3
As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65, impeachment involves “those
offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or
violation of some public trust.”
4
In our nation’s history, such offenses have included bribery,
abuse of power, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, perjury, and using one’s office
for personal gain.
5
Hamilton described impeachment as a “bridle in the hands of the legislative
body upon the executive servants of the government.”
6
As an exclusive Congressional authority,
impeachment serves as a critical check on the other branches of the federal government.
7
It also
protects our constitutional republic from officers who engage in malfeasance.
8
After all, once an
officer is impeached and convicted, he is automatically removed from office and can be
disqualified from ever holding office again.
Given that impeachment is designed, among other things, to protect the American people
from corrupt public officials, it makes sense that the Constitution does not limit impeachable
offenses to those an officer committed while serving in his current office. In fact, the
Constitution says nothing at all about the timing of impeachable acts. An officer may be
impeached for conduct in a former office as well as his current office. Indeed, the House has
adopted articles of impeachment based on conduct occurring prior to an officer assuming his
current position.
9
As a result, President Biden may be impeached for any impeachable offenses
he committed as Vice President in addition to any such offenses he has committed as President.
The purpose of this inquiry—and at this stage, it is just that, an inquiry—is to determine
whether sufficient grounds exist for the Committees to draft articles of impeachment against
President Biden for consideration by the full House. This impeachment inquiry will enable the
Committees to gather information necessary to assess whether President Biden has engaged in
impeachable conduct.
10
The decision to begin this inquiry does not mean that the Committees
4
See, e.g., The Federalist No. 65 (Hamilton).
5
See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 100-810, at 1 (1988) (first article explaining a conspiracy where a district court judge took
money from criminal defendants and, in return, imposed sentences that did not require incarceration); H.R. Res. 755,
116th Cong. (2019) (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress); H. Rep. No. 105-830, at 32-105 (1998)
(describing articles based on perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power); H. Doc. No. 62-1140, at 1701
(1912) (“He [the impeached officer] has prostituted his high office for personal profit. He has attempted by various
transactions to commercialize his potentiality as a judge.”).
6
The Federalist No. 65 (Hamilton).
7
See, e.g., The Federalist No. 66 (Hamilton) (“[T]he powers relating to impeachments are … an essential check in
the hands of [Congress] upon the encroachments of the executive.”); see also U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1 (“The
President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.” (emphasis added)).
8
See, e.g., 1 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 803, at 568 (4th ed. 1873)
(“[Impeachment] is not so much designed to punish an offender as to secure the state against gross official
misdemeanors. It touches neither his person nor his property, but simply divests him of his political capacity.”).
9
In 1912, the House impeached Judge Robert Archbald, who was a federal district court judge and then a federal
circuit court judge. When the House adopted thirteen articles of impeachment against him, Archbald was a federal
circuit court judge, but six articles were based solely on his conduct as a district court judge, and another was based
on his conduct both as a district court judge and as a circuit court judge. More recently, in 2010, the House
impeached Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., who was a state court judge before being appointed to the federal bench.
One of the articles of impeachment that the House adopted against him was based solely on events that occurred
while Porteous was still a state court judge, and a separate article was based on his conduct both while a state court
judge and while a federal judge.
10
See, e.g., In re Request for Access to Grand Jury Materials Grand Jury No. 81-1, Miami, 833 F.2d 1438, 1445
(11th Cir. 1987) (“[The House] holds investigative powers that are ancillary to its impeachment power.”).