Five Facts That Compel the Biden Impeachment Inquiry

Below is my column in The Messenger on the reason why an impeachment inquiry is warranted.  I do not believe that a case for impeachment has been made, but there is clearly a need for an investigation into a growing array of allegations facing the President in this corruption scandal.

I also reject the notion that, because a conviction is unlikely in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the House should not go down this road. I rejected the same argument made by some Republicans during the Trump impeachment. The House has a separate constitutional duty in the investigation of potential impeachable offenses and to pass articles of impeachment if those allegations are found to be valid. My objection to the Trump impeachments were first and foremost the failure to fully investigate the underlying allegations and to create a full record to support the articles of impeachment. The Senate has its own constitutional function under the Constitution that it can either choose to fulfill or to ignore.  A House impeachment holds both constitutional and historical significance separate from any conviction. That does not mean that grounds for impeachment will be found in this inquiry.  While the President deserves a presumption of innocence in this process, the public deserves answers to these questions.

Here is the column:

With the commencement of an impeachment inquiry this week, the House of Representatives is moving the Biden corruption scandal into the highest level of constitutional inquiry. After stonewalling by the Bidens and federal agencies investigating various allegations, the move for a House inquiry was expected if not inevitable.

An impeachment inquiry does not mean that an impeachment itself is inevitable. But it dramatically increases the chances of finally forcing answers to troubling questions of influence-peddling and corruption.

As expected, many House Democrats — who impeached Donald Trump after only one hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, based on his phone call to Ukraine’s president — oppose any such inquiry into President Biden. House Republicans could have chosen to forego any hearings and use what I called a “snap impeachment,” as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did with the second Trump impeachment in January 2021.

Instead, they have methodically investigated the corruption scandal for months and only now are moving to a heightened inquiry. The House has established a labyrinth of dozens of shell companies and accounts allegedly used to transfer millions of dollars to Biden family members. There is now undeniable evidence to support influence-peddling by Hunter Biden and some of his associates — with Joe Biden, to quote Hunter’s business partner Devon Archer, being “the brand” they were selling.

The suggestion that this evidence does not meet the standard for an inquiry into impeachable offenses is an example of willful blindness. It also is starkly different from the standard applied by congressional Democrats during the Trump and Nixon impeachment efforts.

The Nixon impeachment began on Oct. 30, 1973, just after President Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor looking into the Watergate allegations. The vote in the judiciary committee was along party lines. The House was correct to start that impeachment inquiry, although House leaders stressed that they were not prejudging the existence of impeachable offenses. The inquiry started roughly eight months before any indictments of defendants linked to the Watergate break-in. It was many months before clear evidence established connections to Nixon, who denied any wrongdoing or involvement.

Every impeachment inquiry is different, of course. In this case, there is a considerable amount of evidence gathered over months of methodical investigations by three different committees.

Consider just five established facts:

First, there appears to be evidence that Joe Biden lied to the public for years in denying knowledge of his son’s business dealings. Hunter Biden’s ex-business associate, Tony Bobulinski, has said repeatedly that he discussed some dealings directly with Joe Biden. Devon Archer, Hunter’s close friend and partner, described the president’s denials of knowledge as “categorically false.”

Moreover, Hunter’s laptop has communications from his father discussing the dealings, including audio messages from the president. The president allegedly spoke with his son on speakerphone during meetings with his associates on at least 20 occasions, according to Archer, attended dinners with some clients, and took photographs with others.

Second, we know that more than $20 million was paid to the Bidens (and Biden associates) by foreign sources, including figures in China, Ukraine, Russia and Romania. There is no apparent reason for the multilayers of accounts and companies other than to hide these transfers. Some of these foreign figures have allegedly told others they were buying influence with Joe Biden, and Hunter himself repeatedly invoked his father’s name — including a text exchange with a Chinese businessman in which he said his father was sitting next to him as Hunter demanded millions in payment. While some Democrats now admit that Hunter was selling the “illusion” of influence and access to his father, these figures clearly believed they were getting more than an illusion. That includes one Ukrainian businessman who reportedly described Hunter as dumber than his dog.

Third, specific demands were made on Hunter, including dealing with the threat of a Ukrainian prosecutor to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter was given a lucrative board position. Five days later, Joe Biden forced the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor, even though State Department and intelligence reports suggested that progress was being made on corruption. Likewise, despite warnings from State Department officials that Hunter was undermining anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, he continued to receive high-level meetings with then-Secretary of State John Kerry and other State Department officials.

Fourth, Hunter repeatedly stated in emails that he paid his father as much as half of what he earned. There also are references to deals that included free office space and other perks for Joe Biden and his wife; other emails reference how Joe and Hunter Biden would use the same accounts and credit cards. Beyond those alleged direct benefits, Joe Biden clearly benefited from money going to his extended family.

Fifth, there is evidence of alleged criminal conduct by Hunter that could be linked to covering up these payments, from the failure to pay taxes to the failure to register as a foreign lobbyist. What is not established is the assumption by many that Joe Biden was fully aware of both the business dealings and any efforts to conceal them.

The White House is reportedly involved in marshaling the media to swat down any further investigation. In a letter drafted by the White House Counsel’s office, according to a CNN report media executives were told they need to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans “for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies.” It is a dangerous erosion of separation between the White House and the president’s personal legal team. Yet, many in the media have previously followed such directions from the Biden team — from emphasizing the story that the laptop might be “Russian disinformation” to an unquestioning acceptance of the president’s denial of any knowledge of his son’s dealings.

