[House Report 118-346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                              House Calendar No. 57

118th Congress }                                          { Report 
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session    }                                          { 118-346

======================================================================
 
 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND ROBERT 
   HUNTER BIDEN IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A 
 SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                                _______
                                

  January 12, 2024.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    The Committee on Oversight and Accountability, having 
considered this Report, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the Report be approved.
    The form of the Resolution that the Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability would recommend to the House of 
Representatives citing Robert Hunter Biden for contempt of 
Congress pursuant to this Report is as follows:
    Resolved, That Robert Hunter Biden shall be found to be in 
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional 
subpoena.
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194, 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
report of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
detailing the refusal of Robert Hunter Biden to appear for a 
deposition before the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
as directed by subpoena, to an appropriate United States 
attorney, to the end that Mr. Biden be proceeded against in the 
manner and form provided by law.
    Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Executive Summary................................................     2
Authority and Purpose............................................     3
Background on the Investigation..................................     5
    A. The Committees Seek Information from Hunter Biden Central 
      to the Investigative Purpose of the Impeachment Inquiry of 
      President Joe Biden and the Committees' Legislative 
      Oversight Investigation....................................     7
    B. Hunter Biden's Refusal to Comply with the Committees' 
      Subpoenas for a Deposition.................................    11
    C. Hunter Biden's Purported Reasons for Non-Compliance with 
      the Subpoenas Are Without Merit............................    13
    D. Precedent Supports the Committees' Decision to Proceed 
      with Holding Hunter Biden in Contempt......................    16
Conclusion.......................................................    17
Committee Consideration..........................................    17
Committee Votes..................................................    17
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    23
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    23
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    23
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    23
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    23

                           Executive Summary

    On December 13, 2023, Robert Hunter Biden failed to comply 
with deposition subpoenas issued by the Committees on Oversight 
and Accountability and the Judiciary for testimony relevant to 
the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry and the 
Committees' oversight investigations.\1\ Instead, Mr. Biden 
opted to read a short, prepared statement in front of the 
Capitol. Accordingly, Mr. Biden has violated federal law,\2\ 
and must be held in contempt of Congress. Mr. Biden's testimony 
is a critical component of the impeachment inquiry into, among 
other things, whether Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as Vice President 
and/or President: (1) took any official action or effected any 
change in government policy because of money or other things of 
value provided to himself or his family; (2) abused his office 
of public trust by providing foreign interests with access to 
him and his office in exchange for payments to his family or 
him; or (3) abused his office of public trust by knowingly 
participating in a scheme to enrich himself or his family by 
giving foreign interests the impression that they would receive 
access to him and his office in exchange for payments to his 
family or him.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, to Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP (Nov. 
8, 2023) [hereinafter ``Nov. 8 Letter''].
    \2\See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 (``Every person who having been summoned 
as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give 
testimony . . . upon any matter under inquiry before either House . . . 
or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default . 
. . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .'').
    \3\Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The testimony sought by the subpoenas is also relevant to 
ongoing efforts to craft legislative reforms to federal ethics 
and financial disclosure laws. The Committees seek to craft 
legislative solutions that provide transparency when the 
President's or Vice President's family members engage in 
lucrative financial transactions. As part of our investigation, 
the Committees seek to craft legislative solutions aimed at 
deficiencies we have identified in the current legal framework 
regarding ethics laws and the disclosure of financial interests 
related to the immediate family members of Vice Presidents and 
Presidents--deficiencies that may place American national 
security and interests at risk. Specifically, the Committees 
are concerned that foreign nationals appear to have sought 
access and influence by engaging in lucrative business 
relationships with high-profile political figures' immediate 
family members.
    Mr. Biden's flagrant defiance of the Committees' deposition 
subpoenas--while choosing to appear nearby on the Capitol 
grounds to read a prepared statement on the same matters--is 
contemptuous, and he must be held accountable for his unlawful 
actions. Accordingly, the Chairman of the Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability recommends that Congress find 
Robert Hunter Biden in contempt for his failure to comply with 
the Committee subpoena issued to him.

                         Authority and Purpose

    The Constitution vests the House of Representatives with 
the ``sole Power of Impeachment''\4\ and provides that the 
``President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the 
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, 
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.''\5\ As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit has stated, ``[t]o level the grave 
accusation that a President may have committed `Treason, 
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' U.S. Const. 
art. II, Sec. 4, the House must be appropriately informed.''\6\ 
Congress's authority to access information during an 
impeachment investigation can be broader in certain instances 
than in a purely legislative investigation,\7\ a fact that the 
Executive Branch traditionally has recognized.\8\ An 
impeachment inquiry is the traditional means by which the House 
assembles and evaluates relevant information.\9\ Indeed, 
conducting an impeachment inquiry without all pertinent 
evidence would be an affront to the Constitution and 
irreparably damage public faith in the impeachment process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5.
    \5\Id. art. II, Sec. 4.
    \6\Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 
968 F.3d 755, 765 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).
    \7\Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv.: Legal Sidebar, LSB11083, 
Impeachment Investigations, Part II: Access, at 1 (2023) (``[T]here is 
reason to believe that invocation of the impeachment power could 
improve the committees' legal claims of access to certain types of 
evidence relevant to the allegations of misconduct against President 
Biden.''). See also In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. 
Supp. 3d 129, 176 (D. D.C. 2019) (``[D]enying [the House Judiciary 
Committee] evidence relevant to an impeachment inquiry could pose 
constitutional problems.''), aff'd, 951 F.3d 589 (D.C. Cir. 2020), 
vacated and remanded sub nom. on other grounds, DOJ v. House Comm. on 
the Judiciary, 142 S. Ct. 46 (2021); In re Request for Access to Grand 
Jury Materials, 833 F.2d 1438, 1445 (11th Cir. 1987) (concluding that 
``limit[ing] the investigatory power of the House in impeachment 
proceedings . . . would clearly violate separation of powers 
principles'').
    \8\See Garvey, supra note 7 (``As a historical matter, all three 
branches have suggested that the House possesses a robust right of 
access to information when it is investigating for impeachment 
purposes.''); Jonathan David Schaub, The Executive's Privilege, 70 Duke 
L.J. 1, 87 (2020) (``[P]residents and others have recognized throughout 
the history of the country that their ability to withhold information 
from Congress disappears in the context of impeachment.'').
    \9\See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 116-346, at 28 (2019) (``Here, 
consistent with historical practice, the House divided its impeachment 
inquiry into two phases, first collecting evidence and then bringing 
that evidence before the Judiciary Committee for its consideration of 
articles of impeachment.''); H.R. Rep. No. 111-427, at 7 (2010) 
(``[T]he impeachment inquiry was referred by the Committee on the 
Judiciary to a Task Force on Judicial Impeachment . . . , comprised of 
12 Committee Members, to conduct the investigation.''). See also 
Hearing on the Basis for the Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph R. 
Biden: Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 118th Cong. 
(Sept. 28, 2023) (statement of Jonathan Turley, Professor, The George 
Washington University Law School); Memorandum from Rep. Jim Jordan, 
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. 
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. 
Comm. on Ways & Means, to Members of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, H. 
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and H. Comm. on Ways & Means 
(Sept. 27, 2023) [hereinafter ``Sept. 27 Memo''].
    \10\See In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. Supp. 3d at 
176 (``Impeachment based on anything less than all relevant evidence 
would compromise the public's faith in the process.''); In re Request 
for Access to Grand Jury Materials, 833 F.2d at 1445 (``Public 
confidence in a procedure as political and public as impeachment is an 
important consideration justifying disclosure.''); In re Report and 
Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F. Supp. 1219, 1230 (D. 
D.C. 1974) (``It would be difficult to conceive of a more compelling 
need than that of this country for an unswervingly fair [impeachment] 
inquiry based on all the pertinent information.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 27, 2023, pursuant to the directive of the 
Speaker, the Chairs of the Committees, along with the Chair of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, released a memorandum setting 
forth the justification for and scope of the inquiry into 
whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of 
impeachment against President Biden.\11\ On December 13, 2023, 
the House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 918, 
directing the Committees, along with the Committee on Ways and 
Means, to continue the ongoing impeachment inquiry.\12\ By 
approving House Resolution 918, the House also adopted House 
Resolution 917,\13\ which affirmed that ``[t]he authority 
provided by clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to the Chairs of the Committees . . . included, 
from the beginning of the existing House of Representatives 
impeachment inquiry . . . the authority to issue subpoenas on 
behalf of such Committees for the purpose of furthering the 
impeachment inquiry.''\14\ House Resolution 917 also 
``ratifie[d] and affirm[ed] any subpoenas previously issued . . 
. by the Chairs of the Committees on Oversight and 
Accountability, Ways and Means, or the Judiciary as part of the 
impeachment inquiry.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 9.
    \12\H.R. Res. 918, 118th Cong. (2023).
    \13\Id.
    \14\H.R. Res. 917, 118th Cong. (2023).
    \15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The deposition subpoenas to Mr. Biden were issued as part 
of the Committees' impeachment inquiry. As will be explained in 
detail below, Mr. Biden's testimony is necessary for the 
Committees to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for 
the Committees to draft articles of impeachment against 
President Biden.
    However, the impeachment inquiry was not the only purpose 
underlying these deposition subpoenas; the subpoenas were also 
issued to Mr. Biden pursuant to the Committees' authorities to 
conduct legislative oversight.\16\ Article I of the 
Constitution vests in Congress a ``broad and indispensable'' 
power to conduct oversight and investigations that 
``encompasses inquiries into the administration of existing 
laws, studies of proposed laws, and surveys in our social, 
economic or political system for the purpose of enabling 
Congress to remedy them.''\17\ Pursuant to the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary is 
authorized to conduct oversight of the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) and criminal justice matters in the United States to 
inform potential legislative reforms,\18\ while the Committee 
on Oversight and Accountability has been delegated broad 
authority to investigate ``any matter'' at ``any time.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\See Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, R. XI, cl. 
2(m)(1) (2023) (providing that ``a committee or subcommittee is 
authorized . . . (B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the 
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such 
books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it 
considers necessary''); Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, R. 12(g) (``The Chair of the Committee shall . . . 
[a]uthorize and issue subpoenas as provided in House Rule XI, clause 
2(m), in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of 
investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee.); Rules of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, R. IV(a) (``A 
subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chair, in accordance with 
clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct 
of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or 
activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following 
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.'').
    \17\Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020).
    \18\Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, R. X, cl. 1(l) 
(2023).
    \19\Id., cl. 4(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To further the Committees' constitutionally mandated 
oversight and legislative duties, full compliance with the 
Committees' duly authorized subpoenas must be obtained, which 
includes unrestricted testimony on all relevant matters. The 
information that the Committees seek from Mr. Biden relates to, 
among other matters, his knowledge of President Biden's 
involvement in his family's business dealings, and whether 
President Biden, as President and/or Vice President, took any 
official action or effected any change in government policy to 
enrich or improperly benefit himself or his family, or traded 
access or the appearance of access to himself and his office in 
exchange for payments to himself or his family. This 
information is necessary to inform the need for and shape of 
potential legislative reforms, including criminal law reforms, 
to address influence-peddling by Presidential and Vice-
Presidential family members.

