WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Friday demanded that Hunter Biden, the president’s son, sit for a closed-door deposition in their impeachment inquiry into his father, rejecting his request to testify only in public and suggesting he could face punishment if he did not agree to their terms.
In a letter, Reps. James Comer of Kentucky, chair of the Oversight Committee, and Jim Jordan of Ohio, chair of the Judiciary Committee, said they looked forward to Biden appearing publicly “at the appropriate time.” But they said his request to skip a private deposition and go straight to testimony in an open session amounted to a “demand that he receive special treatment.”
“The subpoenas Mr. Biden has received compel him to appear before the committees for a deposition,” they added. “They are not mere suggestions open to Mr. Biden’s interpretation or preference.”
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
Comer has suggested that House Republicans could attempt to bring contempt of Congress charges against Biden if he did not comply with a congressional subpoena.
House Republicans have worked for months to try to build an impeachment case against President Joe Biden, hunting for evidence to back up their allegations that he corruptly profited from his family members’ overseas business dealings and accepted bribes. To date, they have failed to deliver compelling evidence to back up their boldest claims.
Their investigation has focused heavily on the work Hunter Biden did for companies and partners in Ukraine, China and other countries, and they have demanded he testify under subpoena.
The younger Biden told the Republicans this week that he would be willing to testify — but only publicly so that Republicans could not twist or selectively leak what he says. In a letter to Congress, Abbe Lowell, Biden’s lawyer, criticized the Republican inquiry as a “partisan crusade” and said Comer has used “closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort the facts and misinform the public.”
Lowell proposed that Biden appear at a public hearing Dec. 13.
“If, as you claim, your efforts are important and involve issues that Americans should know about, then let the light shine on these proceedings,” Lowell wrote.
But Republicans quickly rejected that offer, arguing that Biden must first testify behind closed doors, as other witnesses have done. In the letter Friday, the GOP committee leaders wrote that “if it helps to alleviate your stated concerns,” they planned to record the interview on video and release a transcript afterward.
The lawmakers also pushed back on arguments that their investigation was not legitimate. They asserted that they had a “valid legislative purpose” for their inquiry into the Bidens, including research to inform “potential legislative reforms relating to federal ethics and financial disclosure laws.” They also said they were evaluating evidence they had received thus far that showed “President Biden was aware of at least some of his family’s business ventures and sought to influence potential business deals that financially benefited his family.”
If Hunter Biden does testify before the House panels, he would be taking risks. He is the subject of a federal criminal investigation now being led by a special counsel, and he is under indictment on charges of lying about his drug use on a federal form he filled out to purchase a handgun in 2018. Any testimony he provides to Congress could be used against him.
A spokesperson for Hunter Biden declined to comment.
Democrats on Friday criticized the Republican inquiry as nothing more than a political stunt.
“I struggle to call House Republicans’ fishing expedition an investigation when it’s been run without any investigating,” said Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. “It’s been nearly a year of recycling debunked conspiracy theories in hopes the public will start to believe their lies.”
c.2023 The New York Times Company
Amanda Smith is a dedicated U.S. correspondent with a passion for uncovering the stories that shape the nation. With a background in political science, she provides in-depth analysis and insightful commentary on domestic affairs, ensuring readers are well-informed about the latest developments across the United States.