Notably, despite the vast majority of media echoing different defenses for the Bidens for years, the American public is not buying it. Polls show that most Americans view the Justice Department as compromised and Hunter Biden as getting special treatment for his alleged criminal conduct. According to a recent CNN poll, 61% of Americans believe Joe Biden was involved in his family’s business deals with China and Ukraine; only 1% say he was involved but did nothing wrong.

The American public should not harbor such doubts over corruption at the highest levels of our government. Thus, the House impeachment inquiry will allow Congress to use the very apex of its powers to force disclosures of key evidence and resolve some of these troubling questions. It may not result in an impeachment, but it will result in greater clarity. Indeed, it is that very clarity that many in Washington may fear the most from this inquiry.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.

470 thoughts on “Five Facts That Compel the Biden Impeachment Inquiry”

  1. Turley writes: “First, there appears to be evidence that Joe Biden lied to the public for years in denying knowledge of his son’s business dealings. Hunter Biden’s ex-business associate, Tony Bobulinski, has said repeatedly that he discussed some dealings directly with Joe Biden. Devon Archer, Hunter’s close friend and partner, described the president’s denials of knowledge as “categorically false.””

    Yet, Turley defends Trump for his J6 speech as protected political speech. He claimed that the First Amendment was a defense to impeachment. My question: why is Biden’s “lies” not political speech? Why does Biden’s speech to “the public” not receive the same defense?

    1. Anonymous: It’s going to be really tough for you Democrat useful idiots to keep defending Biden when the walls come crashing down. You all sound pathetic now, but when the inquiry starts churning out real proof, you will sound desperate and cynical. At some point maybe you should consider honesty as the path of least resistance….if you have any left.

      1. You mistake the point of the question. It is not to defend the Bidens (if and when there is a hard connection to Joe and not “the Bidens” en masse – I believe in individualism and not the Communist collective – I will support any efforts to take Joe to task). I am more concerned with the nebulous “political speech” concept that does not appear to have any defined parameters of applicability.

        It is telling that Turley’s first point is entirely based on the President’s political speech. If Professor Turley believes that political speech that is used in furtherance of criminal activity is not protected here but political speech used in furtherance of criminal activity is protected for Trump (in Trump’s second impeachment), then I would like to understand how he differentiates these situations.

      2. GioCon,
        Yes, indeed they do sound pathetic.
        And desperate.
        Any reasonable person with a degree of logic, common sense can see the mounting body of evidence of corruption and wrong doing.
        But they just keep on blathering the same things over and over again. Issuing out the same DNC Pravda talking points, the gaslighting, the alternative realities, and when all else fails, ‘whataboutism Trump!’

      3. Anonymous: You’re still not getting it. Read Turley’s article again — slowly. He makes a distinction between evidence and proof. The House has a mountain of evidence that points to corruption and bribery. But they still need to prove their case. That’s what an “impeachment inquiry” — key word “inquiry” — is for. It gives the House more power to compel compliance by the DOJ and WH. Turley also says: An impeachment inquiry does not mean that an impeachment itself is inevitable. Again: key word “inquiry.”

        1. Or, a promise from Marjorie Taylor Greene that they would impeach Joe Biden–made even before he took office. All of this is a diversion away frum Trump’s crimes, evidence of which is overwhelming and which we’ve all seen. The news for Trump is going to keep getting worse. But Turley is paid to try to legitimize the weaponization of the House against the 2020 election winner to create a counter-narrative, even though there’s no actual proof of any wrongdoing by JOE Biden. But, Turley hedges his bets, bu saying there’s no evidence, but what he claims are “facts” “compel” an inquiry–.so when the impeachment fizzles because no evidence is uncovered, he thinks his skirts will be clean.

          1. Oh jeezus, here we go again.

            Gigi, I only have one question for you.

            Why did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call “DC” from Dubai in December 2015?

            Answer or again be called out for the LIAR that you are

      4. What we have now is evidence.

        Here’s how Black’s Law Dictionary, defines “evidence:”

        “Something, including testimony, documents, and tangible objects, that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.”

        Absolute proof is coming.

        1. If we did not have a corrupt DOJ, FBI, IRS who would allowed for investigations to happen in a non-biased way, yes, we would of had proof years ago.
          But what we have instead is a corrupt DOJ, FBI, IRS as proven by whistleblowers testimony, notes, emails, phone calls who provide cover for the Biden Crime Family.

      1. Care to elaborate?

        My issue is with the boundaries of his nebulous “political speech” concept. It seems to only arise when politically convenient for the right.

        1. What is unfortunate for us is you are not in a ICU, hooked up to a ventilator and being fed through a PEG tube.

        2. What a nasty person you are to wish myocarditis and a long painful life on someone.

          Hey Darren, do you consider that civil? People (like Jeff) have been banned for less.

          1. I did not wish him death.
            And it was a public service health announcement. The new boosters are here!

            1. UpstateFarmer: ” get myocarditis”

              Also UpstateFarmer: “I did not wish him death.” (just myocarditis).

              Well, in that case, that’s definitely within the rules of civility.

    2. LMAO no one said its a crime for him to lie.

      What it is, potentially, is evidence of covering up a crime.

      Just like Joe’s people “vehemently denying” that Joe was ever at dinner with Zlovchevsky. Since proven to be a lie and admitted as such by WaPo. Why did they lie about that?

      1. I asked you why you think they lied about that. You wont answer because you are one of several cowards here who NEVER answer a question. Just move on to the next lie. Parachute in…unicorn out.

        1. Uh, no, you are confused….what makes you think that I think you’re required to answer? I never said that or implied it. I just explained why you won’t. The only way you’ll ever “prove” otherwise, is to answer. But you won’t, because you’re a coward. Thats what I said.

          Loaded? Are you implying that a phone call was never made? Or are you implying that it was made for no reason?