                    Background on the Investigation

    In February 2023, the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability launched an oversight investigation into the 
Biden family's foreign business dealings by issuing subpoenas 
for bank records related to companies and individuals who 
conducted business with certain Biden family members and their 
related companies.\20\ Through those records, the Committee 
uncovered evidence that Biden family members and their 
associates received over $24 million from foreign companies and 
foreign nationals, with more than $15 million received by the 
Biden family and $9 million by business associates during the 
five-year period from 2014 to 2019.\21\ The Oversight 
Committee's subpoenas issued to various banks for Biden family 
members' bank records also showed a direct benefit to President 
Biden through a series of complicated financial 
transactions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\See, e.g., Subpoena from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. 
on Oversight & Accountability, to Financial Institution 1 (Feb. 27, 
2023).
    \21\See Memorandum from Maj. Comm. staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, to Members of the H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, Re: New Evidence Resulting from the Oversight 
Committee's Investigation into the Biden Family's Influence Peddling 
and Business Schemes (Mar. 16, 2023); Memorandum from Maj. Comm. staff, 
H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Members of the H. Comm. on 
Oversight & Accountability, Re: Second Bank Records Memorandum from the 
Oversight Committee's Investigation into the Biden Family's Influence 
Peddling and Business Schemes (May 10, 2023) [hereinafter ``May 10 
Memo'']; Memorandum from Maj. Comm. staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, Members of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 
Re: Third Bank Records Memorandum from the Oversight Committee's 
Investigation into the Biden Family's Influence Peddling and Business 
Schemes (Aug. 9, 2023) [hereinafter ``Aug. 9 Memo''].
    \22\See Memorandum from Maj. Comm. staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, to Members of the H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, Re: Fourth Bank Records Memorandum from the Oversight 
Committee's Investigation into the Biden Family's Influence Peddling 
and Business Schemes (Nov. 1, 2023) [hereinafter ``Nov. 1 Memo''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the spring of 2023, two brave whistleblowers stepped 
forward to notify Congress of how DOJ had impeded, delayed, and 
obstructed the criminal investigation of the President's son, 
Hunter Biden.\23\ Following their testimony, the Committees on 
the Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, and Ways and Means 
requested and conducted relevant interviews with officials from 
DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).\24\ On September 12, 2023, the 
Speaker of the House directed the Committees to conduct an 
inquiry to determine whether sufficient grounds existed for the 
impeachment of President Biden.\25\ On September 27, 2023, the 
Committees released a memorandum laying out, among other 
things, the subject matter of the impeachment inquiry, 
including: (1) foreign money received by the Biden family; (2) 
President Joe Biden's involvement in his family's foreign 
business entanglements; and (3) steps taken by the Biden 
Administration to slow, hamper, or otherwise impede the 
criminal investigation of the President's son, Hunter Biden, 
which involves funds received by the Biden family from foreign 
sources.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\See generally Transcribed Interview of Gary Shapley, 
Supervisory Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. (May 26, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Shapley Interview'']; Transcribed Interview of Joseph 
Ziegler, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. (June 1, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Ziegler Interview''].
    \24\See e.g., H. Comm. on the Judiciary et al., 118th Cong., The 
Justice Department's Deviations from Standard Processes in its 
Investigation of Hunter Biden, at 1-2 (2023); Transcribed Interview of 
Lesley Wolf, former Assistant U.S. Att'y, Dist. of Del. (Dec. 14, 
2023).
    \25\Press Release, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, 
Speaker McCarthy Opens an Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 12, 2023).
    \26\Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As part of this investigation, on November 8, 2023, the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability issued a subpoena to 
Mr. Biden compelling him to appear for a deposition to begin at 
9:30 a.m. on December 13.\27\ The Committee noticed the 
deposition pursuant to House and Committee rules.\28\ Willfully 
ignoring the Committee's subpoena, Mr. Biden did not appear for 
his deposition. Instead, Mr. Biden read a prepared statement in 
front of the U.S. Capitol and immediately departed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\See Subpoena from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on 
Oversight & Accountability, to Mr. Robert Hunter Biden (Nov. 8, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Nov. 8 Oversight Subpoena'']. Relatedly, on November 9, 
the Committee on the Judiciary issued a companion subpoena to Mr. Biden 
for testimony on December 13. Subpoena from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, 
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Mr. Robert Hunter Biden (Nov. 9, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Nov. 9 Judiciary Subpoena''].. Regulations issued by the 
Committee on Rules authorize such a joint deposition. See Regulations 
for the Use of Deposition Authority, 169 Cong. Rec. H115, H147, 118th 
Cong. (Jan. 10, 2023). See also Rules of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 
R. XI; Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, R. 15(f).
    \28\See Joint Deposition Notice, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability and H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Deposition of Robert 
Hunter Biden on December 13, 2023 (Dec. 7, 2023) [hereinafter ``Biden 
Joint Deposition Notice'']; Rules of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, R. 
XI; Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, R. 15(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Oversight and Accountability Committee, with the other 
investigating committees, has accumulated significant evidence 
suggesting that President Biden knew of, participated in, and 
profited from foreign business interests engaged in by his son, 
about which the Committees intended to question Mr. Biden 
during his deposition.\29\ Mr. Biden's decision to defy the 
Committees' subpoenas and deliver prepared remarks prevents the 
Committee from carrying out its Constitutional oversight 
function and its impeachment inquiry.\30\ Mr. Biden's refusal 
to comply with the Committees' subpoenas is a criminal act. It 
constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the 
appropriate United States Attorney's Office for prosecution as 
prescribed by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Biden Joint Deposition Notice, supra note 28.
    \30\See Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, C-
SPAN (Dec. 13, 2023), https://www.c-span.org/video/?532415-1/hunter-
biden-statement-subpoena-investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Committees Seek Information From Hunter Biden Central to the 
        Investigative Purpose of the Impeachment Inquiry of President 
        Joe Biden and the Committees' Legislative Oversight 
        Investigation

    Information held by and known to Mr. Biden is vital to the 
impeachment inquiry of President Biden and the Committees' 
ongoing efforts to craft legislative reforms to federal ethics 
and financial disclosure laws. Throughout 2023, the Committees 
have been investigating (1) foreign money received by the Biden 
family; (2) President Biden's involvement in his family's 
foreign business entanglements; and (3) steps taken by the 
Biden Administration to slow, hamper, or otherwise impede the 
criminal investigation of the President's son.\31\ The 
Committees have collected evidence that President Biden not 
only knew about, but also participated in and profited from, 
his family's international business activities, including 
business conducted by his son, Mr. Biden. This evidence 
includes bank records, discussions with Mr. Biden's former 
business associates, interviews with investigators from Mr. 
Biden's criminal investigation, and government records from the 
Department of the Treasury, National Archives and Records 
Administration (National Archives), FBI, and IRS.\32\ 
Cumulatively, the evidence obtained thus far warrants further 
investigation by the Committees. To do so, the Committees must 
take Mr. Biden's deposition. With the possible exception of 
President Biden, Mr. Biden is the most important witness 
possessing information about President Biden's involvement in 
his son's business dealings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\See generally Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 9.
    \32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To date, the Committees have collected hundreds of pages of 
documents and witness testimony relevant to the impeachment 
inquiry that demonstrate why Mr. Biden's deposition is crucial 
to the Committees' investigation. During a transcribed 
interview with the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
Devon Archer, a long-time associate of Mr. Biden, described how 
President Biden was ``[t]he Brand'' and was used to send 
``signals'' of power, access, and influence to enrich the Biden 
family from foreign sources while he served as vice 
president.\33\ Mr. Archer testified that Mr. Biden placed his 
father on speaker phone during meetings with business 
associates approximately ``20 times.''\34\ Importantly, Mr. 
Archer detailed specific instances of then-Vice President 
Biden's involvement in his family's foreign business 
entanglements in 2014 and 2015.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Transcribed Interview of Devon Archer, at 29-30 (July 31, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Archer Interview''].
    \34\Id. at 51.
    \35\See infra notes 36-41 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Archer testified that then-Vice President Biden dined 
with foreign individuals from countries such as Russia, 
Ukraine, and Kazakhstan who conducted business with Mr. Biden. 
Specifically, in February 2014, then-Vice President Biden dined 
at Cafe Milano with oligarchs from Russia and Kazakhstan who 
funneled millions of dollars to Hunter Biden and his business 
associates.\36\ Then-Vice President Biden dined with other 
foreign business associates of Mr. Biden, including Ukrainian 
Burisma executive Vadym Pozharsky, at Cafe Milano in April 
2015.\37\ At the time, Burisma was under investigation by 
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin for corruption.\38\ 
In 2015, then-Vice President Biden hosted Mr. Biden, Mr. 
Archer, and other business associates at the official residence 
of the Vice President.\39\ According to Mr. Archer, the topic 
of discussion was filling the top seat at the United 
Nations.\40\ The Kazakhstani government official who wanted the 
U.N. position attended both dinners at Cafe Milano with then-
Vice President Biden.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Archer Interview, supra note 33, at 57.
    \37\Id. at 65-66.
    \38\Press Release, Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. Oversight & 
Accountability, Comer Presses State Department for Information on then-
Vice President Joe Biden's Sudden Shift on Ukraine Policy (Sept. 12, 
2023).
    \39\Archer Interview, supra note 33, at 45-46, 57, 65-66, 78.
    \40\Id.
    \41\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional documents obtained by the Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability demonstrate then-Vice President Biden's 
involvement in business dealings with Burisma. On December 4, 
2015, Eric Schwerin, a business associate of Mr. Biden, wrote 
to Kate Bedingfield in the Office of the Vice President 
providing quotes to use in response to media outreach regarding 
Mr. Biden's role in Burisma.\42\ Later that day, Ms. 
Bedingfield responded to Mr. Schwerin saying, ``VP [Biden] 
signed off on this[.]''\43\ In addition, according to Mr. 
Archer, following a Burisma board of directors meeting in Dubai 
on the evening of December 4, 2015, Hunter Biden ``called 
D.C.'' to discuss the pressure that Burisma had asked him to 
relieve.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ E-mail from Eric Schwerin to Kate Bedingfield (Dec. 4, 2015, 
10:45 AM).
    \43\ E-mail from Kate Bedingfield to Eric Schwerin (Dec. 4, 2015, 
2:30 PM).
    \44\ Archer Interview, supra note 33, at 33-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Committee on Ways and Means obtained 
communications in which Mr. Biden invoked his father to 
influence his foreign business deals. For instance, the 
Committee uncovered a threatening message from Mr. Biden to a 
Chinese business executive related to a business deal with CEFC 
China Energy, a now-defunct Chinese conglomerate with close 
ties to the Chinese Communist Party, in which Mr. Biden wrote, 
``I am sitting here with my father and we would like to 
understand why the commitment made has not been 
fulfilled.''\45\ Four days later, on August 3, 2017, Mr. Biden 
sent another message to a CEFC executive suggesting that now-
President Biden may have been involved in his business 
ventures, boasting that ``[t]he Biden's [sic] are the best I 
know at doing exactly what the Chairman wants from this 
partnership[].''\46\ The following day, a CEFC subsidiary wired 
$100,000 to a company owned by Mr. Biden.\47\ On August 8, 
2017, nine days after Mr. Biden invoked his father in a 
threatening message to a CEFC executive, a Chinese company 
affiliated with CEFC wired $5 million to a company jointly 
established by Mr. Biden and another CEFC associate.\48\ The 
same day, Mr. Biden transferred $400,000 from this joint 
venture to his personal company.\49\ Through a complicated 
series of transactions designed to make the funds difficult to 
trace, laid out in full by the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, now-President Biden ultimately received $40,000 
of the proceeds.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Shapley Interview, supra note 23, Ex. 11.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\May 10 Memo, supra note 21, at 25.
    \48\Nov. 1 Memo, supra note 22 at 5.
    \49\Id.
    \50\Id. at 5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Biden's business associates have also indicated that 
now-President Biden was involved in his son's business affairs. 
For instance, on May 13, 2017, James Gilliar, one of Mr. 
Biden's business associates, emailed another associate, Tony 
Bobulinski, and carbon copied Mr. Biden and a third associate 
named Rob Walker, about ``renumeration packages'' for six 
individuals involved in a deal with CEFC.\51\ The email listed 
an equity split in the new business venture that includes ``10 
held by H for the big guy?''\52\ Although DOJ prosecutors 
prohibited IRS and FBI investigators from pursuing the identity 
of ``the big guy'' during the criminal investigation of Mr. 
Biden,\53\ Mr. Bobulinski has publicly confirmed that not only 
is the email authentic, but also that ``the big guy'' refers to 
now-President Biden.\54\ A week later, on May 20, 2017, Mr. 
Gilliar told Mr. Bobulinski in a WhatsApp message, ``Don't 
mention Joe being involved [in the CEFC deal], it's only when u 
are face to face, I know u know that but they are 
paranoid[.]''\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\E-mail from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski et. al. (May 13, 
2017, 5:48 AM).
    \52\Id.
    \53\Shapley Interview, supra note 23, at 18, 120.
    \54\Michael Goodwin, Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe 
Biden's push to make millions from China: Goodwin, N.Y. Post (Oct. 22, 
2020).
    \55\WhatsApp message from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski (May 20, 
2017). See also Emma-Jo Morris et al., Hunter Biden's ex-business 
partner told `don't mention Joe' in text message, N.Y. Post (last 
updated Oct. 23, 2020) (reporting that the message concerned Joe 
Biden's involvement in the CEFC deal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notwithstanding the significant evidence uncovered to date, 
President Biden has continuously changed the narrative on his 
involvement in his family's business dealings. Following IRS 
whistleblower testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means,\56\ 
the White House issued a statement that President Biden ``was 
not in business with his son.''\57\ In August 2023, a reporter 
asked President Biden if he lied about never speaking to his 
son about his business dealings.\58\ President Biden replied, 
``no.''\59\ Following contradictory testimony from one of Mr. 
Biden's former business associates that President Biden was 
``on speakerphone'' with Mr. Biden's former business associates 
``talking business,'' President Biden angrily told reporters, 
``I never talked business with anybody. I knew you'd have a 
lousy question.''\60\ The reporter followed up, asking 
President Biden to explain why the question was lousy, and 
President Biden responded, ``Because it's not true.''\61\ In 
his prepared remarks on December 13, Mr. Biden provided yet 
another account of President Biden's involvement in his 
business dealings, claiming that his ``father was not 
financially involved in [his] business.''\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\See generally Shapley Interview, supra note 23; Ziegler 
Interview, supra note 23.
    \57\Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and FEMA 
Administrator Deanne Criswell, The White House (Aug. 14, 2023).
    \58\GOP Oversight, Reporter: ``Did you lie about never speaking to 
Hunter bout his business dealings?'', YouTube (Aug. 21, 2023), https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6y5kIQ9N1M; Steven Nelson, Biden insists he 
told truth about not talking foreign biz with Hunter--despite mounting 
evidence, N.Y. Post (June 26, 2023).
    \59\Id.
    \60\Alexander Hall, Biden scorched for response to question about 
talking to Hunter's business associates: `Pathological liar,' Fox News 
(Aug. 10, 2023).
    \61\Id.
    \62\Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, supra 
note 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committees are also investigating the national security 
implications of a Vice President's or President's (and 
candidates for such offices) immediate family members receiving 
millions of dollars from foreign nationals, foreign companies, 
or foreign governments without any oversight. Current financial 
disclosure laws and regulations do not require non-dependent 
family members of senior elected officials to provide any 
information to the public. Consequently, the Committees are 
seeking meaningful reforms to government ethics and disclosure 
laws that will provide necessary transparency into a Vice 
President's or President's immediate family members' income, 
assets, and financial relationships.
    The Committees also intend to craft legislation that would 
strengthen reporting requirements relating to certain foreign 
transactions involving senior elected officials' family members 
and that would implement robust financial disclosure 
requirements that shed light on ownership of opaque corporate 
entities. Moreover, in order to prevent financial transactions 
from being structured in a way to evade oversight, the 
Committees are examining whether certain reporting 
requirements, including any new reporting requirements for 
senior elected officials' family members, should extend for a 
period of time after a President or Vice President leaves 
office.
    The Committees aim to draft legislation that delivers more 
transparency to the American people, deters foreign interests 
from attempting to obtain influence over and access to the 
highest levels of the federal government by entering business 
deals with Presidential and Vice-Presidential family members, 
discourages such family members from profiting from their 
relative's public service, and ensures the nation is safe from 
our foreign adversaries. Mr. Biden's deposition is critical in 
achieving these legislative goals. In particular, the Committee 
must understand precisely how such influence-peddling has 
occurred. Given the complicated financial transactions 
surrounding Mr. Biden's foreign business dealings, as well as 
the apparently close relationship between his foreign business 
dealings during and after his father's tenure as Vice 
President, it is imperative for the Committees to depose him to 
be able to shape effective and targeted legislative solutions 
that would expose and thus hopefully deter attempts at 
influence-peddling by similarly situated family members, 
including activities that could jeopardize national security.
    In sum, the Committees have uncovered that the Biden family 
has accumulated more than $15 million from foreign entities, 
with most going to Mr. Biden.\63\ Mr. Biden was central to 
these business arrangements and his deposition is vital to 
properly understanding them. In addition, President Biden's 
statements regarding his involvement in his son's business 
ventures are collectively inconsistent and further underscore 
the need for Mr. Biden's testimony. It is vital to the 
Committees' investigation that Mr. Biden be deposed, under 
oath, about how he utilized his father and the power of his 
father's positions to influence foreign business aboard and 
enrich the Biden family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\Hearing with IRS Whistleblowers About the Biden Criminal 
Investigation: Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 118th 
Cong. (July 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Hunter Biden's Refusal To Comply With the Committees' Subpoenas for 
        a Deposition

