Hunter Biden Sues for Libel Over Claims That He Tried to Sell Influence to Iran

From today's Complaint in Biden v. Byrne (C.D. Cal.):

Plaintiff brings this action for defamation against Byrne because he has made, published, and repeated false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff, knowing full well that the statements are false, for the purpose of subjecting Plaintiff to harassment, intimidation, and harm. On or about June 27, 2023, Byrne published false statements that Plaintiff "was reaching out to the Iranian government in the fall of 2021" and offering to have Plaintiff's father, President Joe Biden, "unfreeze" $8 billion in Iranian funds "in return for $800 million being funneled into a numbered account for us." Byrne further stated falsely that Plaintiff urged the Iranian government that, "if you do this deal with us, it will lubricate other negotiations which have recently started between us." According to Byrne, "[b]y that, the Iranians believed that Hunter meant the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] talks, which had restarted in Geneva a month or two previously." These statements are completely false, and Byrne knew them to be false at the time he made them.

Comments

[Kazinski]

Well I'm glad Hunter is suing if these statements are false and he is vindicated of this charge.

Of course it means everything else people have been saying about Hunter is true.

[Eugene Volokh]

To be fair, Hunter Biden must show that the statements were false and the speaker knew they were false (or at least likely false). It's possible that other statements by other people were false but he didn't have evidence of knowing falsehood, and that that is why he didn't sue over them.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Or it could be he strategically decided to sue only this person.

It’s a strange position for you to take — “500 people have said bad things about him but 499 of them have said things that can’t be proven false because he didn’t sue them.”

[The Drill SGT]

discovery might be interesting

[Dr. Ed 2]

Respectfully, isn't this *exactly* NY Times v. Sullivan writ large?

Sullivan was what -- a county sheriff? Biden's the freaking POTUS with a press corps following him. Who is the greater access to the media? And remember that the NYT was factually wrong on things like the number of times MLK2 had been arrested.

Even Hunter qua Hunter has access to the media in a way Sullivan could never have dreamed of. And like with MLK2, this is a matter of public concern. So doesn't NYT v. Sullivan rule here?

[Kazinski]

Hunter probably is a "public figure" for Sullivan purposes, but a report with no basis whatsoever still can't pass muster under Sullivan.

Like I said above, wild charges with no basis won't help the effort to bring Hunter and Joe to account, it will hurt it.

[David Nieporent]

Biden’s the freaking POTUS

Wait, I thought Trump is, and Biden's just occupying the White House unlawfully.

Also, you seem to be as confused as the rest of the GOP is. Joe Biden is the POTUS. This case involves Hunter Biden. Those are two different people.

So doesn’t NYT v. Sullivan rule here?

Strictly speaking, no, since Hunter Biden is not a public official. But Sullivan's principles were subsequently extended to public figures and issues of public concern, so basically, yes, the NYT v. Sullivan standard applies here. What's your point? Did anyone suggest that it didn't?

[Kazinski]

Well of course to be even fairer that would mean there is a rational basis to believe all he other charges against Hunter are true.

I also think when someone makes charges like this with no evident basis it undermines the other very serious allegations against Hunter, and Joe.

Charges like that Hunter, and Joe, were paid to squelch prosecutions against Burisma and Hunters boss Zlochevsky, which was actually listed as a deliverable in an email to Hunter, Devon Archer and the associated lobbying firm Blue Star Srategies.

[Social Justice is neither]

Right, it's not like he didn't hand over a laptop full of confirmation.

[OtisAH]

No, it means you either never took a course in Logic or you failed it.

[damikesc]

I'd wonder what reputation Hunter has remaining to make worse.

[Nige]

Question answers itself.

[Nige]

'Of course it means everything else people have been saying about Hunter is true.'

Clutch any straw, eh?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Or maybe that, unlike other potential defendants, Patrick Byrne actually still has some money.

[Bored Lawyer]

Hope his lawyer explained to him about discovery.

[Michael P]

Also libel-proof plaintiffs.

Does California law treat the defendants' assertions as defamatory per se, or would Hunter need to prove actual damages? If the latter, which actual or intended influence sales would these accusations have damaged?

[David Nieporent]

I am quite certain that not paying taxes, and perhaps buying a gun while a coke user, does not make one "libel proof" such that others can accuse one of bribery and treason and get away with it.

