Code Name ‘Project Hanson’: Insider Documents Reveal How Hunter Biden Associates Helped Chinese Military Contractor Acquire Michigan Dual-Use Manufacturer
Reported by PETER SCHWEIZER and SEAMUS BRUNER |
(INSET: Hunter Biden) Passersby look at a life size replica of the Chinese Army Z-10WZ attack helicopter displayed outside the office of China’s main state-owned aircraft maker AVIC (Aviation Industry Corporation), China’s leading aircraft manufacturer in Beijing, China Thursday, July 17, 2014. China’s military spending has increased substantially almost every … Andy Wong/AP, ABC News
AVIC entities have been sanctioned by the United States on five separate occasions since 1993 and the addition to the watch list–a major red flag—occurred less than a year-and-a-half before they co-purchased Henniges with the Biden-led Chinese joint venture known as Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). The fact that CFIUS approved the deal is alarming given that Henniges owns numerous facilities in the United States that are now controlled by a Chinese military front company.
Internal BHR documents show exactly how the Chinese military contractor was able to disguise its ownership via shell corporations and formed a joint-venture with the son of the vice president to facilitate the Chinese takeover of an American dual-use technology supplier. Additional documents suggest that Hunter Biden’s Chinese-backed venture funneled money to an entity controlled by Vanessa Kerry, the daughter of then-Secretary of State John Kerry, just one month before CFIUS approved the takeover. At the time, Secretary Kerry played a lead role on the Obama-Biden CFIUS committee.
When news of the AVIC takeover of Michigan-based manufacturer Henniges Automotive hit the wire, Biden’s associates celebrated, calling the transaction a “proof of concept” for future Chinese acquisitions. “Congratulations!!!! Proof of concept again,” read the subject line of Devon Archer’s email on September 15, 2015. “This is great. Let’s get a letter out to Ambassador Baucus ASAP Archie (an apparent Archer nickname),” Bevan Cooney replied. Cooney is a former Biden associate who is now incarcerated for a separate venture—the tribal bond scheme—involving Biden’s business partners. Cooney has provided investigative journalists Peter Schweizer and Matthew Tyrmand with access to his emails with written authorization.
Cooney’s emails (and their attachments) reveal how Hunter Biden’s BHR viewed the Henniges acquisition—which they code named “Project Hanson”—as a major coup and a model for future BHR “cross-border” investments.
Moments after the deal closed, Archer set to work drafting a letter to U.S. Ambassador to China Max Baucus (who happened to be a longtime friend of the Biden family). Archer’s letter was an invitation to Ambassador Baucus to attend a banquet celebration for the deal with esteemed guest including BHR’s communist state-owned “strategic partners” and investors:
I am writing to invite you to a cross-border banquet to celebrate our acquisition of Henniges Automotive. We consummated the transaction earlier this month, in conjunction with our strategic partner, AVIC, for $600 million. I have also attached a news article about the transaction.
This milestone marks our first U.S.-based acquisition. Our strategic partners, including AVIC and Sinopec, will be in attendance, as will our investors, including the Bank of China and China Development Bank. We hope to discuss the opportunities and challenges of cross-border investments for Chinese companies in today’s macro environment. A member of our team has also extended an invitation to your economics advisor – Jonathan Fritz – to speak at the seminar.
The strategic partners and investors that Archer listed—particularly Sinopec, the Bank of China, and the China Development Bank—are all State-owned entities and therefore arms of the Chinese Communist Party whose executives/officials, along with BHR, clearly wanted to celebrate the Henniges coup.
Indeed, Hunter Biden’s Chinese business partner were pleased. One internal BHR document states in both English and Mandarin Chinese: “We are incredibly proud of the perseverance, dedication and ingenuity of the Project Hanson team who collectively brought to life the first-born of BHR’s cross-border investment platform, the first of many to come.”
2015 – Bhr Newsletter 2015 Christmas Edition by Breitbart News on Scribd
Roger Robinson, a former senior director for international economic affairs on President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council, claims that “the U.S. government has known for years that AVIC has been helping China’s military and aiding U.S. enemies and as such was sanctioned in the past.” AVIC’s well-known and long-established ties to the Chinese military-industrial complex makes the Obama-Biden administration’s approval “all the more curious.” “This is anything but a benign Chinese enterprise,” said Robinson.
