Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, testified before the House Oversight Committee this week as part of the ongoing investigations into President Biden's son. Archer's nearly five-hour testimony revealed that he did not recall any important discussions taking place during the 20 times then-Vice President Joe Biden was put on speakerphone during meetings with business partners. The full transcript of the closed-door interview, released by House Oversight Committee Republicans, also showed that Archer had no knowledge of any conversations between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden regarding official actions or an alleged bribery scheme involving the former vice president.
Archer stated that while there were contact points between Hunter Biden and his father, no material discussions took place. He also testified that Hunter Biden gave the false impression to executives of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company where he served as a board member, that he had influence over US policy. When asked if Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access to his father, Archer confirmed that he was.
Both Republicans and Democrats have selectively highlighted portions of Archer's testimony to support their respective political agendas. GOP Representative James Comer claimed that the transcript confirmed Hunter Biden's exploitation of his father's influence, while the panel's top Democrat, Representative Jamie Raskin, stated that it did not provide evidence of wrongdoing by then-Vice President Biden.
Although the competing political narratives continue, the transcript did confirm that Archer first heard of the allegation that President Biden received $5 million in bribes from a foreign business official through an FBI tip sheet released by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. However, Archer stated that he was not aware of any such payment to Hunter or Joe Biden.
Despite this testimony, House Republicans have pledged to continue investigating the Biden family's foreign business dealings. Archer's lawyer, Matthew L. Schwartz, emphasized that his client had simply told the truth during the interview and stated that it was up to the committee and others to determine how to interpret and act upon this information.