          Twist in the wind like I predicted you would. It’s fun to watch.

          1. Before it was loaded. Now its irrelevant.

            Irrelevant to anyone not interested in finding out the truth. Fair enough. We know now where you stand.

            Thanks for admitting it.

            So I’ll summarize. You think that its more likely than not, that they called Captain Kangaroo.. I think that it’s likely they called Joe Biden.

            I also think, based on Archers testimony, that they asked for help with the pressure Zolevchevsky was getting from Shokin. If you need the transcript I can provide it.

            You think they talked about the weather.

            You think that evidence without “incontravertible proof” is not evidence.

            I thnk you are either disingenuous or an idiot. The evidence shows that.

            1. But back to the original question of why they lied about the dinner meeting. If you don’t care why they lied, or what was discussed, or how many more times they met, just say so. If you dont care if Joe committed crimes against his country, just friggin’ say so, bro, and you win. It’s pretty obvious you don’t. Instead, you’ve taken up Gigi’s incantation “no proof no proof no proof”, hoping it will change reality. It wont.

    3. Trump is talking about the state crimes of the demoncrats and the democrat party. POLITICAL
      Biden is talking about his personal crimes and theft lying about them. PERSONAL CRIMES

      1. So you think Turley distinguishes whether “political speech” is protected based on the type of crime it may be evidence of? He has never drawn such a distinction, and such a distinction has no basis in the law.

    4. Drop and switch the context — an ages-old trick of those driven to deceive and manipulate.

      Exhibit A: “[W]hy is Biden’s “lies” not political speech?”

      The issue, obviously, is not Biden’s 1A right to lie. It’s the fact that he lied.

    1. “Anonymous”, he is suing because Trump’s asst and the computer repair guy released data from a laptop THAT ISN’T HIS?????

      Along the same lines as the VA Dem candidate that is suing because the porn site she was using to raise money is being shown to the public by Repubilcans. The same public that she was performing to on the porn site!!!

      Only Democrats can get away with such hypocrisy.

      1. You know, if you bothered to read the column, you’d have learned that “the iPhone content was encrypted. That meant anyone without a warrant accessing that content was likely violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.”

        You might also learn from HB’s suit against Mac Isaac that DE law doesn’t consider a laptop to have been legally abandoned until a YEAR has passed, and that even then, it doesn’t give the new owner of the hardware legal access to the data.

        But yeah, go ahead and continue sticking your head in the sand.

        BTW, you claim to ignore all anonymous comments, so why are you even replying to me? I guess you’re just a liar.

        1. Who cares is the point. So sue em or prosecute em. Not gonna change reality, sorry.

          Head in the sand….irony or projection?

        2. “You might also learn from HB’s suit against Mac Isaac that DE law doesn’t consider a laptop to have been legally abandoned until a YEAR has passed, and that even then, it doesn’t give the new owner of the hardware legal access to the data.”

          That’s all a lie.

            1. Just stating, “It isn’t.”
              does not make it so.
              Only in the warped minds of woke leftists DNC Brown Shirts does it.
              Face it, with all the mounting body of evidence of the Biden Crime Family are they the most corrupt admin in the history of America.
              All of those who have any degree of common sense and logic see it.
              But of course you DNC Brown $hit$ will declare otherwise.
              Useless idiots.
              Useless eaters.

            2. “the law” you cite that the govt does not consider something abandon until a year, means things not covered by a contract.
              There is nothing illegal about accessing data on an abandoned computer. AGAIN, the contract of the repair shop would control. Like an abandoned storage unit. the contents become the property of the storage locker, digital content is not special.

      2. So??? U gotta have standing

        Just like the DNC. U want us to be more concerned about how the emails were hacked and by whom, than the devastating info contained in them. Lmao. As dennis says, alls fair

    2. Hunter Biden is suing Garrett Ziegler for hacking his iPhone data on the “laptop,

      Hunter has never admitted the laptop is his. How can he be injured?

      1. Yep, it’s clearly impossible for a laptop that isn’t his to have some of his encrypted iPhone data on it. /sarc

  2. Joe Biden is Spiro Agnew and Warren Harding wrapped into one person. Agnew was a corrupt VP that was bounced for taking envelopes of cash while VP and Harding is acknowledged to be the formerly most corrupt president regarding financial shenanigans. Biden blows away Agnew by having millions wired to him instead of thousands in envelopes and Harding can’t hold a candle to Biden when it comes to being corrupt. Harding allowed Cabinet members to run wild, Biden himself ran wild and is still running wild with his cronies making millions off of the fake climate garbage. I just saw yesterday that Biden’s chief of staff’s family member owns a giant mineral site used for batteries for electric cars!?!??!?!?! This is Solyndra on steroids.

    I also want to agree with someone who said above that this is being fought by the establishment and the media because it goes to the entire Democrat establishment. Biden, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Blinken, Yellen, Granholm and probably Pelosi too.

    1. Hullbobby: And he’s making big bucks off the Ukraine war also. Imagine all the kickbacks from the “defense” industry for all the new weapons we now need after giving away all the old ones. Zelensky has about 6 homes around the world, and offshore bank accounts. Biden has to beat that by a large number since he’s been “in the game” a lot longer.

  3. If the situation were reversed and Trump had been VP and it was his son’s laptop from hell, they would already be in a dungeon somewhere or dead.

  4. Those who still hold to the narrative that leading Democrats and those who owe their monthly income to them are not compromised in the extreme are demonstrating willful blindness.