[Michael P]

There is also impregnating that stripper, ostensibly selling access or influence, allegedly doing so fraudulently, being discharged from the Navy over his cocaine use, lying to the government about material facts, generally refusing to accept responsibility for any of those things until forced to by the government, and probably other things that slip my mind.

It's curious that you mention treason. Did Byrne use some form of the word, or claim that Hunter gave aid and comfort to a country at war with the US? Or is the complaint's repeated use of the word "treasonous" a case of a hit dog yelping?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget the laptop....

[Michael P]

He was certainly careless with his property, which is why he had to replace so many laptops that he lost track of them. (His drug use probably contributed there.) But I think his laptop mostly just documented other failings; forgetting a laptop at a repair shop, and then acting as if it wasn't yours, is not an indication of moral failure like the other things I mentioned. Did you have something more in mind?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The contents of the laptop.

It's alleged that there is kiddie porn on it -- Hunter and underaged girls doing things.

It's alleged that there is documentation of the bribery. So it's a different country doing the bribing -- some of the NYT's facts were wrong too.

[Michael P]

Who alleged there is/was kiddie porn on Hunter's laptop, and on what basis? I would think credible claims of child pornography would have gotten a lot of traction, and I don't remember any.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Who said anything about credible? You’re talking to Dr. Ed, remember.

[Michael P]

He has been substantially right before, at least on occasion, but "it's alleged that ..." is approximately just rumor-mongering. I would like some source closer to the original allegation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/exclusive-allegations-hunter-biden-stored-child-pornography-on-laptop-sent-to-fbi

[Nige]

One of you losers was arguing on here that he'd actually *seen* the video.

[David Nieporent]

I think that was BCD.

[Estragon]

No, it was mad kalak or something like that I believe. I imagine he’s still here somewhere, under a new name, haven’t seen that handle in a while.

[OtisAH]

Another dope who thinks discovery means you get to paw through everything the other party has in order to prove your currently baseless argument.

[Jgalt1975]

Yes, I'm sure his lawyers at the hack fly-by-night firm [checks complaint] Winston & Strawn LLP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_%26_Strawn) totally forgot to counsel him about how discovery works in a defamation case . . . .

[DonP]

Looking forward to the enthusiastic tap dancing and sleight of hand that will undoubtedly accompany discovery.

[grb]

By whom? Biden will be questioned on grounds where Republicans have failed to find any trace of criminality despite years of effort – and failed repeatedly, with one embarassing fiasco following another. I suspect Biden knows all the questions by now and has zero problems with the answers.

Meanwhile, Byrne will be questioned where he got his Iranian allegation and forced to admit he pulled it out his ass. I’m thinking he has much more exposure, discovery-wise.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes

[Dr. Ed 2]

NYT v. Sullivan. Where did the NYT get its facts from?

Remember: "Issue of public concern."

[David Nieporent]

What is your point? Do you think NYT v. Sullivan bars libel suits on an "issue of public concern"? (A phrase that incidentally does not appear in the decision, so not sure why you put quotes around it.)

[Moderation4ever]

I agree that the Byrne revelations could be the most interesting. Maybe he just made it up, maybe he got it on a web site, or maybe he was feed it by someone and we might find out who that was.

[David Nieporent]

The "Byrne" is Patrick Byrne, the former Overstock.com guy who was fired after having an affair with a Russian spy, and who was all in on the wackiest Stop the Steal conspiracy theories. I see he hasn't gotten any saner.

[grb]

An account from Byrne on his attendance at the infamous 18Dec White House meeting :

"By all accounts, they pulled this off by simply … walking into the White House. They were accompanied by Sidney Powell and someone Byrne consistently refers to as a “female lawyer,” even after he gives her the pseudonym Alyssa. Their suggestion was to get rid of Giuliani, put Powell and Flynn in charge, and have the National Guard, or maybe DHS, recount ballots in six states by force. Alyssa the female lawyer, whose name is Emily Newman, explained why this was perfectly legal, despite appearances. Three of Trump’s lawyers “all started being bitches,” Byrne says, claiming they didn’t like the “optics” of using the National Guard to seize voting machines. After more bitching from Pat Cipollone, after Trump’s lawyers accused Alyssa/Emily the female lawyer of not even being a lawyer, Flynn sprung to his feet, “with a grace and ease that surprised me,” to ask whether anyone in the room believed Trump had lost the election. Byrne says he was ready to “bury knuckles” in Cipollone’s throat should the man come any closer to Flynn, himself, or Alyssa. Someone brought meatballs, and Byrne ate them, and they were good.