    On November 8, 2023, and November 9, 2023, the Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability and the Committee on the 
Judiciary, respectively, issued to Robert Hunter Biden 
subpoenas to appear for a deposition on December 13, 2023, at 
9:30 a.m.\64\ The joint cover letter detailed the Committees' 
rationale for issuing the subpoenas, including to determine 
whether President Biden:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\Nov. 8 Oversight Subpoena, supra note 27; Nov. 9 Judiciary 
Subpoena, supra note 27; Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1.

          (1) took any official action or effected any change 
        in government policy because of money or other things 
        of value provided to himself or his family, including 
        whether he asked then-Vice President Biden to intervene 
        in a Ukrainian investigation of a company that paid 
        your client substantial sums of money; (2) abused his 
        office of public trust by providing foreign interests 
        with access to him and his office in exchange for 
        payments to his family or him; or (3) abused his office 
        of public trust by knowingly participating in a scheme 
        to enrich himself or his family by giving foreign 
        interests the impression that they would receive access 
        to him and his office in exchange for payments to his 
        family or him.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1, at 4.

    The cover letter noted that the ``Biden family used 
corporate bank accounts of third-party associates to receive 
wires from foreign companies and nationals.''\66\ These 
``associates then dispersed money to various Biden family 
members in incremental payments over time.''\67\ Mr. Biden 
``was at the center of many of these transactions and actively 
involved in the web connecting the Biden family to foreign 
money.''\68\ Mr. Biden was able to bring in millions of dollars 
for the Biden family and did so by ``leveraging the Biden brand 
and the positions of trust held by his father.''\69\ For 
example, Mr. Biden ``arranged and attended meetings between 
then-Vice President Biden and foreign individuals who directly 
or indirectly paid [Mr. Biden] millions of dollars, including 
individuals from Kazakhstan, Russian, and Ukraine.''\70\ In 
short, Mr. Biden has the relevant information that the 
Committees need to determine whether President Joe Biden abused 
his oath of office to benefit himself and his family. The 
Committees also detailed the legislative purpose underlying the 
subpoena, explaining that Mr. Biden's testimony is ``relevant 
to ongoing efforts to craft legislative reforms to federal 
ethics and financial disclosure laws.''\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Id. at 1.
    \67\Id.
    \68\Id.
    \69\Id. During the transcribed interview of Devon Archer, a Biden 
business associate, Archer confirmed that then-Vice President Joe Biden 
was ``the brand'' that Mr. Biden sold. Archer Interview, supra note 33, 
at 29-30.
    \70\Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1, at 2 (citing Aug. 9 Memo, supra 
note 21, at 2).
    \71\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 28, 2023, Mr. Biden's attorney, Abbe Lowell, 
wrote to the Committees regarding the subpoenas to Mr. 
Biden.\72\ On behalf of Mr. Biden, Mr. Lowell disparaged and 
attacked the Committees' inquiry, challenged the Committees' 
legislative purpose in issuing the subpoenas, and demanded that 
the Committees treat Mr. Biden in a manner unlike any other 
witness in the investigation.\73\ In particular, Mr. Lowell 
represented to the Committees that Mr. Biden would only 
``appear at a public Oversight and Accountability 
hearing.''\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP, to 
Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability 
(Nov. 28, 2023) [hereinafter ``Nov. 28 Letter''].
    \73\Id.
    \74\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 1, 2023, the Committees responded to Mr. 
Lowell's letter.\75\ The Committees informed Lowell about the 
relevant Supreme Court case law and evidence supporting the 
subpoenas.\76\ Although the Committees notified Mr. Lowell that 
Mr. Biden would be allowed to testify at a public hearing at 
the appropriate time, the Committees denied Mr. Biden's attempt 
to receive special treatment, explaining:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, to Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP (Dec. 
1, 2023) [hereinafter ``Dec. 1 Letter''].
    \76\See id.

          The subpoenas Mr. Biden has received compel him to 
        appear before the Committees for a deposition; they are 
        not mere suggestions open to Mr. Biden's interpretation 
        or preference. Several Justice Department, FBI, and IRS 
        officials have testified in transcribed interview and 
        deposition settings, as has Devon Archer, Mr. Biden's 
        business associate. Notably, other Hunter Biden 
        business associates are also cooperating with our 
        subpoenas and not demanding a public hearing first. Mr. 
        Biden seems to believe that he should be treated 
        differently than other witnesses before the 
        Committees.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\Id.

The Committees asked Mr. Lowell to confirm by December 4 
whether Mr. Biden would appear for his deposition.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 6, 2023, Mr. Lowell responded to the 
Committees, writing that Mr. Biden had ``chosen'' to testify 
only at a public hearing and demanding that the Committees 
deviate from their standard investigative procedure to provide 
Mr. Biden with special treatment.\79\ The same day, the 
Committees again responded to Mr. Lowell, reiterating that the 
subpoenas do not provide Mr. Biden a choice to make--rather, 
``the subpoenas compel him to appear for a deposition. . . 
.''\80\ The Committees warned Mr. Biden that failure to appear 
pursuant to the terms of the subpoenas would result in the 
Committees initiating contempt of Congress proceedings.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP to 
Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability at 3 
(Dec. 6, 2023) [hereinafter ``Lowell Dec. 6 Letter''].
    \80\Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability and Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, to Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP (Dec. 6, 
2023) [hereinafter ``Committees Dec. 6 Letter''].
    \81\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following day, on December 7, 2023, the Committees 
issued a joint deposition notice for Mr. Biden to appear on 
December 13, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.\82\ Biden did not appear for his 
deposition.\83\ At 9:39 a.m. on December 13, 2023, the 
Committees convened the deposition and opened the record.\84\ 
The Committees then introduced the following documents into the 
record: (1) the November 8, 2023 subpoenas issued by Chairmen 
Comer and Jordan compelling Mr. Biden to appear for a 
deposition on December 13, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.; (2) the November 
28, 2023 letter from Mr. Lowell to Chairman Comer; (3) the 
December 1, 2023 letter from Chairmen Comer and Jordan to Mr. 
Lowell; (4) the December 6, 2023 letter from Mr. Lowell to 
Chairman Comer; (5) the December 6, 2023 letter from Chairmen 
Comer and Jordan to Mr. Lowell; and (6) the December 7, 2023 
joint deposition notice issued by Chairmen Comer and 
Jordan.\85\ Following further discussion by Members on both 
Committees, the deposition concluded at 9:58 a.m.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\Biden Joint Deposition Notice, supra note 28.
    \83\See generally Deposition of Robert H. Biden (Dec. 13, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Biden Deposition'']; Jordain Carney, Hunter Biden defies 
Public GOP subpoena, demanding public hearing at the Capitol, Politico 
(Dec. 13, 2023).
    \84\Biden Deposition, supra note 83, at 1.
    \85\Id. at 6-7.
    \86\Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, at around 9:40 a.m., Mr. Biden arrived on the 
grounds of the U.S. Capitol and read a prepared statement to an 
assembly of reporters.\87\ In his prepared remarks, Mr. Biden 
generally denied the allegations against him and his family, 
attacked the Committees and the inquiry, and renewed his demand 
for special treatment in how the Committees obtained his 
testimony.\88\ He read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\See Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, supra 
note 30.
    \88\Id.

          Let me state as clearly as I can. My father was not 
        financially involved in my business, not as a 
        practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Burisma, 
        not in my partnership with a Chinese private 
        businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad, 
        and certainly not as an artist. . . . There is no 
        evidence to support the allegations that my father was 
        financially involved in my business because it did not 
        happen. James Comer, Jim Jordan, Jason Smith and their 
        colleagues have distorted the facts by cherry-picking 
        lines from a bank statement, manipulating texts I sent, 
        editing the testimony of my friends and former business 
        partners, and misstating personal information that was 
        stolen from me. . . . No matter how many times it is 
        debunked, they continue to insist that my father's 
        support of Ukraine against Russia is the result of a 
        non-existent bribe.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\Id.