    A lot of us know who “Dr. Phil” is. Phil McGraw used to say that “if you have nothing to hide, don’t hide it” or words to that effect —- I can’t think of a more appropriate comment to the current administration in D.C. —

    If we as a country don’t get this right — this country’s 2nd Civil War is in the offing —-

    1. There are two principal aspects to this inquiry.

      The first is whether Joe Biden was involved in bribery/extortion. Here there is a great deal of evidence indicating that funds were transferred to his family, and possibly to him (Form 1023), by oligarchs in Ukraine, China, Russia and Rumania seeking access, influence and protection. The open question is whether Joe Biden did anything to help these oligarchs in return.

      There is already substantial circumstantial evidence that his demand that Shokin be fired as a new condition to receiving $1b in loan guarantees already approved was such an action. Comer is currently seeking documents from the State Department to discover whether, and if so how, when and why, this had become a new US policy by December 9, when Biden made his demand.

      There is considerable evidence that Burisma was pressuring Hunter Biden to relieve the legal pressure Zlochevsky and Burisma were feeling, and Zlochevsky and Pozharski had Hunter make a call to D.C. on December 4 in aid of this. Archer said at one point that this call was to Joe Biden but then retreated to saying it was to D.C. There is clearly more to investigate on this, and it is but one of Joe Biden’s possible actions to help his family’s paymasters.

      Regarding obstruction, the starting point is the testimony of the whistleblowers, as well as the burying of the Form 1023. It will be difficult to tie this directly to Joe Biden, since Garland, Monaco, Weiss, Wolf and others at DOJ may have taken it upon themselves to protect him. Perhaps this will lead instead to the impeachment of Garland, Weiss and other DOJ officials.

      Whether this leads to the impeachment of Joe Biden and ultimately to conviction, will depend on what is uncovered. If evidence shows that Joe Biden was involved in bribery/extortion, impeachment is likely and even Democrats in the Senate could vote to convict.

      It remains to be seen how the Republicans in the House will organise this inquiry. The most important elements will be to put someone in charge and to get a lead counsel and staff who are up to the job. I have not heard anything yet about how this effort will be organised, and with three committees involved the prospect of disorganisation seems large.

  5. The White House is urging news outlets to ramp up scrutiny of the House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

    The memo, titled “It’s Time For The Media To Do More To Scrutinize House Republicans’ Demonstrably False Claims That They’re Basing Impeachment Stunt On,” was sent by White House spokesperson Ian Sams. …

    Read the memo here:

  6. (1) “I do not believe that a case for impeachment has been made, but there is clearly a need for an investigation into a growing array of allegations facing the President in this corruption scandal.”

    Hard to see how you can have a “corruption scandal” WITHOUT a “case for impeachment” having been made.

    (2) “I also reject the notion that, because a conviction is unlikely in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the House should not go down this road.”

    The problem with that statement is that “impeachment” is primarily a POLITICAL process, not a judicial process. Therefore it’s counterproductive to enter into a political process that results in making one’s political opponent stronger, which is likely what will happen if Joetard is impeached but NOT removed from office — or worse — impeached, removed from office, and replaced by his brain-damaged VP. There’s not a lot of pragmatism involved in using Joetard’s criminal conduct to make him stronger, or conversely, remove one clown from office just to install an even-bigger clown. If Joetard has committed crimes, he can be charged and tried after he’s removed from office via the 2024 election.

    (3) “… they have methodically investigated the corruption scandal for months and only now are moving to a heightened inquiry.”

    Another PURELY POLITICAL way to look at it is that, just as democrats did in charging Trump with crimes, House republican intentionally DELAYED acting — allowing the ongoing criminal conduct to flourish — so that their impeachment investigation (and likely impeachment) will coincide with the 2024 election. Democrats are certain to emphasize that “coincidence” and accuse republicans of impeaching Joetard for PURELY POLITICAL reasons having nothing to do with any crimes. I almost never agree with democrats these days, but it would be hard to keep a straight face while denying an accusation.that republicans are using impeachment as a form of election interference the same way that democrats used it.

    (4) “Consider just five established facts”

    Just one of those established facts — “that more than $20 million was paid to the Bidens by foreign sources” — qualifies as BRIBERY, which is one of the constitutuionally-articulated grounds for impeachment. That “established fact” directly contradicts Professor Turley’s original contention, “I do not believe that a case for impeachment has been made …”

    $20 million “paid to the Bidens by foreign sources” — which the Professors categorizes as one of the “established facts” — is all that’s needed to move on to the impeachment AND remove Joetard from office IF the Senate would do it’s JOB. The House could impeach Joetard until the cows come home and build themselves a vacation home in Delaware, and still barely scratch the surface of Joetard’s 50 YEAR CRIME SPREE, but just as all that was needed to convict Al Capone was a tax-evasion crime, all that’s NEEDED to impeach and convict Joetard is the $20 million bribery that is already one of the “established facts.”

    (5) And perhaps most importantly: It’s unlikely that Joetard would just sit back and allow himself to peacefully be impeached. There is a significant possibility that he would get the US into a civil war at home or a deeper military conflict abroad in order to rally support and deflect attention from his crimes. The US could end up in a war with Russia — or China — or North Korea — or Iran — and/or some other country, in Africa for instance — OR ITSELF — all as a chain reaction that begins with a DOOMED political impeachment.

    1. The Professor is stuck in his mixed-messaging approach to this and the simultaneous Georgia, NY, and Florida trials. Perhaps he believes he owes, somehow, a loyalty to his Party and is attempting to appease them? I really don’t know but it’s frustrating to read is disapproval of his fellow Blues yet remain in the Party that’s determined to stay in a perpetually tight Left(ist) turn, and all because literally, ONE man beat them at their own game seven years ago.

