Under is my column within the New York Put up on the current deposition of Kevin Morris, counsel for Hunter Biden. The transcript solely magnifies moral issues that I’ve raised previously regardless of a menace of a defamation lawsuit by Morris’s personal counsel. Morris usually appear confused about what position he was enjoying as donor, investor, collector, lawyer, producer, or buddy.
Right here is the column:
Kevin Morris testified final week within the Home.
The query that lingered then, and now, is who is Kevin Morris.
The Hollywood lawyer, producer and Democratic donor has emerged as a main determine within the corruption scandal surrounding Hunter Biden.
For years, a few of us have complained that we’re not positive what Morris was at any given second.
What turned clear within the deposition is that Morris doesn’t seem sure himself.
He’s Hunter’s confidant, artwork patron, enterprise companion, and his lawyer.
That might show his undoing … each for himself and his shopper.
Morris appears to maneuver effortlessly between roles in his relationship with Hunter Biden.
Hunter met Morris when he attended a political fundraiser as a significant donor.
Quickly thereafter, he warned Biden associates that Hunter’s unpaid taxes raised political issues throughout Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential run.
He later proceeded to repay Hunter’s taxes and to subsidize his lavish way of life.
He additionally took an obvious lead in planning public campaigns towards the critics of the Bidens, reportedly pushing a scorched-earth strategy to assault potential witnesses and accusers.
Then Morris appeared to tackle the position of Hunter’s financial institution and artwork patron.
He reportedly gave thousands and thousands to Hunter whereas insisting that they’re loans, not presents.
Most just lately, it was revealed that, regardless of accounts of patrons flocking to purchase Hunter’s overpriced artwork, it was Morris all alongside who purchased many of the items.
The overpriced artwork could possibly be used to excuse a few of these “money owed” — a kind of particular crafts challenge for the president’s son to jot down off thousands and thousands.
Essentially the most putting factor in regards to the deposition from his Home interview was the velocity at which Morris appeared to placed on and take away his numerous hats.
He invoked attorney-client privilege no less than 17 occasions over questions associated to his funds and work for Hunter Biden.
But, whereas refusing to reply these questions, he admitted to an array of different monetary ties and transactions along with his “shopper.”
To the extent that Morris was not appearing as a lawyer however as a businessman or a buddy, these conversations (and associated information) might not be protected.
In his deposition, Morris additionally discusses his possession of 10% of Bohai Harvest RST LLC (BHR), by means of his acquisition of curiosity in Skaneateles LLC.
These are enterprise pursuits related to Hunter Biden.
Morris appeared to be working by means of his personal identification disaster with the assistance of Home investigators.
Whereas insisting that his authorized illustration of Hunter Biden was “international and full,” Morris detailed how his relationship floated from mortgage giver to buddy to patron to movie producer.
His counsel insists that each one loans and roles had been clearly laid out for Hunter in writing and reviewed by outdoors counsel.
Home investigator: “How did it come up that you just had been going to buy Skaneateles? Or why did you purchase Skaneateles of all the businesses that Hunter Biden was concerned with? Why that one?”
Morris: “That’s privileged. I’m not going to reply that due to attorney-client privilege.”
That prompted a fast intervention by his lawyer.
Morris reversed and agreed it was not protected and mentioned that he “evaluated it as a businessman, and I assumed it was one thing that could possibly be a really profitable funding.”
Morris’ confusion usually left his solutions in an unintelligible morass.
When requested about his determination to do a film on his shopper, Morris once more appeared to merge his roles, saying these are “simply supplies being collected for illustration that could be used sooner or later after the illustration.”
Later, Morris appeared to invoke an open-ended, working privilege.
At one level, Morris claimed he was “like a basic counsel” in Hunter Biden’s “digital company.”
He defined, “Counsel, in my job, I characterize high-profile people. … [H]igh-profile people have mainly digital firms. And in these digital firms, they’ve every kind of workers and assistants. You understand, brokers and managers … publicists. You understand, no matter. And what I do is I oversee … type of the squad. Form of like a basic counsel.”
With that, Morris was seen as asserting a kind of floating privilege as a result of “I’m concerned in every part. And the identical is with Hunter. Should you verify my retainer agreements, you’ll see that it’s not — it says all issues.”
The assertion is each factually correct and ethically doubtful.
It seeks sweeping privilege claims regardless of the layers of various relationships, from loaner to donor to lawyer to producer.
If Morris is named to testify in courtroom, this may occasionally not fly.
The issue is that when you find yourself “every part” to a shopper, you could find yourself with nothing with regards to confidentiality.
Jonathan Turley is an legal professional and professor at George Washington College Legislation College.
