Directing Certain Committees to Continue Ongoing Investigations Into Whether Sufficient Grounds Exist for the Impeachment of Joseph Biden, President of the United States

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a story as old as the hills.

You have got a politician who does certain things. Those actions then benefit his family financially. Then there is an effort to conceal it and sweep it under the rug.

The best example is to go back to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

There are four key facts about Hunter Biden's involvement with this company and Joe Biden's involvement.

First, Hunter Biden gets put on the board of Burisma. Second, he is not qualified to be on the board of Burisma. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, he said it himself.

Third, he is asked by the executives of Burisma: Can you weigh in with Washington, D.C., to help alleviate the pressure we are under?

Three days later the Vice President of the United States, now- President Joe Biden, goes to Ukraine and conditions American tax dollars for Ukraine on the firing of the prosecutor who was applying the pressure to the company Hunter Biden was on the board of.

That is why we are going with an official impeachment inquiry vote today. That is why this needs to be investigated.

There are two resolutions we are considering. They are H. Res. 918 and H. Res. 917, incorporated if we pass H. Res. 918.

There are three names mentioned in those two resolutions. One name, of course, is Joe Biden, the President of the United States. However, the other two names in H. Res. 917 are two Department of Justice tax lawyers, Mark Daly and Jack Morgan. They are the two guys we want to talk to that the Biden Justice Department says we are not going to let you talk to.

With this vote we think we will get to talk to those individuals. Here is why it is important: These two individuals initially said that there should be felony tax charges for 2014 and 2015 in the Hunter Biden investigation.

That is important because those are the years when the bulk of the income from Burisma came to Hunter Biden. They initially said that there should be felony tax charges for those years. Then they changed their position. Eight months later they changed their position, and we want to know why.

Why did you intentionally let the statute of limitations lapse for those years?

My theory is that it is one thing to charge Hunter Biden on a gun charge in Delaware, but it is another thing to charge him on Burisma tax years because that gets you to Joe Biden and that gets you to the White House. That is why we need this vote.

The impeachment power, as the chairman said, is the power that solely resides in the House. When you have a majority of the House of Representatives go on record, that then sends a message. We think we will get timely participation from the witnesses we need to talk to, and the documents Mr. Comer has been seeking.

Finally, I would say this about this changing story from the White House and this changing story from the Justice Department. Today, Hunter Biden did a press conference. He was supposed to be in a deposition, but he did a press conference. At that press conference he said: My father was not financially involved in the business.

That is an important qualifier. We haven't heard that. For 3 years we haven't heard that. All we have heard is that Joe Biden had no involvement. Now his son does a press conference when he is supposed to be deposed, and he says that he wasn't financially involved.

What involvement was it?

We know there were phone calls, dinners, and meetings.

What involvement was it?

That is why we want to ask these questions with important witnesses, and that is why this resolution is important.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source