Mr. Biden departed the Capitol without ever appearing for his 
deposition.

C. Hunter Biden's Purported Reasons for Non-Compliance With the 
        Subpoenas Are Without Merit

    Through his attorney, Mr. Biden has offered several 
generalized and amorphous bases for his noncompliance with the 
Committees' subpoenas. These excuses are unpersuasive, and the 
Committee rejects them.
    First, in Mr. Lowell's November 28 letter to the 
Committees, he suggested that the Committees' investigation 
lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.\90\ Contrary to this 
assertion, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has a 
``broad and indispensable'' power to conduct oversight,\91\ and 
that a legislative purpose is valid if it ``concern[s] a 
subject on which legislation could be had.''\92\ The Committees 
have repeatedly described the legislative purposes of the 
investigation,\93\ including in direct correspondence with Mr. 
Lowell.\94\ Mr. Lowell has not contested the legitimacy of 
these stated purposes but rather has taken issue with how the 
Committees have chosen to conduct their investigation, which is 
a matter for the Committees to decide, not Mr. Lowell or Mr. 
Biden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\Nov. 28 Letter, supra note 72; see also Hunter Biden Statement 
on Subpoena and Investigation, supra note 30 (``I'm here today to 
answer at a public hearing, any legitimate questions Chairman Comer and 
the House Oversight Committee may have for me. I'm here today to make 
sure that the House committee's illegitimate investigations of my 
family did not proceed on distortions, manipulated evidence and lies.'' 
(emphasis added)).
    \91\Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020) (quoting 
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187, 215 (1957) (internal 
quotation marks omitted)).
    \92\Id. (quoting Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 
506 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In the prepared remarks 
he delivered on the Capitol grounds on December 13, Mr. Biden claimed 
that the Committees were improperly investigating his personal affairs. 
This is not the case; however, to the extent that Mr. Biden's personal 
affairs bear on the investigation, case law is clear that ``Congress 
may inquire into private affairs and compel their exposure, if this 
exposure is in pursuit of an independent legislative purpose.'' 1 
Ronald D. Rotunda & John E. Novak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: 
Substance and Procedure Sec. 8.4(d)(iii) (2022) (citing Watkins v. 
United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)). See also Barenblatt v. United 
States, 360 U.S. 109, 127 (1959) (``Congress may not constitutionally 
require an individual to disclose his political relationships or other 
private affairs except in relation to [a valid legislative] purpose.'' 
(emphasis added)); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955) 
(stating that Congress's ``power to investigate, broad as it may be. . 
. cannot be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid 
legislative purpose.'' (emphasis added)).
    \93\See, e.g., H. Comm. on the Judiciary et al., 118th Cong., The 
Justice Department's Deviations from Standard Processes in its 
Investigation of Hunter Biden, at 77 (2023); Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 
9, at 5 (Sept. 27, 2023); Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary, et al., to Merrick Garland, Att'y Gen., U.S. 
Dep't of Just. (July 21, 2023).
    \94\Dec. 1 Letter, supra note 75; Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committees are considering legislative reforms such as, 
but not limited to, meaningful reforms to government ethics and 
disclosure laws that will provide necessary transparency into a 
Vice President's or President's immediate family members' 
income, assets, and financial relationships, as well as 
potential reforms to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The 
Committees are also weighing legislation that would strengthen 
reporting requirements related to certain foreign transactions 
involving senior elected officials' family members and that 
would implement robust financial disclosure requirements that 
shed light on ownership of opaque corporate entities. Moreover, 
to prevent financial transactions from being structured in a 
way to evade oversight, the Committees are examining whether 
certain reporting requirements, including any new reporting 
requirements for senior elected officials' family members, 
should extend for a period of time after a President or Vice 
President leaves office. Additionally, the Committees' 
oversight of DOJ's preferential treatment of Mr. Biden will 
inform potential legislation which could include strengthening 
laws protecting whistleblowers from retaliation, reforming the 
``special attorney'' statute,\95\ codifying the special counsel 
regulations,\96\ and reforming DOJ's Tax Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 515.
    \96\See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, Mr. Biden has challenged the validity of the 
ongoing impeachment inquiry.\97\ The House's constitutionally 
vested impeachment power is separate and distinct from its 
legislative powers.\98\ Although the House approved House 
Resolution 918, which directed the Committees to continue their 
impeachment inquiry on the same day that Mr. Biden refused to 
appear for his deposition, such a resolution is not necessary 
for the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry.\99\ The 
Constitution includes no requirement that the full House vote 
to start an impeachment inquiry. In fact, the House has 
launched several impeachment inquiries without a full House 
vote,\100\ and four years ago a federal district court 
expressly rejected the argument that a House resolution is 
required to begin an impeachment inquiry.\101\ As set forth in 
the memorandum issued on September 27, 2023, the impeachment 
inquiry started well before the Committees issued deposition 
subpoenas to Mr. Biden.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\Nov. 28 Letter, supra note 72; Hunter Biden Statement on 
Subpoena and Investigation, supra note 30. Even if this attack on the 
legitimacy of impeachment inquiry had merit, which it does not, the 
subpoenas issued to Mr. Biden by the Committees would still be valid in 
furtherance of the Committees' legislative oversight work as discussed 
above.
    \98\Garvey, supra note 7 (``By launching an impeachment inquiry, 
the House is effectively signaling a transition in the purpose of its 
investigations. Applied to the current topic, whereas previously, the 
committee investigations into the Biden family served the committees' 
consideration of potential legislation . . . the investigations are now 
also pursuing evidence relevant to a possible impeachable offense. 
These two purposes are not mutually exclusive.'').
    \99\See In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. Supp. 3d 
129, 168 (D.D.C. 2019) (``Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a 
House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an 
impeachment inquiry.''), aff'd, 951 F.3d 589 (D.C. Cir. 2020), vacated 
and remanded sub nom. on other grounds DOJ v. House Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 142 S. Ct. 46 (2021); H.R. Rep. No. 116-266, at 7 (2019) 
(``[N]either the Constitution nor House rules requires that the full 
House vote to authorize an [impeachment] inquiry.'').
    \100\For example, in the 1980s, the full House did not vote to 
authorize the impeachment inquiries involving Judge Harry Claiborne, 
Judge Alcee Hastings, or Judge Walter Nixon. And in 2019, the Speaker 
of the House announced the beginning of a formal impeachment inquiry 
into President Trump more than a month before the full House voted to 
authorize it.
    \101\See In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. Supp. 3d 
at 168 (``Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution 
has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry.'').
    \102\See Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, by adopting House Resolution 917, the full House 
has expressly affirmed that ``[t]he authority provided by 
clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to the Chairs of the Committees . . . included, 
from the beginning of the existing House of Representatives 
impeachment inquiry . . . the authority to issue subpoenas on 
behalf of such Committees for the purpose of furthering the 
impeachment inquiry.''\103\ And the House has also ``ratifie[d] 
and affirm[ed] any subpoenas previously issued . . . by the 
Chairs of the Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Ways 
and Means, or the Judiciary as part of the impeachment 
inquiry,''\104\ which includes the subpoenas issued to Mr. 
Biden. Indeed, on June 12, 2023, and August 11, 2023, 
resolutions setting forth articles of impeachment against 
President Biden related to Mr. Biden's business activities were 
introduced and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\H.R. Res. 917, 118th Cong. (2023).
    \104\Id.
    \105\See H.R. Res. 493, 118th Cong. (2023); H.R. Res. 652, 118th 
Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, Mr. Biden challenges the venue for this testimony, 
objecting to the subpoenas' compulsion for a nonpublic 
deposition and demanding to testify in public instead.\106\ As 
the Committees have informed Mr. Biden, however, it has been 
the consistent practice of Committees of the House of 
Representatives in recent Congresses--during both Republican 
and Democrat majorities--as well as these Committees during 
this inquiry to obtain testimony initially in a deposition 
setting.\107\ This practice, which includes alternating hour-
long segments of questioning by the majority and minority, 
allows committees to methodically and thoroughly examine a 
matter through direct and cross examination without the time 
constraints of a hearing imposed by House rules. These 
depositions result in a deeper understanding of the matter and 
more fulsome assessment of the relevant facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\Nov. 28 Letter, supra note 72; Lowell Dec. 6 Letter, supra 
note 79,; Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, supra 
note 30.
    \107\Dec. 1 Letter, supra note 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the Committees informed Mr. Biden, the Committees are 
willing to pursue public testimony at a future date; however, 
the Committee need not and will not accede to Mr. Biden's 
demand for special treatment with respect to how he provides 
testimony. To alleviate Mr. Biden's stated concerns about 
transparency with respect to his testimony, the Committees 
informed his attorney that the deposition would be videotaped 
and that the transcript would be released promptly following 
the deposition. Mr. Biden's attorney, however, did not 
acknowledge the Committee's concessions. In any event, it is up 
to the Committees to choose the investigative methods and tools 
that will best further their investigation; so long as those 
choices are lawful, Mr. Biden has no say in the matter.
    In no uncertain terms, Mr. Biden has no valid reason for 
failing to comply with the Committees' duly authorized 
subpoenas. Conversely, the Committees' need for Mr. Biden's 
testimony is well-established pursuant to Congress's 
constitutionally prescribed legislative and impeachment 
functions. By flagrantly defying the Committees' subpoenas, Mr. 
Biden has violated federal law.

D. Precedent Supports the Committees' Decision To Proceed With Holding 
        Hunter Biden in Contempt

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that ``the power to 
investigate is inherent in the power to make laws because `[a] 
legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the 
absence of information respecting the conditions which the 
legislation is intended to affect or change.''\108\ Further, 
``[w]here the legislative body does not itself possess the 
requisite information--which not infrequently is true--recourse 
must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught 
that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, 
and also that information which is volunteered is not always 
accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential 
to obtain what is needed.''\109\ Accordingly, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 
provides that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or 
be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of 
up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.\110\ Like 
the ``ordinary federal criminal statute,'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 
``requires a criminal intent--in this instance, a deliberate, 
intentional refusal to answer.''\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504 (citing McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 
U.S. 135, 175 (1927)).
    \109\Id. at 504-05 (citing McGrain, 273 U.S. at 175).
    \110\The prison term for this offense makes it a Class A 
misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3559(a)(6). By that classification, the 
penalty for contempt of Congress specified in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 
increased from $1,000 to $100,000. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3571(b)(5).
    \111\Quinn, 349 U.S. at 165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress has frequently held individuals in contempt for 
failing to comply with a duly issued subpoena. In the 116th and 
117th Congress, the Democrat-controlled House ``approved six 
criminal contempt of Congress citations'' for such 
misconduct.\112\ In fact, after congressional Democrats held 
White House officials Stephen Bannon and Peter Navarro in 
contempt of Congress, DOJ successfully pursued criminal charges 
against them.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., LSB10974, Criminal Contempt of 
Congress: Frequently Asked Questions, at 3 (2023).
    \113\Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Just., Former White House Advisor 
Convicted of Contempt of Congress (Sept. 7, 2023); Press Release, U.S. 
Dep't of Just., Stephen K. Bannon Found Guilty by Jury of Two Counts of 
Contempt of Congress (July 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Biden has not asserted any claims of privilege, nor has 
he asserted any basis for immunity from answering questions. In 
correspondence with his attorney prior to the scheduled date of 
the deposition, the Committees addressed and rejected Mr. 
Biden's justifications for not complying with the terms of the 
subpoenas, as well as his demand for special treatment.\114\ 
The Committees specifically notified Mr. Biden, via his 
attorney, that his failure to appear for the deposition as 
required by the subpoenas would lead to the Committees 
initiating contempt of Congress proceedings.\115\ Mr. Biden's 
failure to appear for the deposition in the face of this clear 
advisement and warning by the Committees constitutes a willful 
failure to comply with the subpoena under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\Dec. 1 Letter, supra note 75; Committees Dec. 6 Letter, supra 
note 80.
    \115\Committees Dec. 6 Letter, supra note 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    The Committees have accumulated significant evidence 
suggesting that President Biden knew of, participated in, and 
profited from foreign business interests engaged in by his son, 
about which the Committees intended to question Mr. Biden 
during his deposition.\116\ However, Mr. Biden brazenly defied 
the Committees' subpoenas, choosing to read a prepared 
statement outside of the Capitol instead of appearing for a 
deposition as required by the subpoenas.\117\ Mr. Biden's 
willful refusal to comply with the Committees' subpoenas 
constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the 
appropriate United States Attorney's Office for prosecution as 
prescribed by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\Biden Joint Deposition Notice, supra note 28.
    \117\See Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, 
supra note 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Committee Consideration

