House GOP backs impeachment ‘inquiry.’ What does that mean?

On Sept. 12, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, citing a “picture of corruption” that had emerged from a monthslong investigation into Hunter Biden, the president’s son, and the Biden family.

He said the inquiry was needed to give House Republicans greater power to obtain financial records and other documents. He was also under pressure from his right flank and former President Donald Trump, who was twice impeached himself.

Speaker McCarthy did not hold a House vote on the inquiry, due to some vocal Republican holdouts who cited a lack of evidence. But on Wednesday, when newly elected Speaker Mike Johnson brought the issue to the House floor, all Republicans voted in favor, 221-212. Many said they were persuaded by White House stonewalling of the three committees spearheading the investigation.

Despite the additional legitimacy conferred by a formal vote, the outcome of the inquiry will ultimately hinge on whether House Republicans can directly connect Hunter Biden’s alleged influence peddling to his father – a connection that even some Republicans say has not been established so far. 

Hanging in the balance is the impact this inquiry may have on the 2024 presidential election – and perhaps on the impeachment process itself, which some say is increasingly becoming a routine political tool rather than a measure reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Three of the four presidential impeachments in U.S. history have occurred in the past 25 years.

How does an “inquiry” relate to impeachment?

The Constitution, which empowers the House of Representatives to impeach a president for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” does not specify the process for a preliminary investigation. House rules do not require a formal vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry, and recent precedent has been mixed. 

Mr. McCarthy cited the Democrats’ 2021 precedent of launching an impeachment inquiry against then-President Trump without a formal vote, despite having earlier criticized that move and saying he would hold a vote. He tasked House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer with leading the inquiry, together with Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan and Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith.

Republicans have said an inquiry will not necessarily lead to impeachment, and that they will follow where the evidence leads. 

What was the GOP’s basis for launching the inquiry?

In a Sept. 27 memo, the three GOP chairs laid out their rationale, writing that their committees’ investigations so far indicated that Mr. Biden, during his time as vice president, “may” have changed U.S. policy or provided access to his office “in exchange for his family’s receipt of foreign money.” They also accused his administration of impeding efforts to look into these “foreign entanglements.” 

A central concern involves Hunter Biden’s former role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Republicans allege that then-Vice President Biden improperly thwarted a corruption investigation into the company, which was paying his son millions, by pushing for Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin to be fired – which he was in March 2016. 

Democrats have pointed out that the State Department, European Union, and International Monetary Fund had long been pushing for Mr. Shokin to be fired for being too soft on corruption. In 2019, they impeached then-President Trump for allegedly pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch a public investigation into the Bidens and Burisma by withholding U.S. loan guarantees. 

In an FBI document released by Republicans this summer, a confidential informant relayed conversations with Burisma’s founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, about the corruption investigation and the company’s efforts to acquire a U.S. oil and gas company. According to the informant, Mr.  Zlochevsky said, “Don’t worry, Hunter will take care of all those issues through his dad.” The informant also said Mr. Zlochevsky claimed he was “forced” to pay $5 million to both Hunter and his father and had 17 recordings featuring the Bidens – including two of Joe Biden – proving that. The informant, who has remained anonymous, said it was common for Ukrainian business people to pay bribes but could not provide any further opinion on the veracity of Mr. Zlochevsky’s claims. (For more, see our Sept. 27 story.)

Democrats have lambasted the impeachment inquiry as baseless, calling it a desperate effort to distract from the GOP’s failure to govern effectively since winning back the House last year. Republicans counter that Mr. Biden and his administration have not turned over financial documents that could disprove the allegations. 

What evidence have Republicans produced since then?

Two weeks into their inquiry, the GOP chairs laid out their case at a Sept. 28 hearing. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who has testified at the past three impeachment proceedings, testified that he believed House Republicans had met the threshold for justifying an inquiry. He added, however, that it wasn’t yet clear whether Vice President Biden was directly involved, noting that it was possible Hunter and other relatives were selling “the illusion of access.”

Since then, committee chairs have largely restated the same claims but also presented a few new findings. Chair Comer released several bank records showing direct payments to Joe Biden, including two checks for $40,000 and $200,000 from his brother and sister-in-law labeled “loan repayment.” He also released a form from 2018 authorizing monthly transfers of $1,380 from Hunter Biden’s corporate account to his father, though The Washington Post reported that an email verified by forensic analysis showed they were payments for using a Ford Raptor truck purchased by his dad.

Mr. Comer has asked for documentation proving that the loans were legitimate. He also claims that some of this was “laundered” Chinese money, citing a bank investigator who flagged “erratic” payments to Hunter Biden’s corporate account with no evidence of services rendered. The investigator noted a pattern of China targeting children of politicians and trying to purchase political influence. 

The Judiciary Committee also produced an interim report arguing that the Justice Department had given Hunter Biden preferential treatment in its prosecution of criminal charges against him, including tax evasion. It credited two IRS whistleblowers with breaking open the case, and called out the younger Mr. Biden’s lawyers for pushing for the whistleblowers to be prosecuted.

On Dec. 7, two days after the report came out, a federal grand jury issued a nine-count indictment against Hunter Biden for seeking to evade millions of dollars in taxes on foreign income. 

On Wednesday he defied an Oversight subpoena for a closed-door deposition, instead giving a rare press conference outside the Capitol. He told reporters he was willing to testify, but only in public, so that his remarks could not be selectively leaked. 

Does this vote give the inquiry more legitimacy? 

Committee chairs said Hunter Biden’s “obstruction” was further proof of the need for the House resolution, to enforce subpoenas and other requests. They note that the president has softened previous denials that he was involved in his son’s business dealings. On Wednesday, Hunter told reporters his father was not “financially” involved – raising speculation about other types of involvement.

The resolution instructs the three House committees involved to continue their investigation, underscores their subpoena power, and lays out guidelines for hearings and other procedural questions.  

President Biden denounced the inquiry in a statement after the vote. “Instead of doing anything to help make Americans’ lives better, they are focused on attacking me with lies,” he said.