      1. Professor Turley is still in psychological denial of the reality that the democrat party he loves was assassinated in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, on November 22, 1963, and taken over by an organized crime syndicate (an organized crime syndicate that needed the US to be involved in a war in Vietnam that JFK was about to nix).

        Out of delusional loyalty to long-gone Camelot, Turley HATES what he MISTAKENLY believes is the opposite of elegant Camelot, which is inelegant Trump — and hates it SO much that the hatred tricks him into forming alliances with anti-Trumpers such as Michael Avenatti, concerning whose “imperfection” Turley could not see despite Avenatti’s manifest FELONIES being as obvious to impartial observers as the nakeness of the fairy tale Emperor with “New Clothes.”

        Yes, that’s just a fairy tale. But like all good fairy tales there’s substance beneath the surface.

    2. LOL LOL LOL — If a person is accused of taking $20 million in bribes, it’s not much of a defense to claim to have taken only $7 million. That’s like being accused of murdering 20 people and then laughing it off on the witness stand by claiming that the real number of victims is only 7. That’s not a cognizable road to acquittal.

        1. Well, he’s actually quoting the WaPo by way of

          “A Washington Post analysis of House oversight committee memos concluded that about $7.5 million out of the roughly $23 million in foreign business deals identified by House investigators went to Biden family members …”

          He’d be on more-solid ground if he just made stuff up himself instead of relying upon liars that rely upon liars while failing to cite his source(s).

          1. I’m not arguing with YOU, foolish moron — I’m responding to someone else. You’re points are too stupid to argue with.

      1. Presidents are not allowed to accept valuable gifts from foreign powers. And when such gitts are presented, they become the property of the Treasury. Directing $7 million in gifts to his children, in-laws, and grandchildren isn’t a lawful way to get around that prohibition.

        1. First you say they were bribes now they are gifts?

          Who says they were gifts?

          The money didn’t go to Joe Biden. The reports say the money made from foreign deals went to the Biden family. None of that is illegal or corrupt.

          You’re jumping around from “bribes”, “gifts”, and whatever new allegation you can come up with. This shows what everyone already knows. Republicans don’t have any proof supporting their allegations, still.

          1. I’m NOT a republican. You should subtract that lie from your incredible arsenal of falsehoods. Repeat the rest if you prefer to continue to look as foolish as you ARE, but stop calling me a republican. I’m a lifelong Independent and proud of it.

          2. “The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the federal government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress.”

            The FACT that members of the federal government are not allowed to receive “gifts … from foreign states” without the consent of Congress alleviates the necessity of proving a quid pro quo — you argumenative tool.

    3. 7 million and the jeffco boe is republican. Just makin sh!t up. Nice.


      Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

    4. Until they get the phone reords showing a call from hunter in dubai to joe’s burner phone in december 2015.

      Then you’ll just say they were talking about the weather.

      1. Yea, we know, tool. There is no evidence without “incontravertible proof”. You’ve already been schooled on that crap but you just keep coming back to it.

        You need some new material.

        “no proof…no proof…no proof” The incantation isn’t going to change reality. mage.

  7. Iowan

    Obfuscating is the lefts best tool. Here he conflates “snap impeachment” with “impeachment inquiry”. I mean, it just leaves you scratching your head if the stupidity is willful or not.

    1. Hi Sammy. Thanks for stepping up to answer the question.

      Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

      1. Eyewitness statements are not speculation. He said what the call was about. He also said who was called, though he was allowed to retract it. He stopped short of implicating himself as one would expect.

        And before you go off with your stupid “thats not evidence unless he is under oath” crap, leave it at the echo chamber. It’s plenty of cause to put his a$$ and everyone else under oath.

        I’m not gonna bother trying to explain how this all adds up, because apprently you don’t have any reasoning skills. You’ve admitted that you need to see on video, Joe Biden being offered and accepting a bribe. Can’t help you there. Maybe you need to joint the legal defense teams of Alex Murdaugh and Brian Kollberger. They could use your help, because i don’t think they have thought of the “you got nuttin’ on me coppa!” defense.


        1. You say none of this is evidence. Deluded. You want to believe something so bad. Its really sad. How does that manure taste, anyway?

    2. Your fact check covers the five items raised by the author (he calls them “facts”) and even raises a few more. The question is “What is an impeachable offense?” The undeniable Biden family lying and influence pending are not even crimes, never mind impeachable. The whole thing about the prosecutor and Burisma and Joe Biden bragging he got the guy fired is on the cusp. But if you don’t think the first Trump impeachment was legit, then even what Biden admits he did is not impeachable. On the other hand, if you favored the 2019 impeachment of Trump, then the whole thing about the prosecutor and Burisma and Joe Biden bragging he got the guy fired deserves looking into. The first thing I’d ask if I was in that camp would be, could Biden even do what he bragged he did?

      1. “The first thing I’d ask if I was in that camp would be, could Biden even do what he bragged he did?”

        According to Shokin and Poroshenko, that is exactly what happened. They have both said that it was Bidens pressure that resulted in Shokins dismissal.

        1. Oops, its not. Poroshenko was speaking of his conversations with Biden. First hand. Shokin was speaking of his conversations with Poroshenko. First hand.

          And Joe Biden, also corrupt, isn’t known for lying, is he?? LMAO at the irony.

    3. Sammy: You still don’t “get it.” An impeachment inquiry is about finding the proof — if there is any — that would explain the thousands of bits of evidence already collected. And, as Turley states, there’s more than enough evidence to require an impeachment inquiry. That website lists all the charges, and after each one states: no proof. DUH! That’s exactly what the impeachment inquiry was set up to find. Tune in after they’ve done their job before you make such snap decisions.