“In the course of that meeting,” Byrne writes, “I felt something much different than I had expected to feel, something that made me want to put an arm around the man and give him a long squeeze of reassurance. What was it I felt? I’m still not sure: Commiseration for a tired man? A kind of love?”

Priceless stuff, huh? I guess the main problem will be proving Byrne isn’t so mentally ill he can’t destinguish fantasy from reality. Man-love for a sordid little creep like Flynn can’t help.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some would say the same thing about the credibility of the NYT....

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Discoverys gonna be GREAT!

[John F. Carr]

Is Hunter Biden a public figure for purposes of defamation law in general, or this case in particular?

[santamonica811]

On this issue, one suspects, the case will turn. It's my sense that, by this point, the ship has long-since sailed, and Hunter is a true "public figure" in all matters. An advantage (disadvantage) of having been publicly targeted by Fox News, InfoWars, and Republican politicians (et al) for years and years. Can't imagine him being found to still be a private figure . . . but this is way outside my own areas of practice, so I dunno.

[SRG2]

I suspect, though IANAL, that he is a public figure for purposes of Sullivan. I can imagine the case going to the Supremes and Thomas, who hates Sullivan, tying himself in knots explaining why nonetheless Hunter doesn't get the benefit.

You'd think, though, that unless he's using Trump-grade lawyers, they'd have both that argument and actual facts before proceeding.

[David Nieporent]

The Supreme Court is not going to ever review the question of whether he's a public figure. First, I don't think it's a close call. Second, that kind of fact-specific question is not the sort that SCOTUS takes up.

[Voize]

not the sort that SCOTUS takes up

Didn't they in Hutchinson v. Proxmire? It is better known for holding that the Speech or Debate Clause doesn't shield defamatory press releases, but they also reversed the lower courts' finding that Hutchinson was a public figure.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

An advantage (disadvantage) of having been publicly targeted by Fox News, InfoWars, and Republican politicians (et al) for years and years.

Yes, his own behavior certainly had nothing to do with it.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The complaint devotes a bunch of space to alleging “actual malice,” which suggests that Hunter Biden’s lawyer is expecting Hunter Biden to be treated as a public figure in this case. And, while I am not a lawyer, that's my expectation as well.

[Krayt]

I'm not speaking of him, but could a theoretical scion of a president trade on his name to wink wink grant favors, not be a public figure? Could such a creature have its public fame cake and eat it too?

[Dr. Ed 2]

More than that, it's the "issue of public interest."

It isn't like him getting another stripper pregnant -- a foreign power bribing our President is the same sort of thing as an allegation (now known to be true) that cops were violating the civil rights of MLK2.

King could have been a common criminal (which essentially is what Sullivan was alleging) and Hunter could have the integrity of Caesar's wife -- it's the "public interest" of the allegations being aired that outweighs the traditional common law concept of libel. For example, the NYT saying that Sullivan was having an affair with the minister's wife would *not* have been of the same "public interest", even though Sullivan would have been an equally public figure.

Was it Jefferson or Adams who was accused of taking bribes from the French? I forget which, but one was -- and accusing the POTUS of nefarious behavior goes way back. Look at the way that Andrew Jackson's wife was treated, it helped kill her --- and he really didn't go off the deep end until after she died.

Donald Trump made the point yesterday in an interview -- the Russiagate allegations against him were far more flimsy, and he was impeached over it.

We may have a prurient interest in Hunter's sordid personal life, but it isn't of the same "public interest" as allegations of a foreign power bribing the POTUS (directly or indirectly).

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump made the point yesterday in an interview — the Russiagate allegations against him were far more flimsy,

The bulk of the Russiagate allegations were confirmed by both the non-partisan Mueller investigation and the bipartisan (but GOP-led) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation.

and he was impeached over it.

Sigh. No, he wasn't. Can you not get anything right?

