Hunter Biden plans to testify behind closed doors as part of House Republicans' sweeping impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden on Feb. 28.
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) announced the private deposition with the president's son on Thursday, following a week of negotiating with his lawyers. Just last week, Republicans were threatening to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a prior subpoena.
“Hunter Biden will appear before our committees for a deposition on February 28, 2024. His deposition will come after several interviews with Biden family members and associates. We look forward to Hunter Biden’s testimony,” Jordan and Comer said in a statement.
Republicans view Hunter Biden as a key witness in their impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, which has largely focused on his family’s business agreements.
Hunter Biden is expected to sit for a deposition as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden at the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees next month, after the first son defied a congressional subpoena and was at risk of being held in contempt of Congress.
The House Judiciary Committee announced the newly-scheduled deposition date on X, formerly Twitter, Thursday evening.
"HUNTER BIDEN DEPOSITION. CONFIRMED. FEBRUARY 28," the X post reads.
"Hunter Biden will appear before our committees for a deposition on February 28, 2024," House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said in a joint-statement Thursday. "His deposition will come after several interviews with Biden family members and associates."
They added: "We look forward to Hunter Biden’s testimony."
Comer and Jordan also announced additional witnesses will appear before the committee for testimony, including Hunter Biden’s business partners Mervyn Yan and Rob Walker on Jan. 22; Eric Schwerin and Joey Langston on Jan. 29; and Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski on Feb. 5.
Hunter Biden's new deposition date comes after the House Oversight Committee and the House Judiciary Committee last week passed resolutions to hold him in contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena.
Hunter Biden's attorneys offered to discuss scheduling a new deposition for the first son — something House Republicans were willing to do.
Hunter Biden, ahead of his subpoenaed deposition on Dec. 13, had offered to testify publicly. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, rejected his request, noting that the first son would not have special treatment and pointing to the dozens of other witnesses who have appeared as compelled for their interviews and depositions. Comer and Jordan vowed to release the transcript of Hunter Biden’s deposition.
The first son, though, defied the subpoena, ignored the offer and recently delivered a public statement outside the Capitol. At the time, he said his father "was not financially involved in my business."
As the House advanced the resolutions to continue to take steps to hold Hunter Biden in contempt, his attorney, Abbe Lowell, last week asked that the committees issue a new subpoena.
Lowell penned a letter to the committees on Friday, saying the initial subpoenas were "legally invalid" as they were issued before the full House of Representatives voted to formalize the impeachment inquiry against the president.
"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," Lowell wrote. "We will accept such a subpoena on Mr. Biden's behalf."
"The committees welcome Mr. Biden’s newfound willingness to testify in a deposition setting under subpoena," Comer and Jordan wrote at the time.
"Although the Committee’s subpoenas are lawful and remain legally enforceable, as an accommodation to Mr. Biden and at your request, we are prepared to issue subpoenas compelling Mr. Biden’s appearance at a deposition on a new date in the coming weeks."
All Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee announced their support Thursday for impeaching Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, signaling that the case has enough votes to clear the panel and head to the full chamber for a vote.
Two Republican state lawmakers in New Mexico filed a resolution Wednesday to impeach Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, accusing her of breaking her oath to the U.S. Constitution over her use of emergency public health orders to restrict the right to carry firearms in some public places.
Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block claim that with the restriction, Lujan Grisham infringed upon the rights of New Mexicans.
"The rights of New Mexicans are not up for debate, and no matter how hard Lujan Grisham tries to violate the Constitution, she will never succeed," Lord said in a statement. "I stood firm against her tyranny when she tried to use a Covid health order to take our guns, and I will continue to stand firm against her continued attempts to destroy our Republic."
Lujan Grisham, a second-term Democrat, invoked the emergency orders last year in response to a spate of gun violence, including the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium. The orders restrict firearms in places like parks and playgrounds in the greater Albuquerque area.
Block accused the governor of "violating the Constitution to make a political statement," noting that Lujan Grisham said she expected legal challenges from the outset.
In the federal court system, a judge has allowed enforcement of the gun provision to continue while legal challenges run their course.
In response to the impeachment articles, Lujan Grisham spokesperson Maddy Hayden said in an email to The Associated Press that the two lawmakers are more interested in political stunts than crafting meaningful legislation, citing their bills to criminalize necrophilia and offer sex offenders an early release from prison if they agree to chemical castration procedures.
"There's not much to say in direct response to this inane effort," Hayden said, referring to the impeachment resolution.
Democrats outnumber Republicans in both chambers of the state legislature. Both the House, with a simple majority vote, and Senate, with a two-thirds vote, would have to vote to impeach the governor.
A Republican attempt to impeach Wisconsin's nonpartisan top elections official is nothing more than "a big show for the cameras" and will be ignored, the Assembly's GOP majority leader said Thursday.