    4. ‘Has’ jumped the shark? Given that you have been trolling from your initial appearance in these comments, that’s a good one. 😂 You aren’t fooling anyone.

  8. Tom is correct….the recipient of that call has not been named in public so far.

    I said the contents of that Laptop I first saw made public by Marco Polo would be the starting point for the investigation that needed to be conducted and those contents would be like a road map for investigators.

    Having experience doing complex investigations I am aware of how they are done….well should be done unlike this investigation that surely has not been done in any acceptable manner.

    With over 170 SARS Reports , that identified over 20 Shell Companies linked to the Bidens, the email addresses, contents of those messages, phone numbers and text messages linked to them, and banking records which contain a throve of additional information……once correlated and analyzed using Link Analysis and this massive woolen blanket is consumed by that persistent dog chewing on it….once the many threads are localized and pulled upon.

    The question the Professor did. not ask in this article is WHY the DOJ/FBI, Treasury/IRS, DHS/ATF , the various US Attorney Offices, and the Media not be able to have done so despite knowing of this for over five years?

    We know why… leads right straight to the very core of the Democrat Party….Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and all of their hangers-on that participated in the crimes and the cover up.

    Folks, this is not about Biden and Trump and personal avarice ….it would be very comforting if it were but it most certainly is not

    It is about the evil agenda of the Democrat Party and its adherents that must be brought to heel or treated like ol’ Yeller.

    That is the real danger and threat to Democracy and freedom in the United States today.

    We are seeing a continuing rebuke of the that agenda in the State and Federal Courts and it grows with each trampling of individual freedoms by the Democrats.

    Look to New Mexico yesterday alone for your evidence of that.

    Then consider the Federal Court decision re DACA or the CDC Moratorium policy, or Biden’s continuing failed efforts re Student Loans and the Decision re Government using Social Media to censor or suppress free speech.

    The one thing that binds this Nation’s cohesion is the People’s trust in the government and the concept of the Rule of Law that is equally and fairly applied.

    The Democrats over played their hand, got caught doing it, and now are going to start paying the Piper…..and he is going to be demanding premium pay for having to work overtime.

    They can try to run from this but they cannot hide it anymore…..and thank God the pursuit for the truth in on due to the Republicans in the US House of Representatives.

    In this matter I pray the truth shall indeed set us free from scourge of the radical leftist agenda of the Democrat Party…..starting with the House of Biden.

    And that will only be a start….and a mere side show compared to the true evil that surrounds us due to the Democrats.

    Now…back to the coffee to see what good news is to be found today.

    1. “Tom is correct….the recipient of that call has not been named in public so far.”

      Not in public, but he has been named. By Devin Archer, the hero of the left. He said it was Joe Biden.

      1. Tom,

        Can you provide a link or citation that confirms Joe Biden was named by any party to the call that it was in fact Joe Biden?

        Everything I have read noted Hunter and the other fellow stepped away and made a call to Washington DC and the others were unable to hear who the call was directed to from Dubai.

        There was mention of the hoped for ability to search Telephone Records and ascertain what number was called and thus be able to sort out who the recipient was.

        I have seen no confirmation it was Joe Biden.

        It could have been any number of people.

        1. The answer is buried by a corrupt media. Good luck finding it, but it’s out there. We discussed it here contemporaneously the day after archers testimony.

          In closed door testimony to the house committee, Archer said that it was Joe that they called. A “time-out” was called by his lawyer, who reminded him ostensibly that he was implicating himself in Bribery of the VPOTUS. He then asked for and was granted permission to change his testimony. He then said he was not aware of who it was. It was FIVE DAYS later, that Joe coerced the Ukrainians in his well known brag.

          Part of the weeks long negotiations between The House and Archer/attorneys, was the types of questions he would be asked, and how he would answer them, since the Congress could not provide him immunity for his involvement in the crimes. The day before his testimony, Joe Bidens lawyers sought to obstruct Archers testimony by sending him a letter “reminding him” that he’d better behave.

          1. Just like this tidbit is buried, and the press let people like Goldman say “Archer confirms Joe wasn’t involved”, when its EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Look at all the headlines…they parrot Goldmans talking point, in complete denial of what was actually said.

            Bear in mind, Archers involvement was a criminal act. He did not want to incriminate himself, but there is plenty of evidence he lied and also that he allowed GOLDMAN to mischaracterize what was going on.

            Look for Archers testimony wrt Marc Holtzman and tell me what you find, and how that comports with the “illusion of access”.

          2. What a jacka$$ question. It was not in the transcript because he was allowed to retract it. LOL

            Why don’t you go look up Mark Holtzman and tell me if Archers testimony showed “illusion” of access.

    2. Thanks for stepping up to answer the question.

      Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

  9. Well I agree with the impeachment inquiry because that means they should be able to elicit the whole truth about certain events and not just redacted copies. It sort of tears off the cover maintained by the administration over much that has been talked about and witnessed and given in depositions and appearances so far. Will it result in charges, I don’t know. Impeachment is an overtly political act and not necessarily a legal act. Truthfully I don’t think the senate democrats would ever vote impeachment, no matter what the evidence was, unless it was politically necessary for them to do so. A scenario where the evidence is so compelling that political and public support starts to fade and the senate democrats see that Biden is taking down the whole party with him, might be an incentive to vote impeachment to clear the field as quickly as possible for another candidate. Unlikely scenario I admit but it’s possible. We’ll have to wait and see what is actually uncovered. There is already some fading of media support for Biden and shots are coming at him from previously safe parts of the media. So anything is possible. But I won’t hold my breath.