[damikesc]

None of it was confirmed. The main person behind it admitted he made it all up.

Russia spent less than $3,000 on election ads in 2016. That is the sum total of their "interference". Less than $3,000 that went after both candidates.

[Nige]

God you guys are cheap.

[Kazinski]

Hey, don't call me cheap.

I donated 25$ to 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004' to derail John Kerry's campaign.

I got my money's worth.

[David Nieporent]

None of it was confirmed. The main person behind it admitted he made it all up.

You seem to mistakenly think we're talking about the Steele dossier (not that your statement would be correct even so.)

That is the sum total of their “interference”.

It is not. For example, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the DNC was hacked and its emails used against Hillary. (Or maybe you're so gullible that you believed Trump when he tried to blame some kid in his mother's basement?)

[Tom for equal rights]

David Nieporent 3 hours ago

"The bulk of the Russiagate allegations were confirmed by both the non-partisan Mueller investigation"

Non partisan Mueller investigation ? seriously?

[Sarcastr0]

I know that to some all bad news for Trump is retroactively a liberal plot, but in reality Mueller is not some big Dem or anything.

[David Nieporent]

Non partisan Mueller investigation ? seriously?

I mean, I can see how one could question that — after all, Mueller was a Republican, working for a Republican administration — but, yeah: nonpartisan. He's not a political operative.

[Social Justice is neither]

If you're going to lie about the facts like David, why give halfway.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it says a lot that you didn't refer to a particular lie, just the bare accusation.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I never heard about him selling influence to Iran. I'll just assume that report is false.

More generally, though, I wonder how wealthy he'd be if he wasn't related to a powerful politician?

Maybe it's what the political philosopher George Washington Plunkitt called "honest graft."

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia : “I wonder how wealthy he’d be if he wasn’t related to a powerful politician?”

Not a question where you’d find much debate on either the Left or Right. On the other hand, you can ask similar things about a lot of public figures. Without daddy’s millions, Trump would probably be running a three-card monte on some street corner (and that’s setting aside the issue of Jr. or Ivanka).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was speaking specifically of the phenomenon of honest graft, not inherited fortunes. People in public office, or their relatives, mysteriously getting money which they wouldn’t get absent the political connection.

Yet it’s OK so long as it’s legal. Don’t ask, "who writes these laws?" - that would be rude.

Do Trump people engage in honest graft? I would be surprised if they *didn’t.*

Another reason to vote third party.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Without daddy’s millions, Trump would probably be running a three-card monte on some street corner"

Historically, an awful lot of daddy's millions had derived from Trump's management of daddy's businesses. At least that's the way I heard it.

[SRG2]

Even if Trump invested daddy's millions so that he outperformed the S&P500 long-term - a matter of speculation and doubt - it's easier to make the second ten million when you have the first ten million, no?

[Krayt]

Someone give me ten million and let's find out!

Worst case, I die and the leftovers I will will to the charity of your choice.

[Michael P]

Are you really drawing moral equivalence between one’s family giving one money and third parties giving one money in apparent hopes of gaining access to and/or influence with one’s family because of that family's government office?

[SRG2]

No. I am responding to Brett's point about Trump making millions for his daddy.

[bernard11]

At least that’s the way I heard it.

From your usual reliable sources?

Even if that's true, he seemed to lose his touch at some point, or maybe let his ego override common sense.

What I heard was that he was in trouble until "The Apprentice" saved him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget WHY he was in trouble -- he was bright enough to find and hire good executives and they were a large part of why he was successful.

And he lost his three top casino experts in a helo crash. There were a lot of other things including market saturation of the casino industry, but if your three key people are dead, your company is in trouble.

Details on crash: https://pressofatlanticcity.com/3-trump-execs-2-pilots-die-as-helicopter-crashes-in-parkway-median/article_4071dbca-24e3-11e4-8835-0019bb2963f4.html

[David Nieporent]

Don’t forget WHY he was in trouble

Because he's a terrible businessman, who makes bad decisions all the time based on his ego, running lots of different businesses into the ground.

[SRG2]

Ivanka might also be on a street corner 😉

(No - because he wouldn't have pulled Ivana in the first place.)

[Nige]

'More generally, though, I wonder how wealthy he’d be if he wasn’t related to a powerful politician?'