Several Republican lawmakers, including the state Senate president, have called for Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe to be impeached over her handling of the 2020 election won by President Biden. The Senate voted in October to fire Wolfe but later admitted that the vote was symbolic and had no legal effect.
In the Assembly, state Rep. Janel Brandtjen has introduced a resolution to impeach Wolfe. As of Thursday, it had just five co-sponsors in addition to Brandtjen. It would require 50 votes to pass.
Brandtjen tried in vain on Tuesday to be recognized to speak in an attempt to get a vote on her proposal. Brandtjen, who has endorsed discredited conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, accused Republican leaders of being "Administrator Wolfe's PR team."
During a news conference before Thursday's session, Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August said Brandtjen's proposal would not be voted on because it doesn't have enough support to get out of committee or be approved by a majority of the Assembly.
"We have a process that has been utilized in this building for decades of how to bring a bill or a resolution to the floor," August said. "And that’s the process that we’ll continue to use."
August said if Brandtjen has enough support to bring the measure forward for a vote, she can.
"But the fact is she doesn’t," August said. "Our caucus is focused on real things, not grifting and not making a big show for the cameras. And that’s all she’s interested in doing."
Even as the impeachment effort stalls, Republicans have called for Wolfe to be replaced. But she has said she will remain in her post at least through the November election.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos is being targeted for recall by supporters of former President Donald Trump, in part over his opposition to the Wolfe impeachment. Trump in November posted a news release on his social media platform Truth Social from Brandtjen criticizing Vos for not doing more to remove Wolfe.
The Assembly can only vote to impeach state officials for corrupt conduct in office or for committing a crime or misdemeanor. If a majority of the Assembly were to vote to impeach, the case would move to a Senate trial in which a two-thirds vote would be required for conviction.
Although Wolfe is the administrator of elections, it is the more than 1,800 local clerks who actually run elections in the presidential battleground state. The commission she oversees is run by a bipartisan board with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.
Brandtjen and others who support impeaching Wolfe had pushed for decertification of Biden's 2020 win. Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin, an outcome that has withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firm’s review, and multiple state and federal lawsuits.
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has signed an executive order requiring every government agency to capture data on the activities of illegal immigrants in the state -- including the number of those charged or convicted of a criminal offense.
Landry, a Republican, signed the order which directs every executive branch agency to "consider the effects of illegal immigration" on their agencies and offices and collect data relating to the "provision of public services or the expenditure of public funds directly or indirectly to, or for the benefit of illegal aliens."
The executive order will also require law enforcement to collect and report data on a monthly basis on the number of aliens charged or convicted and include their citizenship, nationality and immigration status. It will also require the reporting of criminal history, gang affiliation and whether they are in the country legally or illegally.
"The cost of illegal immigration in this state is falling on the shoulders of hard-working Louisianans," Landry said in a statement. "This Executive Order will analyze data to determine the financial burden our citizens are being forced to carry because of those who do not follow the law,"
"Louisiana will always welcome those who legally immigrate, but taxpayers cannot continue to foot the bill for individuals who break the law and skip the line," he said.
The order comes amid national concern in both Democratic and Republican areas about the ongoing costs of the historic migrant crisis at the southern border -- which has extended its reach far beyond the southern border.
Democratic cities like New York City and Chicago have pleaded for help from the federal government due to the flood of migrants they’ve seen into their cities. Meanwhile, Republican attorneys general have testified to Congress about the effects of illegal immigration and fentanyl -- which is primarily trafficked through the border -- on their states.
Republicans have blamed the Biden administration for what it says are "catch-and-release" policies and narrowed interior enforcement. The executive order says that the administration "has failed to prevent the illicit entry of aliens and has…enacted policies designed to undermine the rule of law and encourage and induce the illegal entry of historic numbers contrary to law."
The Biden administration has said it is a "broken system" that is drawing migrants to the border amid a hemisphere-wide crisis, and that it needs funding and immigration reform legislation from Congress to fix it.
Congress is currently debating a supplemental funding request from the White House that includes $14 billion for the border crisis, including aid to states and communities. But Republicans want to see stricter limits on asylum and a more limited use of parole.
Americans typically frame their politics as a contest between “right” and “wrong.” In our two-party system today, voters usually believe both they and their party are completely in the right, while those on the opposite side are completely wrong. And this belief persists even after one side concedes defeat: Yes, my party lost the election, but your party is still wrong.
There’s nothing unusual about this. Americans have generally viewed elections that way since the founding of the republic. One side is invariably left unhappy with the result, but they’ll invariably lick their wounds, galvanize behind a new candidate, and try again next time. There’s usually been no burning sense of resentment, no designs of revenge held against the voters who repudiated their decision the last time around. When Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008, Democratic voters didn’t want “revenge” on McCain voters. That was just the way things were in those halcyon days.
