On Thursday, September 28, 2023, House Republicans initiated a formal impeachment hearing against President Joe Biden. The hearing was organised in search of vowing to deliver “accountability” as they delve into the financial affairs and lucrative business ventures of his son, Hunter Biden.
The chairpersons of the Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means committees took center stage during the opening hearing. They examined the constitutional and legal complexities intertwined with impeachment. Their ultimate objective is to establish the purported connections between President Biden and his son Hunter’s overseas enterprises, although key witnesses cautioned that concrete evidence of impeachable offenses remained elusive.
Republicans dive into Biden family’s finances with subpoenas
Representative James Comer, the Oversight chairman hailing from Kentucky, declared that they possessed “a mountain of evidence” poised to unveil how the senior Biden had “exploited his public office for his family’s financial gain.”
Without hesitation, and mere hours after the hearing’s conclusion, Comer unleashed subpoenas targeting additional banking records, plunging into the financial web of Hunter Biden and the President’s brother, James Biden. He vowed that the committee would relentlessly “trace the money and the evidence to ensure accountability.”
This marked a high-stakes overture by the Republicans, transpiring on the cusp of a potential federal government shutdown. They embarked on a process with the power to exact the gravest consequence for a president—removal from office due to “high crimes and misdemeanors,” as defined by the Constitution.
Yet, as the hearing unfolded, the White House mounted a steadfast defense. Throughout the proceedings, they underscored that nothing could divert attention from the Republicans’ incapacity to govern, particularly as the specter of a government shutdown loomed. Sharon Yang, the White House spokesperson, dismissed the hearing as a “baseless stunt” and affirmed, “President Biden will unwaveringly prioritize the needs of the American people over these political maneuvers.”
The marathon-like hearing, spanning more than six hours, occurred amidst internal dissent among House Republicans regarding the impeachment inquiry. Moreover, deep-seated reluctance within Senate Republican ranks cast doubt on the likelihood of Biden’s conviction and removal from office.
As the hearing commenced, Democrats projected a stark reminder on the screen—a countdown ticking away the hours, minutes, and seconds until the impending government shutdown. This stark display served as a pointed commentary on the urgency of Congress securing funding before the looming deadline.
Democrats cast doubt on legitimacy of the hearing
Amidst the tension, Representative Jamie Raskin, the leading Democrat on the Oversight panel, questioned the very legitimacy of the hearing. He pointed out the absence of a formal House vote to commence the impeachment inquiry, and contended that Republicans were rehashing allegations dating back five years—allegations originally raised by Donald Trump, Biden’s chief rival in the 2024 election, during the former president’s 2019 impeachment regarding Ukraine.
“They don’t have a shred of evidence against President Joe Biden for an impeachable offence,” he stated.
The hearing on Thursday did not include any witnesses with knowledge of the Bidens or Hunter Biden’s business. Instead, the panel heard from specialists on tax law, criminal investigations, and constitutional law.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law scholar and expert on impeachment concerns, testified as a senior Republican-called witness that the House had exceeded the bar for an inquiry but that the present evidence was insufficient for charges.
“I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment,” Turley stated.
Democrats, who see the inquiry as a political tactic to harm Biden and help Trump in his re-election bid, hired Michael Gerhardt, a law professor who has already testified as an expert in prior impeachment processes.
After reviewing the reasons Republicans claim they have to impeach Biden, Gerhardt said, “If that’s all there is as a basis for this inquiry, it’s not enough.” “I say this with all due respect.”
Still, suspicions persist as Republicans investigate the Biden family’s finances and Hunter Biden’s abroad business operations, who has admitted to being a drug user during much of the time under investigation. James, the president’s brother, was also involved in some of Hunter’s work.
Hunter Biden’s business dealing examined in detail
Republicans have indeed scrutinized Hunter Biden’s activities for an extended period, even during his father’s tenure as Vice President. Despite concerns regarding the ethics of the Biden family’s international business dealings, concrete evidence demonstrating that the President, in his current or prior roles, abused his position or engaged in bribery remains elusive.
During House investigations, Hunter Biden’s former business partner asserted that Hunter had essentially sold the “illusion of access” to his father, leaving the question of the President’s direct involvement unanswered, as highlighted by Turley’s testimony.
In the lead-up to the hearing, Republicans released an array of documents and bank records, shedding light on wire transactions from a Chinese billionaire to Hunter Biden in 2019. Republicans argue that Hunter Biden listed his father’s address on the wire transfer form, creating an apparent connection to the President.
Attorney clarifies address on wire transfer form
Hunter Biden’s lawyer clarified the address on the wire transfer form, stating it matched his Delaware residence as per his driver’s license. House Republicans are investigating Hunter Biden’s taxes and firearms usage from 2018. These inquiries create uncertainty amid ongoing controversies surrounding the Biden family’s business dealings. Claims in the impeachment inquiry were refuted by DOJ, IRS, and FBI officials involved. Representative Jason Smith criticized the Biden Justice Department without acknowledging similar practices during Trump’s tenure.
What lies ahead?
In contrast, Republicans have pointed to a failed plea agreement from the previous summer as evidence of Hunter Biden receiving preferential treatment due to his father’s position. Representative Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, characterized the agreement as an attempt to craft a favorable arrangement.
Remarkably, these impeachment proceedings unfold against the backdrop of an impending and potentially catastrophic government shutdown. Such an event would not only disrupt the paychecks of millions of federal employees and military personnel but also disrupt essential services relied upon by millions of Americans. The confluence of these events adds a climactic tension to the ongoing political drama, with far-reaching consequences for both the nation and its people.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy initiated the impeachment investigation last month, driven by Trump’s urging and facing mounting pressure from the right wing of his party, who demanded action against Biden or threatened his leadership position.
Trump holds the distinction of being the only U.S. president to have faced impeachment twice. First, he was accused of allegedly pressuring Ukraine to uncover damaging information about Biden, and then again for purportedly inciting the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. In both instances, the Senate ultimately acquitted him.
Thursday’s hearing marks the beginning of what promises to be a series of deliberations within House Republican ranks as they contemplate the possibility of pursuing articles of impeachment against the sitting president.
The viability of McCarthy’s endeavor to impeach Biden hangs in the balance, as he navigates the challenges posed by his slim Republican majority. Should the improbable occur, and Biden indeed faces impeachment, the ensuing allegations will cast a long shadow, setting the stage for a Senate trial that could change the course of history.