How long have you lived in the US to suddenly wake up one morning to wonder aloud and in public why the son of a wealthy man is wealthy?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

My typical exchange with those who believe in an unlimited right to own firearms (to be called, for want of a better term, “gun-guys”) often goes as follows:

1. The gun-guy says “2A protects us from tyrannical government by insuring that we can resist. Look at the Warsaw Ghetto and look at Stalin! That’s what we’re trying to avoid.”

2. I answer: “Who are you kidding? You think you’ll be able to beat the government in battle? However many weapons you stockpile, you’ll end up like David Koresh and his merry band of child-bride husbands (and child-brides). The government has nukes, and poison gasses, and all kinds of robots (if not yet, then soon).

3. The gun-guy replies: “Right, we’d lose symmetric battles, but we’d be able to carry out asymmetric warfare.”

4. I ask: “Explain what you mean by that, please.”

5. The gun-guy responds: “well, think of the DC Snipers. Think of how much damage they did to the establishment’s morale, just two guys driving around with a rifle. Then multiply that by a hundred or so.”

6. I answer, astonished (well, not so much now, but at first): “Oh, so that’s whom you want to empower with 2A?”

Of all the loonie arguments that one (the Gun-guy’s) must be the looniest. If the Jews had gone around shooting random people in 1930s Berlin or Warsaw, or Kiev, or Moscow, they would have made it much easier for the anti-Semites to recruit, and much of the world would have ended up on their side. And you guys imagine that the Founding Fathers would approve???? Seriously? Would any of you Professors want someone like the DC Snipers driving around your campus??

[Michael P]

It's funny: Your comments usually involve you acting like a stupid jerk who steps on his own crank. And your fantasy arguments do too!

You start out assuming that the government will wage war on its citizens with "nukes, and poison gasses, and all kinds of robots" and are surprised when your imaginary disputant proposes that the nuked citizenry would avoid frontal assaults.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bingo!

[Nige]

Lot of valuable lessons from Hamas for you guys.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would have been a LOT harder for the Gestapo to round up armed Jews.

Take Ann Frank -- if her Uncle Otto had a revolver and six bullets, he could have bought the rest of them enough time to flee. Yes, the Warsaw Ghetto didn't survive -- but look at the military resources it tied up, which thus weren't being used to fight the Soviets. What's not said about the Holocaust is how much of Germany's war resources (men, equipment, & transportation) it consumed.

If only 10% of the what -- 14 million Jews there circa 1930 -- had been armed, history would be very different today. Conversely, if American citizens hadn't been armed, the Japanese might have invaded the West Coast. What is it they said -- "in America, there is a rifle barrel behind every blade of grass."

[David Nieporent]

Take Ann Frank — if her Uncle Otto had a revolver and six bullets, he could have bought the rest of them enough time to flee.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[SRG2]

If only 10% of the what — 14 million Jews there circa 1930 — had been armed, history would be very different today

More of the non-Jewish civilian population would have turned on the Jews, Kristallnacht would have occurred two years earlier and conducted by much more heavily armed men.

We can all play the hypotheticals game.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1936? Four months after the "We Love Jews" Olympics?
I don't think so.

And if the carnage increased -- on both sides -- that would have made Hitler's move into the Sudetenland far more tenuous.

Remember he really didn't want to start the war until 1942-43, so if the war starts earlier, he is less prepared.

[damikesc]

Clearly, you think highly of the humanity of soldiers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

0f the Gestapo?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Once again you disprove your own handle.

[Kazinski]

Why should I discuss tactics with the enemy?

Kinda funny though, we just got kicked out of Afghanistan by guys that barely have the firepower of a typical American suburb.

Unless of course you are suggesting our government see Americans as.the real enemy and will loosen the rules of engagement accordingly.

[Moderation4ever]

What will interesting is to see how these cases progress. Donald Trump has a habit of filling cases against people, making the press, but then cases fizzle. Dropped or thrown out. Hunter Biden is taking a similar track against accusers, and it will be interesting to see the outcome. Do they fizzle or sizzle? I don't expect any to go to court but I wonder if Hunter drops them or if the defendant settles.

[RedDawg]

Agree completely - but if it does get to court, I'm buying a ticket.