Until Donald Trump, that is. Trump himself has been soundly and decisively dismissed by most Americans. He was repudiated by multiple impeachments that he richly deserved, and emphatically rejected by an electoral and popular majority of American voters in the 2020 election. Now, in 2024—amidst a swirling maelstrom of serious legal and criminal charges against him—Trump has made revenge the central focus of his campaign. He’s still insisting to his supporters that his 2020 loss was fake (it wasn’t), and that they’ve been insidiously victimized by some type of amorphous, pervasive fraud and Democratic chicanery that essentially played them for fools. It’s a con that Trump started cultivating well before the 2020 election itself, that only went into overdrive after his failed coup of Jan. 6, 2021.
As Tom Nichols, writing for The Atlantic, observes, the Republican electorate has swallowed Trump’s fiction and internalized it. Republicans have transformed Trump’s embarrassments into an insult against their own personal identities and belief systems. It’s an offense that demands and necessitates revenge against those fellow Americans who dared to insult them.
These voters are not settling a political score. Rather, they want to get even with other Americans, their own neighbors, for a simmering (and likely unexpected) humiliation that many of them seem to have felt ever since swearing loyalty to Trump.
A lot of people, especially in the media, have a hard time accepting this simple truth. Millions of Americans, stung by the electoral rebukes of their fellow citizens, have become so resentful and detached from reality that they have plunged into a moral void, a vortex that disintegrates questions of politics or policies and replaces them with heroic fantasies of redeeming a supposedly fallen nation.
It’s terribly difficult and gut-wrenching to admit that one’s choices were wrong. For some people, it’s impossible. For voters who fatefully cast their lot with Trump (and have been subjected over and over to glaring examples of his unfitness), there is no way to save face but by “plunging into that moral void,” as Nichols puts it.
They have to ignore Trump’s 91 criminal charges and his wholesale moral bankruptcy. They have to invent preposterous stories about President Joe Biden and his family. They have to believe, Nichols points out, that violence may be the only path to get their way—and it’s all to salvage their own sorry egos from the unforgivable slight of being wrong. So, egged on by their media bubble and abjectly Trump-dependent political leaders, these voters invent horrors that don't exist, imagine dire threats that they'll never personally face, and conjure up enemies they'll never encounter. It's all, as Nichols seems to imply, a coping mechanism to internally justify their own bad choice.
He wants revenge, and so do his supporters.
But, Nichols asks, against whom are they seeking violence and revenge? Why, Democrats, of course. Those neighbors who had that Biden-Harris 2020 sign have left them seething for four years, as has the local election board that processed all those mail-in votes. As Nichols observes, “When people talk about ‘resorting to violence’ they are, by default, talking about violence against their fellow citizens, some of whom have already been threatened merely for working in their communities as election volunteers.”
Unlike in previous elections, the motivation of these Trump loyalists isn’t really about policy, and it’s not really about “the border” or trans kids. It’s about a sense of revenge that Trump has cynically, deliberately cultivated in them. So they can finally come out on top.
As Nichols writes:
Much like Trump himself, these voters are unable to accept what’s happened over the past several years. Trump, in so many ways, quickly made fools of them; his various inanities, failures, and possible crimes sent them scrambling for ever more bizarre rationalizations, defenses of the indefensible that separated them from family and friends. If in 2016 they suspected, rightly or wrongly, that many Americans looked down on them for any number of reasons, they now knowwith certainty that millions of people look down on them—not for who they are but for what they’ve supported so vocally.
Nichols—a conservative, adamant “never-Trumper”—gets it mostly right here about Trump’s base, but he omits an important fact: that “what they’ve supported so vocally” is in fact quite telling about “who they are.” Still, he effectively dispenses with all the time and pixels wasted by major media in trying to “understand”—via visits to homey small-town diners and such—Trump voters’ motivations, ostensibly in the vain hope “that more listening and more empathetic nodding would put things right in a few years.”
That time has mercifully passed. Assuming Nichols is right, then there’s precious little to be gained by trying to understand Trump voters or ascribe any rationality to them. Revenge is a raw human emotion, not something that can be dealt with through discourse or reason. As Nichols cogently explains, more than anything, Donald Trump’s loyal base wants revenge “on their fellow citizens” for their attacks, critiques, and disparagement of Donald Trump.
No doubt they’ll be sorely disappointed when they don’t get it.
A mother whose daughter died at the hands of an illegal immigrant and another whose daughter died of a fentanyl overdose laid blame at the feet of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, telling Congress on Thursday that his policies opened the border and unleashed death.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is threatened with impeachment after two New Mexico Republican legislators filed a resolution Wednesday over gun restrictions.
