulates high school sports for public and private schools, to enact rules prohibiting any “pupil whose sex was assigned male at birth from participating on a girls’ interscholastic sports team.” It does not stop transgender boys from playing on boys’ teams or specify how the CIF would verify students’ gender.

Advertisement

California education code explicitly says students must be allowed to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including team sports, and must be permitted to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed those rights into law in 2013.

Sanchez’s bill comes after several recent high-profile fights across California over trans girls and women playing high school and college sports.

In November, a Christian high school in Merced withdrew its girls’ volleyball team from a state playoff match against a San Francisco team with a transgender player.

This fall, the San José State women’s volleyball team was embroiled in controversy after current and former players and an associate coach tried to have a trans player removed from the roster by filing a federal lawsuit. A judge later ruled the player could compete.

In November, two female high school students sued the Riverside Unified School District, alleging a transgender girl unfairly ousted one of them from a spot on the varsity cross-country team. The federal lawsuit also claims that when the girls protested the situation — by wearing T-shirts that read, “Save Girls Sports,” and, “It’s common sense. XX [does not equal] XY” — school officials compared it to wearing a swastika in front of a Jewish student.

Advertisement

The suit claims that the district’s policies unfairly restrict the girls’ freedom of expression and deny them fair and equal access to athletic opportunities.

A group of people standing with hands clasped.

Republican Assemblymembers Bill Essayli, front left, and Leticia Castillo, front right, called on the Riverside Unified School District superintendent to resign over his handling of the issue of transgender athletes competing in girls’ high school sports at a board meeting last month.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Two Republican Assembly members from the Inland Empire, Bill Essayli and Leticia Castillo, called on the district’s superintendent to resign over her handling of the issue.

In 2023, Essayli, whose district borders Sanchez’s, co-sponsored a bill that would have required school employees to notify parents if their child identified as transgender at school. Critics argued the bill would out and potentially endanger trans kids, while violating student privacy protections under California law. The bill died in committee, but similar policies sprouted up on school boards in conservative parts of the state, showing how a Republican idea that gets squelched in the state Capitol can still drive debate on an issue.

Advertisement

In July, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 1955, which prohibits schools from mandating that teachers notify families about student gender identity changes.

Daisy Gardner, an outreach director for Our Schools USA, a nonprofit that supported AB 1955, called Sanchez’s bill and Republicans’ focus on transgender athletes “a very powerful organizing tool from the far right.”

The parent of an LGBTQ+ student who said she was speaking for herself, not on behalf of Our Schools USA, Gardner called Sanchez’s bill “a media stunt designed to whip up fear and hatred of trans people so that the far right can flip California red in 2026, and the casualties are trans lives.”

Gardner has been in contact with parents of two transgender high school athletes in the Riverside Unified School District amid the recent controversy and read a statement on behalf of one of the girl’s family during a raucous school board meeting last month.

“They are in pure hell,” she said of the parents. “They don’t know how to protect their kids.”

Advertisement

Matt Rexroad, a longtime California political consultant, said that while urban Democrats might be scratching their heads over Sanchez introducing this long shot bill on such a hot-button issue, it makes sense for her suburban district, which is “one of the more conservative areas of California.”

“It’s a good political issue for certain parts of California,” Rexroad said. “Clearly, Scott Wiener is not going to introduce this bill or vote for it, but not all of his bills pass either.”

Sanchez, he said, “is representing the views of her constituents.”

At least one of her constituents, though, was so angry about the Protect Girls’ Sports Act that she called Sanchez’s office and grilled a staffer about the specifics, like how a child’s gender would be verified.

Michele McNutt, a former Democrat who just changed her party registration to no-party-preference, said she was not satisfied with the staffer’s answers and called the bill “performative.”

Advertisement

“If it fails, they can frame it as, ‘California hates parents,’” said McNutt, whose two teenage daughters are student athletes in the Capistrano Unified School District. “I think the theater is the point, and it really isn’t about protecting girls’ sports.”

Continue Reading

Trending