    1. GEB,
      I agree.
      Although I do think the Biden Crime Family is taking the Democrat party down, but the party does not seem to care. They want outright destruction of the whole system.
      Actor Kevin Costner once wore a t-shirt that read, “Country before party.” in reference to Trump and the 2020 election.
      I think that applies in this case more so.

  10. How did the Biden’s pull off their international junket’s without Obacala knowing what they were up to? Unless….,,

  11. Why would a savvy government give millions of dollars to a well documented crackhead? I’m sure they did their due diligence. No one forks over millions without a payback

      1. Enigma, for a person with a BA in economics you don’t seem to know very much about finance.

        Banks are not the only lenders. Didn’t you know that?

        Both deals were investigated. Nothing Trump does isn’t scrutinized and investigated. What is your proof that anything was improper about the deals? The investigating bodies that have tried to destroy Trump failed to find anything of significance, but with your brain power and research I am sure you can explain to us what made these deals wrong.

        It’s more of the same. As you said years ago, Trump is a racist because 20 years before he was born his father did something. You don’t even know what his father did.

        1. S. Meyer,
          That is a very good and interesting point.
          Everyone knows since even prior to day one of being in the WH, Trump and his family would be under great scrutiny.
          Ivanka was even verbally attacked for her and her family taking a commercial flight.
          So what was it that was improper about the deal with the Saudis?
          If it was so nefarious, why has there not been charges filed? Why not investigations?
          More likely all parties involved knew how much they would be under a microscope and made sure the deal was legitimate and legal.
          But we still have people who just cry, “whataboutTrump!”

          1. For the Saudis, it was an investment deal like many others. The Saudis have ownership and profit from it. They aren’t stupid, so while the company invested the money, there was a holdback to ensure wise investments.

            The SEC and Congress investigated the deal. Bug (below) doesn’t know that because he is a moron and says whatever stupidity comes into his head.

            His comment below will soon be deleted because he was rightfully banned. He refused to curtail his outrageous behavior. When his response disappears, your post and mine will remain. He will become angrier and stupider realizing people are laughing at him in front of his face.

  12. You have to hand it to the Bidens. Getting 51 high level Intelligence officials to sign a document in order to lie and cover up your foreign bribery scam is unprecedented in American history. “Go big or go home” as the saying goes. And the mainstream media and their “investigative journalists”? Good little obedient lapdogs controlling the narrative. A well-oiled corruption operation from top to bottom. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.

  13. To your five points
    – Lying to the public repeatedly (that he didn’t know about or participate in Hunter’s business dealings) is not an impeachable offense. He’s a politician. That’s what all politicians do
    – Influence peddling is not an impeachable offense (you’ve said so yourself on this blog and besides, how much influence can a VP have to peddle)
    – The alleged withholding of American funds contingent on firing of a prosecutor (again, could Biden even do that; he was the VP??), irrespective of whether Hunter was on the board of a company being investigated by that prosecutor, should be looked at? It seems to be on the level of Trump’s alleged threats to Zelensky in “the phone call.” I didn’t think that was an impeachable offense (or even think the alleged threat was a threat) so I don’t think this is. The House could disagree but there are at least 20-50 Republicans who, based simply on this, will not vote to impeach for the same reason they did not vote to impeach Trump for a similar alleged action in 2019
    – Your fourth and fifth facts relate to Hunter Biden, not Joe Biden

    Time to move on

    1. “Joe Biden clearly benefited from money going to his extended family.” Fourth, Hunter repeatedly stated in emails that he paid his father as much as half of what he earned. There also are references to deals that included free office space and other perks for Joe Biden and his wife; other emails reference how Joe and Hunter Biden would use the same accounts and credit cards. Beyond those alleged direct benefits, Joe Biden clearly benefited from money going to his extended family.

      1. How did Joe Biden “clearly” benefit “from money going to his extended family?” You and the author are simply making stuff up. Where is this clarity?

        (As for your – I guess – wanting to investigate UPenn for giving Biden office space and a no-show teaching job, if you make that a crime half the offices in DC will be empty – which I agree would be a good thing.)

        1. Comingled accounts, bills paid by hunter, “pop makes me give him half”, legacy money for grandkids.
          10% held by H for the big guy.

          You need it more clear??? C’mon man!!

          1. 1. Let’s see the documents
            2. Lacking any documents but assuming there is something to this
            a.) there’s nothing illegal about doing those things
            b.) it could just as easily be Joe paying Hunter

            1. Dennis Byron: There are bank statements, whistleblower statements, and emails. The DOJ and WH have not been cooperative in the House investigation so far. The impeachment inquiry is meant to obtain exactly the proof all the doubters on this blog have been whining about. It’s really very simple: do you want to learn the truth or not? Seems like a no brainer.

              1. Try to follow the discussion
                1. WHERE are the bank statements? Whistleblowers and emails are meaningless.
                2. If YOU have seen bank statements (I have not), what do you interpret them to mean? Family finances are “comingled” all over America
                3. Whether the WH or DOJ cooperates is irrelevant. Congress can cut off their funding any day of the week. Thw cowards in Congress are simply publicity junkies
                4. I said that I thought one of the five so-called Facts was worth investigating but based on the current record which has been available for years – it is no more impeachable than Trump’s phone call

                What makes you think calling the same doofuses in Congress who have been talking about this stuff for years (and investigating it for months) an “impeachment committee” is going to in an any way change the results

            2. Dennis

              Jeezus do we really gotta do this for you? Are you a 3rd grader? Google each of those and you’ll see the documents. Have you ever even heard of Eric Schwerin? Tony Bobulinski?

              You didnt ask me to statutorily show wrongdoing wrt him benefitting, why are you throwing in that red herring? You asked “how did he “clearly” benefit. So you start obfuscating about what that all means.

