James Biden testifies to Joe Biden’s innocence of corruption
Joe Biden’s brother James emphatically rejected that he was ever involved in business with his brother as he testified before a Republican-led congressional committee.
James Biden, brother of the US president, has emphatically rejected claims his brother was involved in any way in his business dealings as part of testimony demanded by congressional Republicans, whose efforts to impeach Joe Biden for corruption have begun to unravel amid accusations one of their key sources had lied to the FBI.
James Biden, the president’s younger brother, denied Joe Biden “had ever had any involvement or any direct or indirect financial interest” in his businesses or taken “any official action on behalf of me, my business associates, or anyone else” in a statement released prior to his closed-door congressional interview on Wednesday (Thursday AEDT).
The younger Biden was subpoenaed in November by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee following months of allegations by Republicans that Joe Biden and his family had corruptly received millions of dollars in income from foreign sources, including from businesses in Ukraine and China.
“Because of my intimate knowledge of my brother’s personal integrity and character, as well as my own strong ethics, I have always kept my professional life separate from our close personal relationship,” James Biden, 74, said in a statement released earlier.
“In every business venture in which I have been involved, I have relied on my own talent, judgment, skill, and personal relationships — and never my status as Joe Biden’s brother”.
His deposition came as Democrats lashed Republicans following the indictment last week of Alexander Smirnov, a former FBI informant, by the Department of Justice for lying to the FBI, a development Democrats said undermined Republicans’ impeachment inquiry and case against the president.
The 43-year-old dual Israeli-US citizen in 2020 told the FBI he had evidence Joe and Hunter Biden had received US$5 million each from Ukrainian gas company Burisma, on whose board Hunter then sat, which contributed to Republican suspicions about the president’s probity.
“Smirnov was the foundation of the whole thing. He was the one who came forward to say that Burisma had given Joe Biden $5 million, and that was just concocted out of thin air,” top Democrat congressman Jamie Raskin said on Wednesday.
On Tuesday the Justice Department suggested Smirnov could have relayed his claim to the FBI at the instigation of Russian intelligence.
“During his custodial interview on February 14, Smirnov admitted that officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved in passing a story about Businessperson 1,” their filing read, referring to Hunter Biden
Republican Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, one of the leaders of the Republican investigation into the president, downplayed the significance of Mr Smirnov’s indictment, despite last year having argued the allegations related to Burisma were the most damning.
“Well, I mean, it is what it is,” Jordan told reporters when asked about the indictment. “It doesn’t change the fundamental facts,” he told CNN, reflecting his colleague James Comer’s assessment when Smirnov’s arrest first emerged.
“To be clear, the impeachment inquiry is not reliant on the FBI’s FD-1023,” Oversight committee chairman Comer said in a statement last week.
In December the House of Representatives, by a narrow margin on party lines, voted to establish a formal impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden’s alleged business dealings, Republican suspicions about which first flared after potentially incriminating emails emerged on Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020.
Subsequent investigations by Republicans including of subpoenaed bank statements found Joe Biden had lunched with Hunter Biden’s business associates on at least two occasions in Washington and his family had received at least US$20 million in foreign income.
Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was also subpoenaed in November along with his uncle James, agreed last month to a similar closed door testimony before the House Committee, scheduled for 28th February, after at first refusing to only appear in a public setting.