But BHR and AVIC’s Project Hanson helped obfuscate and ameliorate the AVIC connections by creating a complex ownership structure. One internal BHR document reveals precisely how the Chinese military front company was able to disguise its true ownership in a byzantine off-shore structure, presumably obfuscating the fact that the Chinese military was taking over U.S. company whose technology is on the restricted Commerce Control List (“Target” refers to U.S. military supplier Henniges Automotive):
BHR Hunter Biden by Breitbart News on Scribd
Another internal BHR document contains a shocking revelation: Devon Archer facilitated Chinese “support” for an entity called Seed Global Health. Seed Global Health was co-founded and controlled by the daughter of Secretary John Kerry. According to BHR’s December 2015 internal document: “A special shout out to our director and shareholder, Devon Archer, for his involvement with the Seed Global Health non-profit foundation, which works to send medical staff and resources globally to countries in need. BHR will continue to support this and other worthy causes.”
It appears that BHR is referring to a fundraiser hosted by Devon Archer for Secretary Kerry’s daughter and her Seed Global Health organization that occurred on August 16, 2015—less than one month before Kerry’s State Department and the rest of the Obama-Biden CFIUS agencies approved Henniges takeover. The politically connected Seed Global Health has previously come under fire for receiving more than $9 million in State Department funds without bids or competition and, in 2018, an executive at Seed Global Health was charged by federal prosecutors for violating federal conflict of interest laws and illegal lobbying.
This is a developing story.
Peter Schweizer is the author of Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite. Seamus Bruner is the author of Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties.
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Reported by 
Peter Hasson | Associate Editor | 11:23 PM 11/20/2017
Published by ClashDaily.com | June 21, 2017
Lieutenant Jeff Neville, who was bleeding from the neck, sources and witnesses at Bishop International Airport said.
Reported by Fred Lucas 
Reported by 
Michael Bastasch, 01/26/2016
In response, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced legislation on Monday afternoon that would suspend issuance of visas to refugees from countries with a high risk of terrorism until the U.S. Department of Homeland Security meets certain standards. Those standards include fingerprinting and screening all refugees, implement a tracking system “to catch attempted overstays,” and enhancing security measures that are already in place.
Several politicians have recently been offering free goodies to voters. One of the most popular of these, oddly enough, is something that several state governments have already tackled: free college tuition.
The details vary by state, but Oregon, Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan, and Louisiana (among others) all use tax dollars to pay for at least some of their residents’ college tuition.
Louisiana provides a great case study for advocates of similar federal policies. Louisiana just so happens to be in the news right now because the governor is threatening to suspend his state’s version of free college tuition for everyone.
Louisiana’s Tuition Program
Louisiana’s plan is called the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students, or, more commonly, TOPS. This extremely popular program uses tax dollars to pay full tuition (and some fees) at any of Louisiana’s public universities. Other than residency requirements, all high school students qualify as long as they have a C average (2.5 GPA) and at least an 18 on the ACT.
So the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students doesn’t cover every student’s tuition, but it ends up covering it for a large chunk of middle-/upper-class families.
How It Started
The program started out in the late 1980s as the brainchild of oil tycoon/philanthropist Patrick Taylor. The program, which wasn’t originally named for him, started out as a tuition assistance plan only for low-income individuals.
In 1997 the state removed the income caps. At that point, all Louisiana students, regardless of financial need, were made eligible for “free” tuition at any Louisiana public college. Once in college, students had to maintain a C average to keep their TOPS awards.
As of 2010, approximately 70 percent of Louisiana’s high school graduates headed to college within one year. That’s nearly 20 percent higher than the rate in 2000.
Who’s Paying for It?
It’s easy to call the program a success because of this increase, but it’s just as easy to point out that the program doesn’t really provide free education. In one way or another, someone pays for it.
The eventual implosion of the program was easy to predict back in 1997 for the same reasons that pretty much any similar subsidy is destined to fail. Subsidies don’t really lower the cost of products and services; they only lower the up-front price that some people pay.