    On January 10, 2024, the Committee met in open session, and 
with a quorum being present, to consider this Report, and 
adopted by voice vote an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by Chairman James Comer that made certain 
technical edits, and ordered the Report and the Resolution 
contained herein to be favorably reported, as amended, to the 
House by a recorded vote of 25 ayes to 21 noes.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee states that the following recorded votes occurred 
during the Committee's consideration of the Report:
    1. An amendment offered by Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) to 
strike the Resolution and contents of the Report and insert a 
new resolution and report text asserting that Robert Hunter 
Biden has complied with Congress, which was not agreed to by a 
recorded vote of 18 ayes and 22 noes (Rollcall No. 3).
    2. An amendment offered by Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) to 
strike Section B, and everything after, of the Report and 
insert a new section in the Report claiming that Chairman Comer 
has distorted information about President Biden, which was not 
agreed to by a recorded vote of 20 ayes and 24 noes (Rollcall 
No. 4).
    3. An amendment offered by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) to 
strike Section A of the Report and insert findings claiming 
that Chairman Comer misrepresented certain witness testimony, 
which was not agreed to by a recorded vote of 20 ayes and 24 
noes (Rollcall No. 5).
    4. A motion by Chairman James Comer to report the Report 
for a Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives 
Find Robert Hunter Biden in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to 
Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability favorably to the House, as 
amended, was agreed to by a recorded vote of 25 ayes to 21 noes 
(Rollcall No. 6).


                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are 
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    The Committee finds the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, and the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to be 
inapplicable to this Report. Accordingly, the Committee did not 
request or receive a cost estimate from the Congressional 
Budget Office and makes no findings as to the budgetary impacts 
of this Report or costs incurred to carry out the Report.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of this Report establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House rule XIII, this Report is to enforce the Committee's 
authority to subpoena and obtain testimony related to 
determining whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach 
President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., and the sufficiency of 
federal ethics and financial disclosure laws.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, this report 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses 
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.
                             MINORITY VIEWS

    Since becoming Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability at the beginning of the 118th Congress, Chairman 
James Comer has wasted Committee resources continuing 
Republicans' years-long attempt to weaponize Congress at the 
demand of former President Donald Trump by pursing a baseless 
impeachment inquiry focused on President Joe Biden's son, 
Hunter Biden, who has never held public office. Chairman Comer 
has received what he has referred to as ``mountains of 
evidence,''\1\ including from the Biden-Harris Administration, 
banks, and private citizens, all of which shows President Biden 
has done nothing wrong.\2\ Rather than admit his 
investigation's failure to identify any wrongdoing by President 
Biden, Chairman Comer has kept nearly all witness interview 
transcripts under lock and key and attempted to weave cherry-
picked and distorted facts to advance false claims and debunked 
conspiracy theories.\3\ This effort to hold Hunter Biden in 
contempt of Congress is just more of the same. Hunter Biden has 
repeatedly attempted to accept Chairman Comer's offer to answer 
the Committee's questions under oath and in public, but rather 
than take ``yes'' for an answer, Chairman Comer reneged on his 
offer. As such, this absurd drive to hold Hunter Biden in 
contempt is an admission that this sham impeachment inquiry is 
based on keeping the facts, the evidence, and the truth from 
the American people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Joe Biden's House of Horrors! Benny's Halloween Spooky Special 
with Chairman James Comer, The Benny Show (Oct. 31, 2023) (online at 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOH1CHaxvlY&t=2s).
    \2\See Memorandum from Minority Staff to Interested Parties, Fact 
Sheet: Mountain of Evidence Shows No Wrongdoing by President Biden, 
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Dec. 1, 2023) (online 
at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democratsoversight.house.gov/files/
20231201%20Oversight%20Democrats%20Staff%20Memo%20
on%20Impeachment%20Inquiry.pdf).
    \3\See, e.g., Biden Continues to Lie to Americans About What He 
Knew About the Crimes His Family was Committing: Rep. James Comer, Fox 
Business (Dec. 7, 2023) (online at www.foxbusiness.com/video/
6342522748112).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Chairman Comer Has Identified No Precedent for Holding in Contempt a 
     Private Citizen Who Has Offered To Testify Publicly Under Oath

    The Republican Majority has failed to identify any 
precedent for holding in contempt of Congress a private citizen 
who--days after receiving a subpoena--offered to answer all the 
Committee's questions, under oath, in public, and on a day of 
the Committee's choosing.
    The Majority's report cites two recent successful efforts 
to enforce congressional subpoenas issued to Steven Bannon and 
Peter Navarro, but it fails to acknowledge plainly obvious 
differences between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Navarro's flagrant 
defiance of Congress and Hunter Biden's good faith attempts to 
engage and cooperate with this Committee's investigation.
    Mr. Navarro and Mr. Bannon blatantly defied subpoenas 
issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
Attack on the United States Capitol, flatly refusing to produce 
subpoenaed documents and outright refusing to appear before the 
Select Committee to answer Members' questions. Hunter Biden, by 
contrast, has repeatedly sought to cooperate with Chairman 
Comer's investigation.
    For nearly a year, Hunter Biden has repeatedly offered to 
answer questions from Chairman Comer and Committee 
Republicans--including by testifying under oath at a public 
hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. 
Despite repeatedly inviting Hunter Biden to answer the 
Committee's questions in a public hearing, as soon as Hunter 
Biden took him up on this offer, Chairman Comer rescinded his 
offer and demanded that Hunter Biden appear in a closed-door 
deposition instead.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See, e.g., Committee on Oversight and Accountability Democrats, 
Press Release: ICYMI--The Messenger: Jamie Raskin Rails Against 
Republicans at Hunter Biden-less Deposition (Dec. 13, 2023) (online at 
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/icymi-the-
messenger-jamie-raskin-rails-against-republicans-at-hunter-biden-less).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 8, 2023, Chairman Comer transmitted a letter to 
Hunter Biden seeking ``documents and communications related to 
our investigation of President Biden's involvement in your 
financial conduct.''\5\ In particular, Chairman Comer sought a 
wide variety of Hunter Biden's personal records spanning more 
than a decade, including personal financial statements and 
communications with his family.\6\ The next day, Hunter Biden's 
attorney responded to Chairman Comer's requests with an offer 
``to sit with you and your staff, including the ranking member 
and his staff, to see whether Hunter Biden has information that 
may inform some legitimate legislative purpose and be helpful 
to the Committee.''\7\ Chairman Comer did not respond to this 
offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, to Robert Hunter Biden (Feb. 8, 2023) (online at 
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023-02-08-
Letter-R.H.-Biden.pdf).
    \6\Id.
    \7\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Feb. 
9, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2023.02.09%20Letter%20
to%20Rep.%20Comer%20re%20Your%20February%208%2C%202023%20Request%20for%2
0
Documents.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 12, 2023, nearly seven months later, Chairman 
Comer appeared on Newsmax to discuss his investigation of 
President Biden, falsely stating he ``never got a response 
back'' from Hunter Biden.\8\ He further explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Newsmax (@Newsmax), X (Sept. 13, 2023) (online at https://
twitter.com/newsmax/status/1701928094003511311).

          Hunter Biden is more than welcome to come in front of 
        the Committee. If he wants to clear his good name--if 
        he wants to come and say, you know, these weren't 20 
        shell companies, they actually did something--he's 
        invited today. We will drop everything.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Id.

    On September 13, 2023, Hunter Biden's attorney responded to 
Chairman Comer's statements, noting, ``On February 9, we wrote 
back to you . . . You never responded to that offer.''\10\ 
Nonetheless, Hunter Biden's attorney reiterated his offer to 
sit with Chairman Comer and his staff, explaining that he and 
his team ``remain available to have the discussion.''\11\ 
Chairman Comer again ignored this offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Sept. 
13, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2023.09.13%20Letter
%20to%20Rep.%20Comer%20re%20September%2013%2C%202023%20Statement%20on%20
News
max%E2%80%99s%20Wake%20Up%20America.pdf); see also James Comer Is Lying 
About His Requests for Hunter Biden's Bank Records, The New Republic 
(Sept. 14, 2023) (online at https://newrepublic.com/post/175558/james-
comer-hunter-biden-bank-records-meeting-legal-team).
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2023, Chairman Comer appeared on The Benny Show 
and, again offered Hunter Biden a choice of coming in for a 
deposition or testifying at a Committee hearing:

          We're, we're in the downhill phase of this 
        investigation now because we have so many documents 
        and, and we can bring these people in for depositions 
        or committee hearings, whichever they choose, and we 
        can ask these questions with evidence.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Joe Biden's House of Horrors! Benny's Halloween Spooky Special 
with Chairman James Comer, The Benny Show (Oct. 31, 2023) (online at 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOH1CHaxvlY&t=2s) (emphasis added).

