What happened during the first hearing of the Biden impeachment inquiry

Geoff Bennett:

And there was other news on Capitol Hill today. You attended the first House Republicans' impeachment inquiry.

Tell us about it.

Lisa Desjardins:

That's right.

For months, House Republicans have been investigating the Biden family. Today, that effort entered a new phase.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY):

The Committee on Oversight and Accountability will come to order.

Lisa Desjardins:

In a relatively small hearing room, big questions and profound politics.

Rep. James Comer:

The American people demand accountability for this culture of corruption.

Lisa Desjardins:

For Republicans led by House Oversight Chairman James Comer, the top question is whether they will move to impeach President Joe Biden.

In a 30-page memo released last night, Republicans outlined their accusation, writing they have evidence suggesting that President Biden knew of, participated and profited from his family's international business activities. In other words, the suggestion is influence peddling.

Rep. James Comer:

As we all know, the Bidens had nothing to sell except the brand, which was Joe Biden. Hunter Biden sold the brand well, making the Biden family millions from China and elsewhere.

Lisa Desjardins:

Republicans are looking at millions of dollars made by Hunter Biden, the president's son and, James Biden, his brother, especially in 2019 and 2020, for consulting with foreign businesses, including in Ukraine and China.

They have charts of shell companies and spoke of texts and phone calls between Biden family members. But, in all of that, Democrats repeatedly pointed out there is no direct evidence of payments to or influence peddling by Joe Biden.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD):

If the Republicans had a smoking gun or even a dripping water pistol, they would be presenting it today, but they have got nothing on Joe Biden.

Rep. James Comer:

Do you all solemnly swear?

Lisa Desjardins:

Republican witnesses were broad experts in law and investigation, and they raised broad questions.

Forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky:

Bruce Dubinsky, Founder, Dubinsky Consulting:

Why were members of the Biden family and close business associates receiving millions of dollars of payments from foreign entities and individuals? What services, if any, were being provided?

Lisa Desjardins:

He concluded:

Bruce Dubinsky:

Much more information is still needed in order to be able to answer these questions.

Lisa Desjardins:

None said they have seen enough to add up to a crime.

Law professor and conservative commentator Jonathan Turley.

Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Attorney, George Washington University:

This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment. In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment.

Lisa Desjardins:

This is the first step in an inquiry initiated by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy earlier this month under pressure from hard right members of the House. Republicans argue there is real concern about the Biden family.

Democrats have fired back, charging this as an attempt to distract from the criminal charges now against former President Donald Trump and making a point in this hearing by reversing their laptops to show ticking clocks, that a shutdown is just two days away.

Rep. Kwesi Mfume (D-MD):

Why in the hell are we playing this game? And why don't we be honest? If it was so important, it could wait. This is what is important, protecting this government and protecting the people who pay taxes here. But we want to play games with all of this.

Lisa Desjardins:

Democrats' sole witness, law professor Michael Gerhardt, stressed the stakes.

Michael Gerhardt, University of North Carolina: An impeachment inquiry is deadly serious. It is, again, just about the most serious thing any House committee ever undertakes.

Lisa Desjardins:

Republicans expect more impeachment hearings as soon as next month.

And, today, speaking with House Republicans, there is divide. Some say these impeachment hearings were necessary, but I spoke to more than one House Republican who said it was actually an embarrassment. They are concerned about the evidence connecting the dots, even though there are a lot of documents. They say they're still waiting for more evidence and perhaps this hearing should have waited itself as well — Geoff.

Geoff Bennett:

Lisa, thank you.

Let's turn now to our White House correspondent, Laura Barrón-López, here with us in the studio.

So, Laura, we heard in Lisa's report that the GOP's handpicked witnesses said that there's no evidence to support articles of impeachment. How is the White House responding to what was this hours-long hearing today?

Laura Barrón-López:

Well, that fact, Geoff, that the same — that the Republican witnesses said that there is no evidence is exactly what the White House is seizing on.

They put out statements quoting the Republican witnesses saying that there is no evidence for impeachment. They also had their own shutdown clock.

They issued a statement every 30 minutes as this hearing was playing out over the course of the day to say that there's only this many hours left before a shutdown occurs, and essentially highlighting and focusing on the fact that House Republicans have been unable to come to an agreement amongst themselves on how to fund the government and the impact that would have on food assistance programs, on payments to active-duty military members and the like across the board.

That is what the White House is focusing on right now.

Geoff Bennett:

And as this hearing was happening, President Biden, he was actually in Arizona. He was paying tribute to his late friend the GOP senator, former GOP Senator John McCain, and it gave President Biden a chance to talk about what he sees as the threats to democracy, right?

Laura Barrón-López:

That's right.

This is — at this speech in Arizona, President Biden specifically gave his most detailed remarks to date about what he sees as a really present and clear threat from not just Donald Trump, but also from other Republican candidates that are running for the presidential nomination.

He focused on the fact that a number of those candidates, including Trump, have said that they want to overhaul the federal agencies, that, if they were to have the presidency, if they were to have the Oval Office, that they want to gut federal agencies, that they want to install loyalists across all the different departments, specifically the Justice Department.

And the president said that this is not normal and this is something that Americans need to pay attention to.

Joe Biden, President of the United States: Seizing power, concentrating power, attempting to abuse power, inciting violence against those who risk their lives to keep Americans safe, weaponizing against the very soul of who we are as Americans, this MAGA threat is a threat to the brick and mortar of our democratic institutions.

