On Wednesday, House Republicans have now put forth the notion that President Joe Biden might be held accountable for an impeachment offense in connection with the noncompliance of his son Hunter Biden with a congressional subpoena.
The chairmen emphasized in their correspondence to White House Counsel Edward Siskel how White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre informed reporters that President Biden was “acquainted” with the remarks that Hunter Biden was scheduled to deliver at a press conference held outside the United States Capitol in mid-December.
Hunter Biden utilized his Capitol Hill appearance as an opportunity to publicly demand that House Republicans grant him a public hearing, as opposed to attending the closed-door interview as required by the House Republicans-issued congressional subpoena. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) confirmed that he had secured the location where the First Son spoke and that he was present at the occasion.
Jordan and Comer now face the “troubling new question” of whether the commander-in-chief “corruptly sought to influence or obstruct” their investigation, despite the fact that Jean-Pierre has declined to provide further information when pressed regarding whether President Biden attempted to dissuade his son from violating a congressional subpoena.
A month ago, Hunter Biden was served with a subpoena to provide a deposition in connection with an impeachment investigation centered on corruption.
This inquiry pertains to the business dealings of the Biden family and the manner in which the Department of Justice has conducted its criminal investigation into Hunter Biden, which has the potential to result in incarceration.
Following his act of defiance, House Republicans indicated they were willing to have Hunter Biden testify in a public hearing, but only after a deposition, and stated that Biden would be charged with contempt of Congress.
The House voted along party lines to formally authorize the impeachment investigation shortly after Hunter Biden’s press conference; Republicans argued that this would lend legal weight to their subpoenas.