Monday witnessed a notable decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, where they declined an appeal from Devon Archer, who previously shared business interests with Hunter Biden. Archer asked the court to reverse his conviction related to securities fraud.
Uncharacteristically, the Justices chose to offer no commentary on their decision, standing by the verdict of a federal appeals court which had reinstated Archer’s conviction. This reinstatement overruled a lower court’s choice to set aside a jury verdict that had found Archer culpable, and had necessitated a retrial.
This sequence of events accompanies Archer’s second approach to the Supreme Court for an appeal, both of which have been unsuccessful. One key aspect of the case was that Hunter Biden, son of president Joe Biden, had no direct involvement in the fraud case which involved a scheme linked to the sale of bonds to the Oglala Sioux Indian tribe.
Despite his lack of direct involvement, certain individuals entangled in the fraud case found value in utilizing Hunter Biden’s name to enhance their perceived legitimacy. This is substantiated by thorough court records, as highlighted in various reports.
Devon Archer was initially held accountable for his actions in 2018 when his conviction was enforced. However, later that same year, an overturning of his conviction took place, only to be reinstated once again by a court of appeals based in New York in 2020. The nuances of Archer and Biden’s business relationships become significant in understanding the dynamics of the issue.
Archer and Biden previously maintained business connections, and they concurrently served on the board of the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma. These shared experiences have become central to the ongoing discussion spawned from Archer’s conviction and appeal.
There has been interesting dialogue involving Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Last month, Jordan drew attention to Hunter Biden’s recent statement, which Jordan believes adds a fresh perspective to the House’s investigation concerning both the president and his son.
Jordan noted an important clarification contained within the young Biden’s speech, drawing a distinction between ‘financial involvement’ and ‘no involvement’. According to Biden’s previous statements, his father has no involvement at all, but the new one reveals no specific ‘financial’ involvement, a differentiation Jordan found to be meaningful.
Jordan continued, stressing that a crucial point of debate now is what kind of value Hunter Biden was offering for his foreign business peers. Jordan proposed the answer to be ‘access’ — access to his father, the then Vice President and an influential political figure.
The debate brought in by Jordan came following Hunter Biden’s refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the Republican-dominated Congress. The subpoena necessitated his appearance at a closed-door deposition, a move that could lead to a legal clash set against the backdrop of President Biden’s campaign for a second term in office.
Hunter Biden chose not to comply with the House Oversight Committee issued subpoena. Instead, he held a press conference, during which he offered to testify in public. This is not a typical move within the bounds of congressional procedure.
Hunter Biden drew focus to what he saw as an infringement upon his privacy by Republicans holding ‘MAGA’ ideologies. He argued that they have been severe in their examination of his personal life, they have openly criticized his family, and that they have dismissed his struggles with dependency.
He articulated that his critics have sought to undermine his path towards betterment, and by criticizing him, they have attempted to cause embarrassment to his father, President Biden. He stated strongly, ‘They have tried to dehumanize me, all in efforts to taunt my father, who has devoted his entire life to public service.’
Hunter Biden said, ‘I have been the subject of ceaseless distract-and-attack efforts by the Trump’s camp for six years.’ He followed up robustly, stating, ‘Where’s Hunter? Well, here’s my answer. I am here.’
Lastly, he emphasized that his father, Joe Biden, had not been financially entangled in his business involvements. He noted specifically that the dealings he had with Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas firm, and other venture capital investments in China, along with various global and domestic business aspects, were devoid of his father’s financial participation.
More Articles: Real News Now