Biden ‘Clarifies’ He Didn’t Mean It When He Said He Would Defy Senate Impeachment Subpoena
Former Vice President Joe Biden made news heading into the weekend on the subject of whether he would comply with any possible subpoena from the Senate for his testimony in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. He said “no.”
On Saturday, he offered a clarification, via Twitter, suggesting that he did not mean the thing he had repeatedly agreed and confirmed he had meant.
Trump and Republicans have been floating the names of various potential witnesses at the Senate impeachment trial, including both 2020 candidate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who would ostensibly be testifying about the “corruption” that Trump claims he was concerned about in the infamous phone call with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky.
In an interview earlier in December, NPR asked Biden whether he would comply if so subpoenaed. “If you are subpoenaed, would you comply?” NPR asked.
Biden responded with a “no”, adding that he was “not going to let you take the eye off the ball here.”
On Friday, he was asked in an on-camera interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register whether he stands by that position.
“Do you stand by your earlier statements that you wouldn’t comply if you were subpoenaed to testify in an impeachment trial before the Senate?” he was asked.
“Correct,” responded Biden. “And the reason I wouldn’t is because it’s all designed to deal with Trump doing what he’s done his whole life: trying to take the focus off of him.”
So he said “no” when asked if he would “comply” by NPR, and repeated that answer in the same interview when asked again. Then, asked if he stands by his “earlier statements” that he “wouldn’t comply,” Biden said “correct.” He then further confirmed his meaning when he used the specific phrasing “the reason I wouldn’t.” As in, wouldn’t comply.
When the Register then asked him whether that puts him in a position him of “defying a subpoena” and putting himself “above the law,” rather than saying he would not defy the subpoena, Biden replied that he doesn’t anticipate it happening anyway.
After the news blew up on with this story on Friday, Biden issued a “clarification” via Twitter.
I want to clarify something I said yesterday. In my 40 years in public life, I have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as VP, my office — unlike Donald Trump and Mike Pence — cooperated with legitimate congressional oversight requests.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 28, 2019
But I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial. That is the point I was making yesterday and I reiterate: this impeachment is about Trump’s conduct, not mine.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 28, 2019
The subpoenas should go to witnesses with testimony to offer to Trump’s shaking down the Ukraine government — they should go to the White House.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 28, 2019
As Reuters noted on Saturday, failure to comply with subpoenas is one of the reasons cited for Trump’s impeachment.
Biden’s tweets imply, without explicitly stating, that he would not defy a subpoena, despite his previous statements that he would. The intended effect of which was to claim he’s been taken out of context, and that he would of course comply.
He was also simultaneously suggesting that there are grounds to defy any such subpoena as illegitimate or not lawful, as an obvious justification for the position that he has repeatedly and explicitly taken.
After the tweet thread and the hype, Biden further addressed this at a town hall.
BIDEN further clarifies whether he would comply with a Senate subpoena, telling reporters he would indeed do so. But when pressed on whether he’d challenge the subpoena in court, Biden said “let’s cross that bridge when it comes.”
More from the exchange in my wrap note –> pic.twitter.com/9YKJvamRbF
— Marianna Sotomayor (@MariannaNBCNews) December 28, 2019
“I would honor whatever the congress in fact legitimately asked me to do,” he said. Again, qualifying his clarification with “legitimately.”