    On November 8, 2023, the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability and the Committee on the Judiciary issued 
identical subpoenas to Hunter Biden compelling his appearance 
at a deposition on December 13, 2023.\13\ In a letter 
accompanying the subpoenas, Chairman Comer and Chairman Jim 
Jordan wrote, ``Given your client's willingness to address this 
investigation publicly up to this point, we would expect him to 
be willing to testify before Congress.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Subpoena from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, to Robert Hunter Biden (Nov. 8, 2023) (online at 
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 2023/11/Subpoena-
Robert-Hunter-Biden.pdf).
    \14\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary, to 
Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden, (Nov. 8, 2023) (online 
at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/
Letter-to-HB-Abbe-Lowell-11.8.23-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to these subpoenas, Hunter Biden's attorney 
transmitted a letter on November 28, 2023, to Chairmen Comer 
and Jordan indicating that Hunter Biden would agree to testify 
at a public hearing before the Oversight Committee on December 
13, 2023, or a date of their choosing.\15\ The letter from 
Hunter Biden's attorney emphasized the importance of a public 
proceeding that ``would prevent selective leaks, manipulated 
transcripts, doctored exhibits, or one-sided press 
statements,'' especially in light of Chairman Comer's repeated 
use of ``closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort the 
facts and misinform the public.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel to Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Nov. 
28, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/HunterBiden.231128
.Response%20to%20Comer%20re%20Impeachment%20Inquiry%20%20Subpoena%201108
23
.pdf).
    \16\Id.; see, also, e.g., Oversight Committee Democrats 
(@OversightDems), X (Nov. 29, 2023) (online at https://twitter.com/
oversightdems/status/1730011731986927930) (Chairman Comer selectively 
releasing one page of a bank record to falsely accuse President Biden 
of bribery while hiding three other pages in the same document 
contradicting his claims); Rep. Jamie Raskin (@RepRaskin), X (Dec. 4, 
2023) (online at https://twitter.com/RepRaskin/status/
1731777276730036702) (Chairman Comer misrepresenting records to claim 
then-private citizen-Joe Biden received payments from foreign companies 
when the records simply show that payments were monthly repayments for 
a truck Joe Biden had purchased for Hunter Biden).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hunter Biden's willingness to testify publicly under oath--
but not behind closed-doors, in secret--is based on the 
Majority's demonstrable track record of distorting and 
misrepresenting testimony provided by witnesses in prior 
transcribed interviews and depositions. For example, as 
discussed in more detail in Section II, when Chairman Comer 
released the transcript of the Committee's interview of Devon 
Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner--one of only two 
transcripts Chairman Comer has publicly released--his 
misrepresentations about Mr. Archer's testimony were made plain 
for all to see, including independent fact-checkers.\17\ In 
fact, Chairman Comer's mischaracterizations of Mr. Archer's 
transcribed interview are repeated in the Majority's report 
accompanying this resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\FactCheck.Org, Republicans Oversell Archer's Testimony About 
Hunter and Joe Biden (Aug. 14, 2023) (online at www.factcheck.org/2023/
08/republicans-oversell-archers-testimony-about-hunter-and-joe-biden/); 
Politifact, Transcript of Devon Archer Testimony Doesn't Back Key 
Claims About Joe and Hunter Biden (Aug. 4, 2023) (online at 
www.politifact.com/article/2023/aug/04/transcript-of-devon-archer-
testimony-doesnt-back-k/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 1, 2023, Chairmen Comer and Jordan rejected 
Hunter Biden's offer to testify publicly under oath, insisting 
that he appear for a closed-door deposition on December 13, 
2023.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, to Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden 
(Dec. 1, 2023) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2023/12/Response-to-A.-Lowell-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a December 6, 2023, letter, Hunter Biden's attorney 
again reiterated Hunter Biden's willingness to appear before 
the Committee at a public hearing on December 13, or any other 
date in December, ``to answer any question pertinent and 
relevant to the subject matter stated in your November 8, 2023, 
letter.''\19\ As with prior correspondence, Hunter Biden's 
attorney expressed concern that Chairman Comer has ``use[d] 
closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and 
misinform the American public--a hearing would ensure 
transparency and truth in these proceedings.''\20\ That same 
day, Chairmen Comer and Jordan explained in response: ``If Mr. 
Biden does not appear for his deposition on December 13, 2023, 
the Committees will initiate contempt of Congress 
proceedings.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel to Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Dec. 
6, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/HunterBiden.231206.
Response%20to%20Comer%20re%20Subpoena%20follow-up%20120623.pdf).
    \20\Id.
    \21\Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary, to 
Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden (Dec. 6, 2023) (online 
at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/
Response-to-A.-Lowell-12.6.23.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 13, 2023, Chairmen Comer and Jordan proceeded 
with the closed-door deposition of Hunter Biden.\22\ Hunter 
Biden did not appear for the closed-door deposition on that day 
but instead held a press conference on Capitol Hill to once 
again express his willingness to testify under oath in a public 
setting.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Although the subpoena to Hunter Biden and the notice for the 
deposition showed the deposition would take place in Room 2157 of the 
Rayburn House Office Building, Republicans held the deposition in Room 
2154.
    \23\Hunter Biden, Defying Deposition Subpoena, Again Offers Public 
Testimony, New York Times (Dec. 13, 2023) (online at www.nytimes.com/
2023/12/13/us/politics/hunter-biden-
impeachment-testimony.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 5, 2024, Chairman Comer officially noticed a 
business meeting for January 10, 2024, to consider a resolution 
recommending that the House of Representatives find Robert 
Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for failing to appear at 
the scheduled deposition.\24\ The business meeting proceeded as 
scheduled on January 10, 2024, with Committee Republicans 
voting unanimously to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress 
despite his good faith efforts to cooperate with the 
Committee's investigation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Press Release: Comer 
Announces Markup of Resolution to Hold Hunter Biden in Contempt of 
Congress (Jan. 5, 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/release/
comer-announces-markup-of-resolution-to-hold-hunter-biden-in-contempt-
of-congress/); see also Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
Press Release: Ranking Member Raskin's Statement on Committee 
Republicans Contempt Vote (Jan. 5, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-raskin-
s-statement-on-committee-republicans-contempt-vote).
    \25\Committee on Oversight and Accountability Democrats, Press 
Release: Ranking Member Raskin Condemns Committee Republicans Contempt 
Vote (Jan. 10, 2024) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/
news/press-releases/ranking-member-raskin-condemns-committee-
republicans-contempt-vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 12, 2024, Hunter Biden's attorney transmitted a 
letter to Chairmen Comer and Jordan reiterating his client's 
willingness to comply with the Committees' request, stating, 
``If you issue a new proper subpoena, now that there is a duly 
authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a 
hearing or deposition.''\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden to 
Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and 
Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary (Jan. 12, 2024) (online 
at www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/letter-from-a-
lowell-to-chairmen-comer-and-jordan-hunter-biden-contempt-subpoenas-
january-12-2024.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During consideration of the contempt resolution, Committee 
Republicans voted against an amendment that detailed Hunter 
Biden's attempts to cooperate with the Committee's request.\27\ 
Committee Republicans also blocked consideration of an 
amendment to bar three Members of the Committee who have 
themselves defied congressional subpoenas from voting on the 
contempt proceedings unless and until they provide the 
Committee with the firsthand knowledge and information related 
to the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol they continue to 
withhold.\28\ By blocking these amendments, Committee 
Republicans made clear that they are not operating with 
fairness and consistency in holding Hunter Biden in contempt of 
Congress for his preference to testify at a public hearing over 
a closed-door deposition. Again, this stands in stark contrast 
to Mr. Bannon and Mr. Navarro, who blatantly refused to 
cooperate with a congressional inquiry and made no attempts to 
find a reasonable alternative that would provide the Select 
Committee with the information it sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Business Meeting, 
Vote on the Goldman Amendment to the ANS (Jan. 10, 2024) (21 yeas, 26 
nays) (online at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/GO/GO00/20240110/116732/BILLS-118-ANS-G000599-Amdt-1.pdf).
    \28\See Raskin Amendment to the ANS (Jan. 10, 2024) (online at 
https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/GO/GO00/20240110/116732/BILLS-118-ANS-R000606-Amdt-2.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 II. The Majority's Report Mischaracterizes the Evidence in This Sham 
                          Impeachment Inquiry

    In an effort to justify the contempt resolution and their 
refusal of Hunter Biden's offers to answer the Committee's 
questions under oath and in public, much of the Majority's 
report is a recitation of false or misleading claims about the 
ongoing sham impeachment inquiry based on mischaracterized 
witness statements and cherry-picked facts. The report fails to 
disclose that the ``mountains of evidence'' the Majority has 
obtained during their investigation shows absolutely no 
wrongdoing by President Biden.\29\ The Majority rejected 
efforts by the Minority to amend their report by presenting a 
full and honest recitation of the facts and evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Joe Biden's House of Horrors! Benny's Halloween Spooky Special 
with Chairman James Comer, The Benny Show (Oct. 31, 2023) (online at 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOH1CHaxvlY&t=2s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Majority Fails to Fully Account for the ``Mountains of 
        Evidence'' Provided to the Committee, None of Which Shows 
        Wrongdoing by President Biden

    The Majority's report fails to disclose the large volume of 
documents and information they have obtained during their sham 
investigation into President Biden, none of which has revealed 
any wrongdoing by President Biden. Since launching their 
investigation at the beginning of the 118th Congress, 
congressional Republicans have received dozens of hours of 
testimony from government officials and former Hunter Biden 
business partners and obtained troves of documents in response 
to their requests. The information obtained includes more than 
37,000 pages of bank records, including personal bank accounts 
of Biden family members and other private citizens, produced by 
nine different banks.\30\ This is in addition to the evidence 
collected by Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley as part of 
their 2020 investigation into Hunter Biden--which, just like 
the evidence received by Chairman Comer and Committee 
Republicans, failed to show any wrongdoing by President 
Biden.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\See Memorandum from Minority Staff to Interested Parties, Fact 
Sheet: Mountain of Evidence Shows No Wrongdoing by President Biden, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Dec. 1, 2023) (online at 
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats
.oversight.house.gov/files/
20231201%20Oversight%20Democrats%20Staff%20Memo%20on
%20Impeachment%20Inquiry.pdf).
    \31\See Majority Staff Report, Hunter Biden, Burisma, and 
Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns, 
Senate Committee on Finance and Senate Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs (Sept. 23, 2020) (online at https://
www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/
HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf); Majority Staff Report Supplemental, 
Senate Committee on Finance and Senate Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs (Nov. 18, 2020) (online at https://
www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/2020-11-
18%20HSGAC%20-%20
Finance%20Joint%20Report%20Supplemental.pdf); see also Republican 
Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden, New York Times (Sept. 
23, 2020) (online at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/
biden-inquiry-republicans-johnson.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Biden-Harris Administration has also cooperated 
extensively with the Majority's probe, in direct contrast to 
the Majority's claims that the Administration is obstructing 
their investigation into President Biden. For example, the 
Department of the Treasury has produced more than 2,000 pages 
of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), the National Archives 
and Records Administration (NARA) has produced more than 62,000 
pages of Vice President Biden's records--in addition to more 
than 20,000 pages it has already made publicly available--and 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided access to 
and multiple briefings regarding a Form FD-1023 tipsheet, which 
contained sensitive information provided by a confidential 
human source.\32\ Numerous federal officials have also been 
made available to congressional Republicans for hours of 
questioning, including four current Senior Special Agents at 
the FBI and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Attorneys 
for the District of Columbia and the Central District of 
California, and the general counsel of NARA. Republicans have 
also received unprecedented testimony from David Weiss, the 
Special Counsel in charge of the ongoing Department of Justice 
(DOJ) investigation into Hunter Biden.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Id.
    \33\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This unprecedented and extensive cooperation by private 
citizens, banks, and the Biden-Harris Administration forced 
Chairman Comer to recognize publicly earlier this year that: 
``Every subpoena that I have signed, as Chairman of the House 
Oversight Committee over the last five months, we have gotten 
100% of what we requested, whether it's with the FBI or with 
the banks or with Treasury.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\James Comer: Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Decision Was a 
Win for the Constitution and Fairness, Fox Business (June 29, 2023) 
(online at www.foxbusiness.com/video/6330314725112).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All of this evidence has shown no wrongdoing by President 
Biden, let alone a high crime or misdemeanor warranting 
impeachment.\35\ In the four memoranda the Majority has 
released describing the bank records they have reviewed, they 
have provided no evidence that President Biden benefitted from 
his family members' business activities.\36\ Similarly, the 
more than 2,000 pages of SARs made available for review by the 
Department of the Treasury do not even suggest, let alone 
demonstrate, that President Biden was involved in Hunter 
Biden's financial and business relationships.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\See, e.g., Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, Editorial: No 
Evidence for Biden Impeachment Inquiry? No problem. The House GOP 
Doesn't Seem to Care, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 7, 2023) (online at 
www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-07/editorial-biden-impeachment-
inquiry-house-vote).
    \36\Comer Releases Biden Family Probe Update Without Showing Link 
to President, Politico (May 10, 2023) (online at www.politico.com/news/
2023/05/10/james-comer-biden-probe-00096067).
    \37\Memorandum from Democratic Staff to Democratic Members of the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Chairman Comer's Misuse and 
Distortion of Confidential Bank Information (May 10, 2023) (online at 
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.
gov/files/
2023.05.10%20Memo%20to%20Members%20re%20Misuse%20and%20Distortion%20
of%20Confidential%20Bank%20Information%20FINAL.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Witness testimony has repeatedly established that Hunter 
Biden was not involved in his family members' business 
activities. For example:
           In a March 31, 2023, interview with 
        Committee staff, Eric Schwerin, Hunter Biden's former 
        business associate and then-Vice President Biden's 
        former financial adviser, who had access to the Vice 
        President's bank records from 2009 to 2017, stated he 
        was not aware of any involvement by President Biden in 
        the financial conduct of his relatives' businesses, 
        much less any transactions into or out of the then-Vice 
        President's bank account related to business conducted 
        by any Biden family member.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\See Witness Testimony Casts Doubt on Some Biden Impeachment 
Allegations, New York Times (Sept. 15, 2023) (online at https://
www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/biden-
impeachment.html); Letter from Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, Committee 
on Oversight and Accountability, to Chaiman James Comer, Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability (Sept. 19, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
2023-09-19.JBR%20 to%20Comer%20re%20Schwerin%20Interview.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           In his July 31, 2023, interview with the 
        Committee, Devon Archer, repeatedly explained that 
        President Biden was not involved in his son's business 
        activities; that over his decade-long business 
        relationship with Hunter Biden, he never heard him 
        discuss the substance of his business with his father; 
        and that the hundreds of pages of business bank records 
        Committee Republicans introduced as exhibits didn't 
        contain any transfer to President Biden.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\Transcribed Interview of Devon Archer, Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability (July 31, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf); see also Memorandum from Democratic Staff 
to Democratic Members of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
Transcribed Interview of Devon Archer (Aug. 3, 2023) (online at https:/
/oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2023-08-
03.Democratic%20Member%20Memorandum%20re
%20Archer%20Transcribed%20Interview%20Final.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Transcribed interviews on December 19, 2023, 
        and January 9, 2024, with Carol Fox and Georges Berges, 
        the transcripts of which have not yet been publicly 
        released, again established no involvement by President 
        Biden in his son's art sales or his brother's business 
        dealings.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\See Gallery Owner Reveals New Details about Hunter Biden Art 
Sales, Politico (Jan. 9, 2024) (online at www.politico.com/live-
updates/2024/01/09/congress/hunter-bidens-art-sales-00
134621); Witness in House GOP Impeachment Inquiry Says No Evidence Joe 
Biden Involved in Family Business Dealings, USA Today (Dec. 19, 2023) 
(online at www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/19/house-
impeachment-inquiry-witness-no-evidence-joe-biden/71973729007/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           The testimony of two Internal Revenue 
        Service agents assigned to the Department of Justice's 
        Hunter Biden investigation also acknowledged that they 
        had no evidence that President Biden was involved in 
        his son's business dealings.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\See Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Press Release: 
While Republicans Work to Undermine Rule of Law and Distract from 
Trump's Criminal Acts, Oversight Democrats Highlight Witness Testimony 
Undercutting GOP Narrative (Jul. 20, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/while-republicans-
work-to-undermine-rule-of-law-and-distract-from-trump-s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           In his December 8, 2020, interview with the 
        FBI, Rob Walker, Hunter Biden's former business 
        partner, stated he ``certainly never was thinking at 
        any time that the V.P. [Biden] was a part of anything 
        we were doing'' and explained that the idea that 
        President Biden would ever get involved was ``wishful 
        thinking'' on the part of another business partner, 
        James Gilliar, akin to ``unicorns and rainbows.''\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Transcribed Interview of John Robinson Walker, Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, Department of Justice (Dec. 8, 2020) (online at 
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/T60-
Exhibit-401-John-Robinson-Walker-Interview-Transcript-12.08.2021_
Redacted.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As to claims of political interference in the DOJ's 
investigation of Hunter Biden, the two IRS agents who testified 
before the Committee in July 2023 affirmed that they do not 
have any evidence of political interference by President Biden 
or Attorney General Garland.\43\ Similarly, the former FBI 
Supervisory Special Agent that Committee Republicans 
interviewed stated that he never knew U.S. Attorney Weiss--the 
individual overseeing the DOJ investigation into Hunter Biden--
nor any other Assistant U.S. Attorneys to make prosecutorial 
decisions based on political influence.\44\ Senior DOJ, IRS, 
and FBI officials likewise stated there was no political 
interference with the investigation or prosecution of Hunter 
Biden.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\IRS Whistleblowers Testify on Hunter Biden Investigation, Part 
3, CSPAN (July 19, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-raskin-
s-statement-on-gop-release-of-fbi-document).
    \44\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Press Release: 
Ranking Member Raskin's Statement Following Republicans' Release of 
Month-Old FBI Interview Transcript (Aug. 14, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-raskin-
s-
statement-following-republicans-release-of-month-old-fbi).
    \45\See, e.g., Democratic Staff Memorandum, IRS and FBI Witnesses 
Debunk Republicans' False Claims About Political Interference in 
Special Counsel Weiss's Investigation, Committee on the Judiciary and 
Committee on Oversight and Reform (Sept. 27, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
2023-09-27%20Joint%20
Democratic%20Memorandum%20re%20IRS%20and%20FBI%20Witnesses%20Debunk%20
Political%20Interference%20Claims.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the Majority's report discusses the 2017 business 
venture between Hunter Biden and the Chinese company CEFC. The 
Majority's report, however, omits the fact that Hunter Biden 
was a private citizen when he pursued the business venture with 
CEFC and that Joe Biden was also a private citizen at that 
time. The Majority's report also fails to mention that, even as 
Hunter Biden was pursuing a business venture with CEFC, 
President Donald Trump, who was President at the time, was 
receiving at least $3,177.20 a month from CEFC for an apartment 
its subsidiary owned in Trump World Tower. In fact, over the 
course of his presidency, Trump ultimately received more than 
$150,000 from CEFC.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\See Democratic Staff Report, White House for Sale: How Princes, 
Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump, Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability (Jan. 4, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
2024-01-04.COA%20DEMS%20-%20Mazars%20Report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an attempt to correct the Majority's misleading report 
and refusal to fully disclose the extent of information they 
have received in connection with their investigation, Rep. 
Melanie Stansbury sought to have an amendment to the report 
adopted during the Committee's business meeting on January 10, 
2024. Rep. Stansbury's amendment sought to insert into the 
report the full extent of the information received during the 
Majority's investigation, as detailed extensively above. The 
Majority failed to consider this amendment, with Chairman Comer 
inexplicably concluding that the amendment ``violates the 
fundamental purpose of the report,'' despite the amendment 
containing only a factual recitation of the information 
obtained during the Majority's own investigation.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\See Stansbury Amendment to the ANS (Jan. 10, 2024) (online at 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20240110/116732/BILLS-118-ANS-
S001218-Amdt-5.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Majority Mischaracterizes Witness Statements and Testimony

