The House Rules Committee is slated to gather to discuss a resolution on Tuesday morning, aiming to establish a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. House Republicans have undertaken an extensive investigation into Biden, culminating in an array of evidence ranging from sworn testimonies, bank records, emails, phone conversations, visual media, text messages, and White House visitor logs. This comprehensive evidence appears to point towards an extensive influence-peddling scheme involving the Biden family spanning several years.
Representatives James Comer (R-Ky.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Jason Smith (R-Mo.) have spearheaded the investigation thus far. However, despite their findings, the inquiry hasn’t received a formal House floor vote. Should the committee greenlight the resolution framework and obtain subsequent approval, a full House vote to legitimize the impeachment inquiry could occur on Wednesday.
The implications of formalizing this inquiry are substantial. A formalized inquiry would bolster existing subpoenas legally, compelling individuals to comply with testimonies or document submissions. Notably, Biden’s associates, including Hunter Biden, have resisted compelled testimonies, with Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, refusing deposition compliance and insisting on a public testimony setting. Representatives Comer and Jordan have warned of potential contempt charges against the president’s son if he fails to appear for questioning on Wednesday.
The potential amplification of investigative powers in a formalized impeachment inquiry has stirred notable concern among Democrats. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, has been discreetly meeting with Republicans on the committee in an attempt to thwart the inquiry’s initiation. Raskin’s efforts suggest unease about what the investigation’s heightened powers could unearth, unwilling to risk a potential backlash from an impeachment proceeding that could backfire on the Republicans. The probe, led by Comer, Jordan, and Smith, has consistently accused the Biden administration of obstructing the investigation, while Raskin contends that the administration has been exceptionally cooperative, as stated in the anti-impeachment talking points distributed by Raskin.
The investigations have revealed Biden’s alleged involvement in his family’s financial gains linked to the Biden name. Representative Comer asserted that the evidence produced by the House Oversight Committee exposes Biden’s knowledge of and benefit from his family capitalizing on their name. Biden has maintained he never discussed his son’s foreign business affairs, although evidence unveiled by the committee suggests his participation in conference calls with Biden’s associates. The White House, however, shifted its stance, emphasizing that Biden was never “in business with” his son.
If the House ratifies a formal inquiry, it could potentially lead to Biden’s impeachment, considering the trajectory of the investigation and the mounting evidence uncovered.