But it's also a threat to the character of our nation.

Laura Barrón-López:

So those are some of the most specific remarks that the president has given to really say that if Republicans were to take power, if they were to take the presidency in 2024, that the federal agencies that you have known for — since America's existence would not exist.

And he also talked a lot about John McCain, the late senator, and really struck this contrast, Geoff, to say that John McCain was a Republican who was willing to put the country first and was willing to call out what he saw as wrongdoing, was willing to stand up to Donald Trump, and that he doesn't see that anymore amongst Republicans.

He also addressed the fact that no Republicans or a majority of Republicans have remained silent after the former president issued a death threat suggesting that General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint — the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed.

Geoff Bennett:

Should we expect to hear more about this from President Biden as this campaign moves forward?

Laura Barrón-López:

We will.

So this is the fourth speech that the president has given to date on threats to democracy, and the campaign has made clear that this is something that he is going to be talking about aggressively heading into the election cycle.

Geoff Bennett:

Laura Barrón-López, thanks so much.

Laura Barrón-López:

Thank you.

Amna Nawaz:

For more perspective on today's impeachment hearing and the legal basis for the inquiry, we're joined by Frank Bowman. He's professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump."

Professor Bowman, welcome, and thanks for joining us.

I want to begin with your reaction to that impeachment hearing today. What were some of the key takeaways for you? What new information did you learn?

Frank Bowman, University of Missouri: Well, regrettably, very little.

I think it's certainly true to say that no impeachment inquiry of an American — of a U.S. president should begin unless there is at least significant proof that the president did engage in some sort of wrongdoing. And that's been the case in every prior presidential impeachment.

The difficulty, I think, for the Republicans is, on the one hand, they have the advantage of dealing with Hunter Biden, the president's son. And I think the one uncontested point that everybody can agree upon is that Hunter Biden has spent his entire life being in the profession of being the son of Joe Biden, in the sense that he's gained a lot of advantages, in terms of getting jobs and later on in his life inducing people to invest in his companies by virtue of the fact his last name is Biden.

No doubt about that. But that's not a crime, even as to Hunter Biden. It's certainly not an impeachable offense as to Joe Biden without a good deal more.

And the problem is that the Republicans launched this impeachment investigation without any material evidence that President Biden has done anything that's either criminal or impeachable. And I think it's worth remembering that we don't come into this inquiry about Hunter and his relationship with his father anew, as if this is suddenly a new thing.

This is something that's been investigated by multiple authorities since 2018. David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware and now special counsel, has been investigating Hunter Biden since then. A Senate committee investigated Biden and Burisma in 2020 and issued a report. The House has been investigating all of this since the beginning of this year.

And so far, although we still know that Hunter Biden has been trading on his father's name, they have got no evidence, and none was presented today.

Amna Nawaz:

Professor, let me ask, if I may. I mean, even Republicans we speak to will say, yes, this is a fact-finding mission. We believe we have a lot more questions. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

And they say this inquiry, these hearings are a means to get to some of that specific evidence that you are saying they haven't shown yet. Could it be, as a result of these hearings, they do uncover that?

Frank Bowman:

Oh, sure, in theory.

But I think it's profoundly unlikely. And given the exhaustive investigations by Republicans over the past five years of these very same transactions that have failed to produce the evidence they say they're looking for, I think the Republican legislators whom your correspondent quoted as saying, we really need more before we take the greatest step of having an actual formal impeachment inquiry, they're right.

And nothing happened today, I think, to dispel that concern.

Amna Nawaz:

So what are the possible outcomes then from this hearing?

If they do find evidence of impeachable acts, they could move forward with articles of impeachment, or it could be they reach the end of these hearings, we don't know how many, and just say, never mind, nothing to see here?

Frank Bowman:

Sure.

I mean, one is at least disposed to suspect that the purpose of these hearings is not really an ultimate impeachment vote, but simply to keep the name Hunter Biden in the news associated with his father to maintain the suspicion that something is amiss, and to carry that public concern forward into an election year.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps everything that the Republicans are doing here is being done in an entire good faith. But one, I think, has to doubt that's the case, given the doubts that are being expressed by this process even by members of their own party.

Amna Nawaz:

So we have heard a lot about some of the arguments laid out, some — the overarching idea of influence peddling, this idea of shell companies being created as well.

From a legal perspective, what is the bar Republicans have to meet here, from your expertise and your view?

Frank Bowman:

Well, they want to try to show that Joe Biden committed an impeachable offense, and they want to show that it basically sounds — in corruption.

Today, they have adopted the phrase influence peddling. That was a particular favorite of Professor Turley. It sounds bad, and I suppose, in a broad sense, it's bad generically. But if you want to make a crime or an impeachable offense out of it, you have to show that someone in public office, in this case, then-vice president, now-President Biden, actually offered or gave or performed some sort of official action or at least intimated that he would engage in some official action in response for payment either to himself or someone else.

And there's no evidence of that at all. They're going to have to show that. Maybe they can. Maybe some smoking gun will emerge. But, at this point, there's no indication of that. And it is telling, I think, that they began this hearing, this momentous process, with no evidence.

Amna Nawaz:

That is Professor Emeritus of the University of Missouri School of Law Frank Bowman joining us tonight.

Mr. Bowman, thank you so much. Good to speak with you.

Frank Bowman:

Thank you.