    Not only does the Majority's report withhold the 
unprecedented extent of cooperation they have received from 
private citizens, banks, and the Biden-Harris Administration, 
but the information in the report derived from witnesses is 
mischaracterized and heavily distorted by the Majority.
    The Majority's report asserts that statements made by Devon 
Archer, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, 
demonstrate that President Biden knew of and was involved in 
Hunter Biden's business activities. In his transcribed 
interview, however, Mr. Archer repeatedly explained that 
President Biden was not involved in his son's business 
activities and that, during his more than decade-long business 
relationship with Hunter Biden, Mr. Archer never witnessed 
President Biden have any involvement in his son's business 
dealings or take any official actions to benefit Hunter Biden 
or his businesses. Mr. Archer also stated he never witnessed 
Hunter Biden discussing the substance of his business with his 
father or asking his father to take any official actions.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Transcribed Interview of Devon Archer, Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability (July 31, 2023) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-
Transcript.pdf); Memorandum from Democratic Staff to Democratic members 
of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Transcribed Interview 
of Devon Archer (Aug. 3, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
2023-08-
03.Democratic%20Member%20Memorandum%20re%20Archer%20Transcribed%20Interv
iew%20
Final.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In alleging supposed wrongdoing by President Biden, the 
Majority claims that Mr. Archer said during his transcribed 
interview that President Biden was ``the Brand'' that Hunter 
Biden was selling to foreign sources.\49\ However, when asked 
directly if President Biden was ``the brand,'' Mr. Archer 
clarified that ``D.C. was the brand.''\50\ Mr. Archer explained 
that Hunter Biden helped to assemble a team of attorneys, 
lobbyists, and public affairs professionals to handle Burisma's 
government relations, and that President Biden was not part of 
this ``D.C. team.''\51\ Mr. Archer further explained that 
Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company on whose board Hunter 
Biden and Mr. Archer both served, had requested Hunter Biden 
assist them with their issues in D.C. using this lobbying 
team--not the then-Vice President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\Committee on Oversight and Accountability Democrats, Press 
Release: As the House Returns to Session, Ranking Member Raskin 
Releases Statement on the ``Overwhelming Failure'' of Republicans' 
``Top Priority'' Investigation (Sept. 11, 2023) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/
release/comer-delivers-remarks-on-house-floor-in-support-of-
impeachment-inquiry-as-congress-faces-obstruction-from-white-house-we-
must-take-action-to-hold-president-biden-accountable%EF
%BF%BC/).
    \50\Transcribed Interview of Devon Archer, Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability (July 31, 2023) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-
Transcript.pdf); Memorandum from Democratic Staff to Democratic Members 
of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Transcribed Interview 
of Devon Archer (Aug. 3, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
2023-08-03.
Democratic%20Member%20Memorandum%20re%20Archer%20Transcribed%20Interview
%20
Final.pdf).
    \51\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Majority has pointed to Mr. Archer's testimony that 
then-Vice President Biden was present at two Cafe Milano 
dinners, also attended by some of Hunter Biden's business 
partners. In reality, Mr. Archer explained in his transcribed 
interview that then-Vice President Biden did not discuss 
business and simply made ``dinner conversation'' with 
attendees, including conversation about the weather.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to Ukraine and Hunter Biden's role with 
Burisma, Mr. Archer repeatedly and unequivocally explained that 
Hunter Biden never discussed Burisma with his father and never 
asked his father to take any official action to benefit him or 
Burisma. Mr. Archer further explained that then-Vice President 
Biden's role in calling for the ouster of the corrupt Ukrainian 
prosecutor general Viktor Shokin was ``bad for Burisma'' 
because of the understanding that Burisma had Mr. Shokin 
``under control,'' especially after January 2015, when British 
authorities were forced to release assets belonging to 
Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, because of a lack of 
cooperation from Ukrainian prosecutors. Mr. Archer explicitly 
stated he had no reason to believe Vice President Biden's call 
for Shokin's removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. 
government's anticorruption policy in Ukraine.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the business meeting convened by the Committee on 
January 10, 2024, Rep. Jasmine Crockett attempted to have a 
detailed amendment adopted correcting the misrepresentations of 
Mr. Archer's testimony contained in the Majority's report. 
Despite the veracity of the amendment, Committee Republicans 
voted against the adoption of Rep. Crockett's amendment.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Business Meeting, 
Vote on the Crockett Amendment to the ANS (Jan. 10, 2024) (20 yeas, 24 
nays) (online at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/GO/GO00/20240110/116732/BILLS-118-ANS-C001130-Amdt-6.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Majority's report also fails to contextualize 
information concerning Eric Schwerin, another former business 
partner of Hunter Biden and former financial advisor to then-
Vice President Biden. Mr. Schwerin stated that he was not aware 
of any involvement by President Biden in the financial conduct 
of his relatives' businesses, much less any transactions into 
or out of the then Vice President's bank account related to 
business conducted by any Biden family member.
    The distortions of evidence and statements contained in the 
Majority's report are consistent with Committee Republicans' 
repeated and intentional decisions to withhold evidence from 
the American people.\55\ In particular, Committee Republicans 
have kept secret the transcripts of the vast majority of 
transcribed interviews conducted this Congress, publicly 
releasing transcripts for only two of 17 transcribed interviews 
they have conducted this Congress, allowing them free rein to 
cherry-pick and distort the evidence unchecked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\See Memorandum from Minority Staff to Interested Parties, Fact 
Sheet: Mountain of Evidence Shows No Wrongdoing by President Biden, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Dec. 1, 2023) (online at 
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.
oversight.house.gov/files/
20231201%20Oversight%20Democrats%20Staff%20Memo%20on
%20Impeachment%20Inquiry.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   III. The Majority Has Obstructed Minority Efforts To Investigate 
   Unconstitutional and Unethical Payments by Foreign Governments to 
                 Former President Trump and His Family

