Then, pushed into a debate by Raskin, Comer quickly lost the upper hand.
“If you thought it would have been illegal for Joe Biden to take $5 million from Ukraine, it certainly would have been,” Raskin asked. “What do you think about Donald Trump taking more than $5 million from the Chinese government while he was president? »
“Well, we know that Donald Trump had a legitimate business that he talked about and campaigned on,” Comer said. He followed up moments later with a question: “What business were the Bidens in?”
Comer has been told the answer to this question time and time again, but – either because he refuses to acknowledge the fruits of his investigation that weaken his case, or because he is somehow ignoring it another – he always presents it as if it remained unanswered.
Before explaining the answer again, it is worth addressing Raskin’s allegations regarding Chinese government money. It is true that the Trump Organization received millions of dollars in foreign income from two of its properties while Trump was president, including rent paid by a Chinese state bank for space in Trump Tower. Comer’s response, in essence, can be distilled thus: Because Americans knew or could have known that Trump had foreign business partners when he was elected, the money he received from his companies – even inflated thereafter – is off the rhetorical table.
So we return to Comer’s question: What business were the Bidens in?
There are a few Bidens at issue here, but the investigation has largely focused on the president’s brother James and his son Hunter in an unsuccessful effort to link their partnerships to the president.
James Biden explained his work when questioned by investigators working for the Comer committee.
“I have a company that provides voluntary benefits to large institutions on behalf of its employees,” he said during his February deposition. When asked about the specific limited liability companies he and his wife had established, he further explained that he also did “consulting business in many different areas.” When he and Hunter Biden worked together, he said, “I basically consulted and gave advice to Hunter Biden, who is my nephew, … based on what the business was at the time.” »
Hunter Biden explained his background at length during his testimony that same month.
“I was a vice president at a large national bank, where I worked in the general counsel’s office and then as head of a unit within the fraud department,” he said. declared. “I was executive director of e-commerce policy coordination at the Department of Commerce during the Clinton administration. I founded and built a successful law firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, and represented nonprofit institutions, including nearly a dozen primarily Jesuit universities across the country, from Philadelphia to Los Angeles, from Detroit to Denver and all over the world. between. I then founded and built a successful small business advising clients on global infrastructure and alternative investments.
When the Oversight Committee interviewed Hunter Biden’s former partner Devon Archer last year, Archer confirmed that Hunter Biden was asked to join the board of directors of Ukrainian energy company Burisma for the reason Hunter Biden told him -self: as an expert in corporate governance. Archer and Biden disagree on the extent to which Biden’s last name was an incitement, but the fact remains that Comer’s request has an answer.
Asking Raskin about the Bidens’ work, Comer established the types of businesses he said were considered legitimate to engage with foreign partners: “Did they have hotels? Did they have a social media company? Did they have golf courses? Did they have casinos? Did they have office buildings? These are of course all things Trump has been involved in, but the idea that owning a casino is less burdensome for a political actor than providing consulting services on business partnerships is certainly unusual.
As is common, Comer also misrepresented the foreign money that Hunter and James Biden had received. (All of this has not been shown to have gone to President Biden.) Raskin, responding to Comer’s question about the work the Bidens did, noted that the president made money after serving as vice-president. president in part by writing a book.
“This is why Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Romania, China, Russia, this is why they paid money to the Biden family, because of Joe Biden’s book?” » asked Comer.
In the same way that Comer often confuses Hunter Biden and his father by referring to “the Biden family”, he presents money coming from people living in a country with money coming explicitly from the country itself, that is. that is to say of his government. His inclusion of Russia on this list is particularly egregious since Archer explicitly testified that the money in question was going only to himself and not to Hunter (or any other) Biden. Again something Comer should definitely know.
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) repeatedly tried to intervene as Comer and Raskin shouted at each other, offering answers to Comer’s questions. When it came time for five minutes of questioning of the witness at the hearing – the hearing focused on Chinese efforts to exert influence in the United States, mind you, and not the impeachment inquiry – he was returned to the question “What are the Bidens doing?” question.
“Hunter Biden was a corporate governance lawyer appointed by George Bush to the Amtrak board and later served on a number of boards and investment companies,” Goldman said. “Jim Biden is a businessman. Joe Biden is the President of the United States and has been a public servant and elected official for almost 50 years.
He acknowledged that Comer might want to question whether Hunter Biden was qualified for his consulting assignments.
“But that has nothing to do with your jurisdiction or the impeachment inquiry,” Goldman said, “because you can’t link any of his business relationships a) with a foreign government — whereby he doesn’t never got paid, unlike Donald Trump and Donald Trump’s family, or b) the President of the United States. This is why your impeachment inquiry is a spectacular failure.
The argument between Raskin and Comer had ended earlier with Comer attempting to declare victory.
“We will make sure Mr. Raskins cannot answer the question,” he said, “what did the Bidens do to deserve this money.”
Raskin initially angrily noted that his last name was “Raskin.” (“We’ve been sitting next to each other for over a year,” he said. “You don’t have to add the S.”) He then insisted that Comer identifies what crime President Biden had committed that would warrant impeachment.
“Well, you’re about to find out very soon,” Comer replied.
Perhaps he should first take the time to familiarize himself with his committee’s testimony.
washingtonpost
