On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee released a letter sent to White House Counsel Edward Siskel regarding Hunter Biden's defiance of not one but two Congressional subpoenas, as well as President Joe Biden's possible involvement in his son's defiance of these subpoenas. This action was taken as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry.
President Biden's alleged involvement is specifically mentioned in the very first paragraph.
In light of an official statement from the White House that President Biden was aware in advance that his son, Hunter Biden, would knowingly defy two congressional subpoenas, we are compelled to examine as part of our impeachment inquiry whether the President engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress.
There is a very direct statement here: "...whether the President engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress." That can be interpreted as an impeachment-level offense. Later, the letter goes on to describe White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's seeming acknowledgment that the president knew in advance that his son, Hunter Biden, intended to defy the subpoenas:
Later on December 13, when asked whether President Biden had watched Mr. Biden's statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that President Biden was "certainly familiar with what his son was going to say." Ms. Jean-Pierre declined, however, to provide any further details about the President's actions or whether the President approved of his son defying congressional subpoenas. Nonetheless, Ms. Jean-Pierre's statement suggests that the President had some amount of advanced knowledge that Mr. Biden would choose to defy two congressional subpoenas.
Concerning Hunter's actions, the letter states in part:
The Committees issued subpoenas to Hunter Biden for a deposition to be conducted on December 13, 2023. In correspondence with Mr. Biden's attorney prior to the scheduled date of the depositions, the Committees addressed and rejected Mr. Biden's justifications for not complying with the terms of the subpoenas, as well as Mr. Biden's demand for special treatment from the Committees. 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.
The demand for special treatment would seem to violate the principle of equal treatment under the law.
Later, the clearly describes Hunter Biden's defiance of the Committee:
On December 13, Mr. Biden did not appear for the deposition as required by the Committees' subpoenas. Instead, Mr. Biden appeared on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol with his attorney and Representative Eric Swalwell. Mr. Biden gave a lengthy public statement to an assembly of reporters in which he made several statements that are relevant to the House's impeachment inquiry, including representations about his business activities, assertions about President Biden's awareness and "financial" involvement in these activities, and attacks on the Committees' inquiry. Mr. Biden indicated that he would not appear for the deposition as required by the subpoenas and that he would only testify in a public forum, a demand for special treatment that the Committees had previously rejected. Although Mr. Biden professed an interest in answering questions about his actions, he departed the Capitol grounds without taking any questions. The Committees subsequently recorded Mr. Biden's non-appearance at his deposition.
The meat of the letter, though, may be found in these words:
Under the relevant section of the criminal code, it is unlawful to "corruptly ...endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any investigation or inquiry is being had by ... any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress[.]" Likewise, any person who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" the commission of a crime is punishable as a principal of the crime.
It is hard to view Hunter Biden's actions in this matter as anything but an attempt to obstruct a legitimate investigation on the part of the House Oversight Committee.
It is likewise difficult to view the President's actions, given the admission that he knew of Hunter Biden's intentions in advance, as being anything but (at the least) ignoring the planned defiance, if not actually counseling in favor of it. This could very well be seen as one or more of the following: aiding, abetting, counseling, or inducing.
While the Committee notes (correctly) that a Contempt of Congress action is possible at this juncture, it is unclear what that might accomplish. It's important to recall that President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012, but he suffered no consequences, personal or professional, from that finding.