James Comer refuses to learn anything from his investigation into Biden

Then, goaded into a debate by Raskin, Comer quickly lost the high ground.

“If you believe that it would have been illegal for Joe Biden to take $5 million from Ukraine — it certainly would have been,” Raskin asked. “What do you think about Donald Trump taking more than $5 million from the Chinese government while he was president?”

“Well, we know that Donald Trump had a legitimate business that he talked about and he campaigned on,” Comer said. He followed that up a moment later with a question: “What business were the Bidens in?”

Comer has been told the answer to this question again and again, but — either because he refuses to acknowledge any fruit of his investigation that undermines his case or because he somehow remains unaware of it — he still presents it as though it is unanswered.

Before we again explain the answer, it’s worth addressing Raskin’s allegation about money from the Chinese government. It is the case that the Trump Organization received millions of dollars in foreign income from two of its properties while Trump was president, including rent paid by a state-owned Chinese bank for space at Trump Tower. Comer’s response, in essence, can be distilled thusly: Because Americans knew or could have known Trump had foreign business partners when he was elected, the money he received at his businesses — however subsequently inflated — is off the rhetorical table.

So we return to Comer’s question: What business were the Bidens in?

There are a few Bidens at issue here, but the investigation largely centered on the president’s brother James and son Hunter in an unsuccessful effort to link their partnerships back to the president.

James Biden explained his work when he was interviewed by investigators working for Comer’s committee.

“I have a company that provides voluntary worksite benefits to major institutions on behalf of the employees,” he said during the February deposition. Asked about specific limited-liability companies he and his wife had established, he explained further that he was also engaged in “consulting in many different areas.” When he and Hunter Biden worked together, he said, “I basically consulted with and gave advice to Hunter Biden, who is my nephew, … depending on what the particular enterprise was at the time.”

Hunter Biden explained his background at length when he testified that same month.

“I was a vice president at a major national bank, where I worked in the General Counsel’s Office and then as manager of a unit within the Fraud Department,” he said. “I was executive director of e-commerce policy coordination with the Department of Commerce during the Clinton administration. I founded and built a successful law firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, and represented not-for-profit institutions, including close to a dozen primarily Jesuit universities all over the country from Philadelphia to Los Angeles, from Detroit to Denver, and everywhere in between. I then founded and built the successful small business in advising global infrastructure and alternative investment clients.”

When the Oversight Committee interviewed Hunter Biden’s former partner Devon Archer last year, Archer confirmed that Hunter Biden had been asked to join the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma for the reason Hunter Biden himself indicated: as an expert in corporate governance. Archer and Biden disagree on the extent to which Biden’s last name was an incentive, but it remains that Comer’s demand has an answer.

Questioning Raskin about the Bidens’ work, Comer established the sorts of business that, in his estimation, qualified as legitimate ones for engaging with foreign partners: “Did they have hotels? Did they have a social media company? Did they have golf courses? Did they have casinos? Did they have office buildings?” Those are all things in which Trump has been involved, of course, but the idea that owning a casino is less fraught for a political actor than providing advisory services on business partnerships is certainly unusual.

As is common, Comer also misrepresented the foreign money that Hunter and James Biden had received. (None of it has been shown to have gone to President Biden.) Raskin, answering Comer’s question about what work the Bidens had done, noted that the president earned money after serving as vice president in part by writing a book.

“That’s why Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Romania, China, Russia — that’s why they paid the Biden family money, because of Joe Biden’s book?” Comer asked.

In the same way that Comer often conflates Hunter Biden and his father by referring to “the Biden family,” he’s presenting money that came from people who live in a country with money that came explicitly from the country itself — i.e., from its government. His inclusion of Russia on that list is particularly egregious since Archer explicitly testified that the money at issue went solely to himself and not to Hunter (or any other) Biden. Again something that Comer should certainly know.

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) tried multiple times to interject as Comer and Raskin yelled at each other, offering answers to Comer’s questions. When the time came for his five minutes of questioning the hearing witness — the hearing being focused on Chinese efforts to exert influence in the United States, mind you, not the impeachment inquiry — he came back to the “What do the Bidens do?” question.

“Hunter Biden was a corporate governance lawyer appointed by George Bush to the Amtrak board, and then served on a number of corporate boards and investment firms,” Goldman said. “Jim Biden is a businessman. Joe Biden is the president of the United States and has been a public servant and elected official for the better part of 50 years.”

He acknowledged that Comer might want to question whether Hunter Biden was qualified for his consulting gigs.

“But that has nothing to do with your jurisdiction or the impeachment investigation,” Goldman said, “because you cannot link any of his business dealings a) to any foreign government — which he was never paid by, unlike Donald Trump’s and Donald Trump’s family, or b) to the president of the United States. And that’s why your impeachment investigation is a spectacular failure.”

The spat between Raskin and Comer had concluded a while earlier with Comer attempting to declare victory.

“We’ll let the record show that Mr. Raskins could not answer the question,” he said, “what did the Bidens do to deserve the money.”

Raskin first angrily noted that his last name was “Raskin.” (“We’ve sat next to each other for more than a year,” he said. “You don’t have to add the S.”) Then he insisted that Comer identify what crime President Biden had committed that would warrant impeachment.

“Well, you’re about to find out, very soon,” Comer replied.

Perhaps he needs to take time to become familiar with his committee’s evidence first.