WASHINGTON (CN) — House Republicans held fast Tuesday on their demand that Hunter Biden first meet with lawmakers in private, rejecting claims from his attorney that the president’s son would be willing to testify before Congress at a public hearing.
The House Oversight Committee, which has for months been investigating the Biden family’s finances, served the younger Biden with a congressional subpoena Nov. 8, aimed at hauling him before the panel for a closed-doors deposition.
The move comes as Republicans ramp up their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, whom some lawmakers claim — albeit without solid evidence — was involved in his son’s business dealings and other financial malfeasance.
Now, an attorney for Hunter Biden has cast aspersions on the possibility of his client sitting for a private meeting with Republican lawmakers.
Lawyer Abbe Lowell told Oversight Committee Chair James Comer in a letter Tuesday that the GOP’s demands belie a “cloaked, one-sided process.” A closed-door deposition would allow Comer and the Republican-led committee to distort facts and misinform the public, Lowell argued.
The younger Biden’s attorney pointed to some of Comer’s past statements which he said extended an offer for his client to testify during a public hearing.
“Mr. Chairman, we take you up on your offer,” Lowell said. “Our client will get right to it by agreeing to answer any pertinent and relevant question you or your colleagues might have … at a public Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing.”
Despite Lowell’s insistence, however, Comer and other top House Republicans doubled down Tuesday on the terms of their subpoena, which mandate the younger Biden give a private deposition next month.
“Hunter Biden is trying to play by his own rules instead of following the rules required of everyone else,” the Oversight Committee chair said in a statement. “That won’t stand with House Republicans.”
Comer said that his panel expects Hunter Biden to comply with the subpoena and to sit for a deposition on Dec. 13, but added that the president’s son “should have the opportunity to testify in a public setting at a future date.”
Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a Tuesday post on X, formerly Twitter, that he is “glad that Hunter Biden has decided to cooperate” and that he is looking forward to his December deposition. Jordan, too, acknowledged the possibility of a future public hearing, which he said would take place “subsequently” to the planned closed-doors meeting.
Democrats meanwhile were incensed with their GOP colleagues for sidestepping a public hearing next month.
“What an epic humiliation for our colleagues,” wrote Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, the oversight committee’s ranking member, “and a frank confession that they are simply not interested in the facts and have no confidence in their own case or the ability of their own members to pursue it.”
Raskin reiterated Democrats’ longstanding argument that the GOP has been unable to tie Joe Biden to any wrongdoing and accused Republicans of avoiding committee hearings “where the public can actually see for itself the logical, rhetorical and factual contortions they have tied themselves up in.”
“What Republicans fear most is sunlight and the truth,” Raskin wrote.
While the Oversight Committee has collected evidence suggesting that Hunter Biden sought to use his father’s influence to further his business aims, it has not provided solid proof that Joe Biden benefited from his son’s activity. That hasn’t stopped Comer and other House Republicans from suggesting the president and his family leveraged the Biden “brand” for personal gain.
In addition to its subpoena for Hunter Biden, the Oversight Committee also issued legal summons earlier this month to James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother. At issue for Republicans is a 2018 personal check sent to the president from James Biden, labeled “loan repayment.”
Lawmakers have claimed that the check, for a sum of $200,000, was used not for squaring a loan between family members but instead to conceal a nefarious financial transaction, pointing to a similar sum James Biden received from a business partner the same day he paid back his brother.
Democrats have argued that bank records, including those in Republicans’ possession, pour cold water on any purported malfeasance.
Follow @BenjaminSWeiss
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