(In 1997, this program inspired my very first public critique of a government policy. Back then, I thought it was a terrible idea.)
No Such Thing as Free Tuition
A person receiving “free” tuition may not see it (or even care), but subsides actually raise the total cost of an education. The core problem is that they remove the paying customer—in this case the student—from the equation.
Without the subsidy, the paying customer receives the direct benefit for the service and bears the direct cost. If that person doesn’t think the cost is worth it, they don’t pay.
Louisiana’s program replaces this paying customer with groups of government officials. These officials neither receive the direct benefit nor endure the direct cost of obtaining an education. These groups do, however, benefit a great deal from obtaining more of your tax dollars.
And they rarely bear any direct cost from either increasing your taxes or delivering a substandard education product. (The incumbency rate is fairly high for politicians.)
On a practical level, Louisiana’s program converts tuition payments into a state budget item. In other words, a large chunk of each school’s “tuition” becomes nothing more than revenue sent in by the state bureaucracy.
In Louisiana, four separate higher education systems—each its own bureaucracy—fight over these “tuition” payments. Smaller schools inevitably get the smallest shares, but that’s kind of another story.
A Burden on University Resources
When the influx of students hits—more people going to school when tuition is “free” is pretty much a foregone conclusion—it strains universities’ existing resources. So the transfer of money has the natural tendency to lead to expanded facilities, faculty, and staff.
But these increases call for a permanently higher level of funding, and all of these effects tend to reinforce each other. That is, school officials have a built in reason to ask for larger transfers, and politicians have a built in excuse to raise taxes.
When the state’s coffers are not flush with cash, the schools’ budgets get cut. Thus, universities have every incentive to raise more money from students who are not a part of the Taylor Opportunity Program.
Of course, for any given level of Taylor Opportunity Program students, a higher posted rate of tuition results in a larger transfer from the state. If the program covered full fees and tuition for literally every student, then taxpayers would bear the full cost. But it doesn’t, so non-TOPS students bear some of the cost.
(Pretty much every student ends up paying higher fees directly, too, but that’s almost an aside.)
Non-subsidized markets don’t work this way—prices can actually fall in response to changes in demand and supply. Subsidized systems, on the other hand, are destined to result in higher—not lower—tuition.
Recent numbers support this explanation. The Taylor Opportunity Program has nearly doubled in cost since 2008, and most of that increase has been due to higher tuition.
What I failed to fully appreciate in 1997 was how bad of a deal the Taylor Opportunity Program would end up being for the smaller schools. Then I spent almost a decade teaching at Nicholls State University, a regional state school in Thibodaux, La.
Small Universities Are Hardest Hit
In one sense, the Louisiana program amounted to a cruel trick for these institutions. Smaller schools are the ones least able to sustain the permanently higher costs associated with the new TOPS-generated revenue stream.
When the state budget goes south—and it always does in Louisiana—smaller schools get slammed. (Louisiana State University has more than 25,000 students, so small changes in per-student fees go a long way).
No matter how much we want it to, subsidizing something simply doesn’t make it more cost-effective.
The Taylor Opportunity Program does give certain people a better deal on tuition at one point in time, but then it makes up for it somewhere else.
Ironically, the earlier waves of Taylor Opportunity Program graduates are among those about to get hit with a tax increase. That’s what politicians mean by free.
Aside from the subsidy/cost issue, there are many other reasons why this is bad public policy.
First of all—and I know this sounds crazy—everyone should not go to college. Some people simply aren’t cut out, and many just don’t need to. Yes, people with college degrees tend to earn more than those without, but it does not follow that everyone should go to college.
When the program was started, Louisiana public universities offered students a good value because they were relatively inexpensive. Now that Louisiana taxpayers have spent more than $2 billion on the program, tuition rates are out of reach for many students that don’t qualify for the program.
While the best solution for Louisiana would be to get rid of the program altogether (unlikely since politicians love the program), the best residents can hope for now is an increase in the program’s academic standards and some form of means testing. At least these changes would better direct subsidies to academically prepared students with more financial need.