Kevin Morris invoked attorney privilege at least 17 times to avoid questions about Hunter Biden

In his deposition last week, Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris and his lawyer invoked attorney-client privilege at least 17 times over questions related to his payments and work for Hunter Biden.

According to the transcript of the testimony reviewed by Just the News, Morris said that he began representing Biden about one week after the December 2019 California fundraiser for his father, Joe Biden, who became president in 2020. The details surrounding this meeting were previously reported by Just the News.

Morris’ early representation of Hunter Biden allowed him to invoke the privilege frequently, to avoid answering questions about his first meeting with the first son, how he paid Hunter Biden’s other attorneys and about the planning for Hunter Biden’s defiant speech in front of the Capitol while avoiding complying with his first congressional subpoena.

Specifically, Morris attempted to invoke the privilege regarding his acquisition of one of Hunter Biden's companies after Joe Biden's inauguration. Additionally, he denied claims that he was motivated by political concerns to help the first son solve his tax issues and stay afloat during his father's campaign, which was indicated by evidence from the IRS whistleblowers last year.

Morris did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News about his testimony.

According to the transcript, Morris claimed that his legal representation of Hunter Biden was “global and complete” and therefore argued that almost any detail of their relationship is off limits to congressional investigators. Yet despite this, Morris told the committee that he had not represented Hunter directly in the past three years.

In one example, Morris refused to answer how much in loans he provided to Hunter Biden to pay his legal fees.

“So have you paid millions of dollars for Hunter Biden’s legal fees via loans?” an investigator asked.

This we already know:

When the Hunter/Morris relationship began, Morris was playing the role of loyal Democratic donor, a hard-core activist, a Biden backer, who showed up when he was told.

He was introduced to Hunter at a 2019 Joe Biden political fundraiser. Soon after......almost as if it was pre-planned......Morris was giving Hunter legal advice AND copious amounts of money, including paying off Hunter’s long-delinquent taxes (before criminal charges were filed).

The Morris money also included paying for Hunter’s lavish lifestyle.......perhaps even Hunter’s coke addiction?

The wily Morris may be most eager to avoid the label “Democratic donor” because the Hunter payments could be viewed as an “unreported campaign donation to Joe Biden.”

Most auspiciously, Morris was brought into the Biden domain during Joe Biden’s campaign for president.

On February 7, 2020, Morris bellyached how paying Hunter’s taxes was a “considerable risk personally and politically.”

Was this a veiled message to Joe Biden, Morris calling for help?

Morris seems to have resolved his “political liability” of paying off Hunter’s taxes, now calling it a “loan.”

Morris’ millions are now on the table as “loans” because, if they are actually gifts, they could create a new tax problem for Hunter ......having to declare such “gifts” to the IRS.

The Morris “loans” would continue. Morris insists that it was all standard “loan” stuff. Except he is not a bank. He was repeatedly referring to Hunter as his “client.”

cont

It is increasingly hard to discern what the Morris/Biden relationship was at any given moment:
<><>Morris is a hard core Democrat, an activist, a campaign donor, a Biden backer.
<><>he was also depicted as Hunter’s lender, his lawyer, his friend, an art client
<><>whether the Morris/Biden role-playing was entirely calculated is significant
<><>the two met meeting at a Joe Biden fund-raiser in 2019,
<><>Morris ‘loaned’ the president’s son at least $5 million.
<><>repayment was not required til Biden’s presidential election
<><> the ‘loans’ may ultimately be forgiven.
<><>left unclear is ‘when’ Morris lent Hunter money and ‘when’ he took on other roles.
<><>Morris insists it was all standard ‘loan’ stuff.
<><>except Morris is not a bank, and Hunter was routinely called his legal ‘client’
<><>the Morris/Hunter role smells of de facto campaign contributions to Joe Biden.
<><>Morris’ role-playing to shield Biden’s campaign from political liabilities is disturbing,
<><>professional ethical rules are designed to avoid a blurring of client/lawyer roles.
<><>as a member, Morris is in violation of the Calif Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
<><>Morris has now admitted to providing personal funds to bail out Hunter
<><>Hunter has been confirmed to be a client – or reasonably believes himself to be Morris’s client
<><>this violates the Rules of Professional Conduct and well-known norms of the legal profession.

There is NO Privilege before Congress, they shoul;d have Jailed him for Contempt.

“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”

Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.

Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)

If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.

Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.

Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.

Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.

Some references

[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html

[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html

[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit

[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html

[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf

[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/

In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.

In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.

all just from hearsay & faulty memory, but I thought I read somewhere that humper was awarded a 10% interest in the $1.5 billion Chyna deal he brokered. It has been my understanding he has never relinquished that 10%, but has assigned a part of that ownership to morris for services rendered.

if this is the case? that 10% would be worth 150 mil.

and again, imo, the arkie baby mom & daughter ought to get a spousal interest from the deal??

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

link to background from the WaPo for information & discussion purposes only:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-china-laptop/

Inside Hunter Biden’s multimillion-dollar deals with a Chinese energy company

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.