    The Majority's report claims that the Committee is 
investigating ``the national security implications of a Vice 
President's or President's (and candidates for such offices) 
immediate family members receiving millions of dollars from 
foreign nationals, foreign companies, or foreign governments 
without any oversight.'' Yet, Chairman Comer has refused to 
join the Minority's investigations into the billions of dollars 
former President Trump and members of his family have received 
from foreign governments--and has even gone so far as to help 
bury evidence proving that while he was in office, former 
President Donald Trump accepted millions of dollars in foreign 
emoluments in violation of the Constitution.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\See Democratic Staff Report, White House for Sale: How Princes, 
Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump, Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability (Jan. 4, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
2024-01-04.COA%20DEMS%20-%20Mazars%20Report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, Chairman Comer has allowed Jared Kushner, 
former President Trump's son-in-law and senior White House 
adviser, to ignore and defy repeated requests from Committee 
Democrats for information and documents regarding Mr. Kushner's 
receipt of billions of dollars from the sovereign wealth funds 
of Gulf monarchies shortly after leaving his father-in-law's 
Administration, where he reshaped U.S. foreign policy toward 
Saudi Arabia and the Middle East in Saudi Arabia's favor.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\Letter from Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability, to Jared Kushner, Founder and Chief Executive 
Officer, A Fin Management LLC (Feb. 15, 2023) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
2023-02-15.%20JBR%20to%20Kushner%20re%20Saudi%20Arabia.fnl_.pdf); 
Letter from Ranking Member Jamie Raskin to Chairman James Comer, 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Aug. 31, 2023) (online at 
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2023-08-
31.JBR%20to%20Comer%20re%20Kushner%20Subpoena.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just one day after leaving government service, Mr. Kushner 
formed a company that would become a private equity firm.\58\ 
Within six months, Mr. Kushner's firm had secured an investment 
reportedly worth $2 billion from the Saudi sovereign wealth 
fund, the Public Investment Fund.\59\ The panel charged with 
reviewing investment opportunities for the fund reportedly 
raised several concerns about its proposed deal with Mr. 
Kushner's company, including ``the inexperience of the Affinity 
Fund management,'' the prospect of Saudi Arabia bearing 
responsibility for ``the bulk of the investment and risk,'' due 
diligence showing the firm's operations to be ``unsatisfactory 
in all aspects,'' a proposed management fee that ``seem[ed] 
excessive,'' and ``public relations risks'' stemming from Mr. 
Kushner's prior White House role.\60\ Despite these grave 
objections to the soundness of the transaction, Saudi Crown 
Prince Mohamed bin Salman reportedly personally ``overruled'' 
the panel and approved the investment.\61\ Mr. Kushner later 
received additional investments of $200 million each from the 
sovereign wealth funds of the United Arab Emirates and 
Qatar.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\After Helping Prince's Rise, Trump and Kushner Benefit from 
Saudi Funds, Washington Post (Feb. 11, 2023) (online at 
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/12/after-helping-princes-rise-
trump-kushner-benefit-saudi-funds/).
    \59\Before Giving Billions to Jared Kushner, Saudi Investment Fund 
Had Big Doubts, New York Times (Apr. 10, 2022) (online at 
www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-
fund.html).
    \60\Id.
    \61\Id.
    \62\Kushner Firm Got Hundreds of Millions From 2 Persian Gulf 
Nations, New York Times (Mar. 30, 2023) (online at www.nytimes.com/
2023/03/30/us/politics/jared-kushner-qatar-united-arab-emirates.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Comer has conceded that Mr. Kusher's conduct 
``crossed the line of ethics,'' yet he refused to join 
Committee Democrats' investigation and has rejected Ranking 
Member Raskin's request that he issue a subpoena to Mr. Kushner 
to compel him to provide the Committee with the documents and 
information necessary to understand the full scope of Mr. 
Kushner's foreign business dealings and the legal, 
constitutional, and ethical problems they create.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\Comer Says Kushner `Crossed the Line of Ethics' with Saudi 
Deal, The Hill (Aug. 11, 2023) (online at https://thehill.com/blogs/
blog-briefing-room/news/4148951-comer-says-kushner-crossed-the-line-of-
ethics-with-saudi-deal/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Comer has also claimed that he does not ``disagree 
with the Democrats and their criticism of the previous 
administration'' and acknowledged that the Committee would 
``have some questions for Trump and some of his family 
members.''\64\ He has also asserted that ``the influence 
peddling with respect to the Trump Administration will be a 
part of our overall investigation.''\65\ Yet despite these 
pledges, Chairman Comer has worked with the former President's 
attorneys to obstruct a seven-year Committee investigation and 
help bury evidence of the unconstitutional payments Mr. Trump 
received from foreign powers while he was Commander-in-Chief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\This Week' Transcript 2-12-23: Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. James 
Comer & Rep. Pete Aguilar, ABC News (Feb. 13, 2023) (online at https://
abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-2-12-23-sen-chuck-schumer/
story?id=97057961); CNN Primetime (Apr. 18, 2023) (online at 
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/04/20/
house_oversight_chairman_comer_we_found_a_lot_of
_things_that_should_be_illegal_in_hunter_biden_probe.html); Comer 
Agrees it Could Be Politically Unsustainable to Investigate Kushner, 
The Hill (Mar. 21, 2023) (online at https://thehill.com/homenews/house/
3910467-comer-agrees-it-could-be-politically-unsustainable-to-
investigate-kushner/
#::text=%E2%80%9CI%20don%27t%20disagree%20with%20the%20
Democrats%20and%20their%20criticism,be%20 
bipartisan%2C%E2%80%9D%20Comer%20said).
    \65\Democrats Allege Comer Has Withheld Evidence, Misrepresented 
Witnesses, Washington Post (Apr. 6, 2023) (online at 
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/house-oversight-democrats-
comer/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Immediately upon becoming Chairman of the Committee in 
January 2023, Rep. Comer began to obstruct a years-long 
investigation by Committee Democrats into President Trump's 
unprecedented conflicts of interest, self-dealing, and foreign 
financial ties, focusing on his unconstitutional acceptance of 
payments from foreign governments. After years of litigating 
with former President Trump, in September 2022, the Committee, 
then led by Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, entered into a court-
supervised settlement agreement with former President Trump to 
begin receiving financial documents from Mr. Trump's accounting 
firm, Mazars.\66\ However, four months later, as soon as he 
became Chairman, Rep. Comer authorized Mr. Trump's lawyers to 
speak on behalf of the Committee and block the disclosure of 
further documents in spite of a court-supervised settlement 
agreement and a lawful Committee subpoena, reviewed by every 
level of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the 
United States.\67\ A few months later, in June 2023, Mr. Trump 
and the Committee--under Chairman Comer's direction--filed a 
joint motion for dismissal of the case, formally terminating 
the court-supervised settlement agreement and burying any 
further documents responsive to the Committee's subpoena.\68\ 
As a result of these efforts, the ledgers the Committee 
ultimately received from Mazars covered just three of President 
Trump's more than 500 businesses and just two years of his 
presidency--and were themselves incomplete in many respects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Committee on Oversight and Reform, Press Release: Chairwoman 
Maloney's Statement on Oversight Committee Securing Agreement to Obtain 
Former President Trump's Financial Records (Sept. 1, 2022) (online at 
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwoman-
maloney-s-statement-on-oversight-committee-securing-agreement-to).
    \67\Email from Patrick Strawbridge, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, on 
behalf of Donald Trump, to Counsel for Mazars USA, LLP (Jan. 19, 2023) 
(on file with Committee).
    \68\See Order, Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
of the U.S. House of Representatives, et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-
01136-APM (D.D.C. July 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This small subset of documents that Committee Democrats 
were able to obtain during just four months of discovery and 
transmission was, however, enough to provide a small window 
into President Trump's misconduct while in office. The Mazars 
documents and publicly available information prove former 
President Trump's businesses accepted more than $7.8 million 
from at least 20 foreign governments and one self-declared 
political entity while he was Commander-in-Chief, in clear 
violation of the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause.\69\ 
These payments, detailed in a Minority Staff report entitled 
White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and 
Premiers Paid Off President Trump, came from foreign powers 
that sought--and in many cases received--favors and specific 
policy outcomes from President Trump and his Administration, 
including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\See Democratic Staff Report, White House for Sale: How Princes, 
Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump, Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability (Jan. 4, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
2024-01-04.COA%20DEMS%20-%20Mazars%20Report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           The People's Republic of China (P.R.C.), 
        which paid President Trump at least $5,572,548 in 
        unconstitutional emoluments for:
                   Rent payments from the Chinese 
                state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of 
                China's property in Trump Tower in New York 
                between February 2017 and October 31, 2019, 
                while the Trump Administration was reportedly 
                scrutinizing the bank for conducting financial 
                transactions for front companies funneling 
                money to the North Korean regime, including the 
                country's sanctioned nuclear program.
                   An advance deposit for a stay of 
                unknown length by an ``Embassy of China 
                Delegation'' at the Trump International Hotel 
                in Washington, D.C., that began in August 2017, 
                just months before President Trump visited with 
                Chinese President Xi Jinping in China and 
                defended Chinese trade practices in stark 
                contrast to his previous public pronouncements 
                blaming China's policies for the U.S.-China 
                trade imbalance.
                   A 14-month stay by the Chinese 
                state-owned Hainan Airlines Holding Company at 
                the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, 
                Nevada from November 2016 through December 2018 
                while Hainan Airlines Holding Company faced 
                increasing scrutiny from U.S. federal 
                regulators due to its opaque ownership 
                structure and ties to the Chinese state 
                apparatus.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which paid 
        President Trump at least $615,422 in unconstitutional 
        emoluments for base charges for Saudi Arabia's 
        properties in Trump World Tower in New York and for a 
        March 2018 stay by a delegation from the Royal Saudi 
        Embassy at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, 
        D.C. At the same time that President Trump illegally 
        accepted these payments from Saudi Arabia, he was 
        considering numerous foreign policy issues involving 
        Saudi Arabia, including choosing Saudi Arabia as the 
        destination for his first overseas trip against the 
        advice of his then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; 
        supporting the blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia against 
        Qatar even though Qatar hosted a major U.S. military 
        installation; and working to cast doubt publicly on the 
        conclusion of the Central Intelligence Agency that 
        Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was responsible 
        for the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Qatar, which paid President Trump at least 
        $465,744 in unconstitutional emoluments for base 
        charges for Qatar's properties in Trump World Tower in 
        New York even as Qatar was seeking to gain President 
        Trump's support in its ongoing conflict with Saudi 
        Arabia.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), which 
        paid President Trump at least $65,225 in 
        unconstitutional emoluments for four stays by 
        delegations from the government of the U.A.E. at the 
        Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. between 
        October 2017 and May 2018 even as the U.A.E., which 
        supported the Saudi blockade of Qatar, engaged a former 
        Trump fundraiser to lobby the President personally to 
        take policy positions favorable to the U.A.E., 
        including urging that then-Secretary of State Rex 
        Tillerson be fired.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Malaysia, which paid President Trump at 
        least $248,962 in unconstitutional emoluments for stays 
        by former Prime Minister Najib Razak and other senior 
        officials of the government of Malaysia at the Trump 
        International Hotel in Washington, D.C., in September 
        2017 even as it was widely reported that Prime Minister 
        Razak was under scrutiny by the DOJ as part of an 
        ongoing corruption investigation.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The $7.8 million detailed in the Democratic Staff report, 
White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and 
Premiers Paid Off President Trump, is almost certainly only a 
fraction of Trump's harvest of unlawful foreign state money 
while he was in office. However, Chairman Comer's decision to 
collude with former President Trump's attorneys to release 
Mazars from its obligations under the court-supervised 
settlement agreement deprived the Committee's Democratic staff 
of the ability to work with Mazars to conduct further searches 
for responsive records, including any documents relating to 
Russia, South Korea, South Africa, and Brazil.
    In fact, far from investigating ``the national security 
implications of a Vice President's or President's (and 
candidates for such offices) immediate family members receiving 
millions of dollars from foreign nationals, foreign companies, 
or foreign governments without any oversight,'' the Majority 
has deliberately obstructed ongoing investigations to prevent 
Committee Democrats and the American people from learning the 
full extent of the efforts by former President Trump and 
members of his family to convert the presidency into a business 
for self-enrichment by selling out U.S. foreign policy and the 
interests of the American people to homicidal Saudi monarchs, 
totalitarian Chinese bureaucratic state capitalists, and other 
princes, prime ministers, and premiers.
    In support of their ongoing effort to block the American 
people from learning the full extent of the illegal payments 
from foreign governments that former President Trump accepted 
while in office, the Majority blocked an amendment offered by 
Rep. Garcia to:
           require the Committee to issue a subpoena to 
        Jared Kushner's investment firm;
           require Mr. Kushner's firm to produce 
        documents related to its receipt of billions of dollars 
        from Gulf monarchies;
           demand that former President Trump return to 
        the American people, by paying the U.S. Treasury, the 
        $7,886,072 that he is known to have illegally accepted 
        from foreign powers without obtaining, or even seeking, 
        Congress's approval; and
           demand that former President Trump provide 
        the Committee with a full accounting of the money and 
        benefits or other emoluments of any kind whatever he 
        accepted from foreign governments or their agents 
        during his term as President and that he return to the 
        American people, by paying the U.S. Treasury, the total 
        sum of the foreign emoluments he illegally accepted 
        while in office.
                                              Jamie Raskin,
         Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

                                  [all]