The White House, through its special counsel Richard Sauber, has challenged the legitimacy of the GOP-led impeachment inquiry against President Biden. In a detailed letter addressed to House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY.) and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Sauber called for the withdrawal of subpoenas and interview requests targeting Biden family members and aides. He underscored that the inquiry lacks formal authorization from the House, a constitutional requirement, and labeled the investigation as a form of “Congressional harassment.”
Sauber’s letter, spanning four pages, emphasized that the subpoenas, particularly those related to Biden’s handling of classified documents, are intertwined with an ongoing Justice Department investigation and fall outside the scope of the House’s impeachment inquiry. This inquiry, spearheaded by House Republicans, primarily revolves around the business dealings of Biden’s son, Hunter, and brother, James, and their alleged connections to the President’s past role as Vice President.
Sauber accused Comer and Jordan of misrepresenting evidence and pursuing the inquiry with partisan objectives. He referred to recent admissions by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA.) that political considerations were influencing the House’s actions. Sauber’s letter also cited a 2020 opinion from the White House Office of Legal Counsel, under Trump, supporting the necessity of a House resolution for a committee to exercise compulsory process in aid of impeachment.
Countering these allegations, Comer insisted on the necessity of Biden’s staff testifying before Congress, arguing that the investigation has uncovered new facts contradicting the White House’s narrative. He also asserted that the investigation revealed Joe Biden’s knowledge and benefit from his family’s business dealings, including with foreign adversaries.
The White House’s response, seen as a direct challenge to the House GOP’s approach, raises constitutional questions about the legitimacy and motivations behind the impeachment inquiry. Sauber, in his letter, called for the House Republicans to reconsider their actions and engage in constitutionally approved processes for legitimate oversight inquiries.
On their official website, Comer and the Oversight Committee outline their grievances in a list of “key evidence” meant to provide superficial legitimacy to their pursuit of the President. However, careful review of the claims would highlight their glaring lack of evidence and/or relevance. In citing instances where Hunter Biden and others close to him received payments for their roles in foreign companies, they rarely mention his name, choosing rather to recurrently use the umbrella terminology of the “Biden family and associates.” This deliberate wording is meant to obfuscate the reality of the situation, that there is no evidence that the President was involved in these deals.
Devon Archer, Hunter’s former business associate, was praised by Republicans; they believed he would finally provide the “smoking gun” against the “Biden Crime Syndicate.” However, even he testified to the Committee that Hunter Biden sought to create “an illusion of access to his father.” While it’s quite likely Hunter tried to leverage his name as well as his father’s position to further his personal business dealings, there is no evidence that the President ever engaged in these pursuits.
The claims laid out against the President are strongly reminiscent of the “affidavits” and “lawsuits” that seemed to materialize in protest to the 2020 election. They might do a good job of catching eyeballs as headlines on FoxNews, or farm you more engagements on your Tweets, but when put under the microscope of the judicial system they too will fail miserably.