              The documents are in the public domain. Go find them yourself or be shown for the coward that you are.

            3. Against my better judgement, i will play your game, even though i know its a waste of time.

              1. Let’s see the documents

              Again, they’re all out there

              a.) there’s nothing illegal about doing those things

              This is the dumbest argument you lefties have ever devised. Evidence of a crime does not have to itself be a crime. Your blood on my shirt is not a crime. But if u are dead with 40 knife wounds, it could be evidence of a crime. Jeezus.

              Furthermore, coercion is a crime “pops MADE ME GIVE HIM half my salary for 30 years”. Hunter Biden is an adult male. If joe “made him”, thats a crime. U happy?

              b.) it could just as easily be Joe paying Hunter

              No, it couldnt. Hunter complains in several instances to several people about paying joes bills and giving him money.

              Bobulinski asked Joe “how do you get away with this”. His brother Jim answered “plausible deniability”. You people have shown it doesnt even have to be plausible.

              1. “But if u are dead with 40 knife wounds, it could be evidence of a crime. Jeezus.”

                Instead, the response from the left would be. “Thats not evidence, he could have committed suicide!” Idiots

      1. Where is the bribe? Can you specify what you are referring to? Do you mean Burisma “bribed” Hunter Biden (and by extension Joe Biden)? To do what? Hunter clearly was paid to peddle influence, which is not only not a bribe but is not even a crime. There’s nothing else here that even hints at bribery (do you mean the CCP is bribing Joe Biden by investing in some nebulous venture funds run by Hunter?). Try to be specific

        1. Thanks for stepping up to answer the question.

          Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

          1. The Burisma payoffs to Biden weren’t for anything other than influencing the vice-president. Shell companies doing nothing other than processing payments.
            You may claim there is no crime; a legitimate investigation is warranted – either to prove a crime, or to clear the family name. As such, Trump was 100% correct to ask for an investigation, but seeking truth from Zelensky resulted in a bogus impeachment.

    2. I bet you’d love to move on.

      Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

      There is your impeachable offense.

    3. Dennis – you are spinning what you hope the evidence will be, rather than refuting the arguments. If the imputed implications of a statement in a phone call is “an impeachable offense”, then a videotape bragging about a threat to withhold funds (whether or not he had the authority to do so) exceeds that standard. Goose/gander.

      1. Huh??? You are agreeing completely with my third bullet. So what am I spinning?
        I do not think the alleged threat in the 2019 phone call was impeachable (or even a threat) so therefore I do not think the videotape is (but I think the everything implied in the videotape is the ONLY thing in the author’s list of so-called Facts that deserves inquiry)

        1. Did you read the State Department’s letters, Nuland in particular, and the European discussion about Shokin. Then did you listen to the explanations for the video by Biden or those in support of him.

          He lied about Shokin and that lie is proven. That lie justified his videotape.

          What do you have to say?

          1. I’ve already said this in about three places here but I’ll repeat it. I think Biden was lying on the tape (at the Council meeting in 2018 filmed by C-Span) about his involvement in the whole thing. I also repeat again: the whole issue of the prosecutor and the IMF funds and any involvement of the U.S. government should be fully investigated (see my third original bullet).

            But IF the prosecutor was fired because of politics, it wasn’t because of Biden, it was because that’s what Obama and Kerry wanted the Ukrainian parliament to do. Or maybe the prosecutor was corrupt (everyone else in Ukraine appears to be). Or – slim but possible chance – Biden was somehow involved, that is no different than “the phone call,” which was also not grounds for impeachment

            1. Biden’s tape ordering Shokin fired, the money transfers, our State Department’s approval of Shokin, the witnesses, bank accounts, etc., all show Biden firing Shokin to prevent discovery.

              The chance Biden is corrupt is not slim. It is very likely. If Biden had rationals and didn’t continue to lie, then the likelihood would fall, but Biden keeps doubling down. He’s guilty.

      2. Thats a lie and has already been debunked by justthenews. But thats ok, comer has asked for any records to support your claim. We’ll see if they can produce it.

        In the meantime

        Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

      3. I would go further than that (but based solely on the public record that could be enhanced if the GOP had any good investigators and prosecutors). I think the Biden tape is simply him bragging after the fact about something he had no control over doing. I’d guess the whole “I’m leaving here in 6 hours” thing is right up there with his lying about the driver in his first wife’s accident or his serial plagiarism, pure Joe Biden deceit.

        But it is the one thing – of the author’s five so-called Facts – that deserves a thorough inquiry because it involves a lot more than Biden

        1. Shokin and Poroshenko have both said it is a true story, not a brag. And its not the only time he put pressure on Poroshenko.

          Have you ever even heard those two names?

          Here are 2 more for you. Remember these if you think none of the rest is worth looking into

          Amos Hochstein and Marc Holtzman

    4. Dennis Byron: Nice try, but no cigar. You Democrats are beginning to squirm and whine. The panic is setting in. While Turley has already answered all your points, I’ll just say one thing about your #1: yes, a politician lying is not a crime. But a politician lying to cover up a crime — that’s a different story. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Biden hasn’t been put under oath yet, but his history of psychotic lying tells me that he’ll stick to his stories even then.

      1. Absurd reply, Giocon. My comment was in reply to the author of the blog. I would not have written my comment if he had answered the points. The author of the blog himself has written here hundreds of times that politicians lie (so called Fact 1) and influence peddling is not illegal (so called Fact 2). I agree so-called Fact 3 should be thoroughly investigated (hasn’t it already been investigated?) but based on the current reported facts, even if Biden did what he claims to have done, Fact 3 is just as unimpeachable as Trump’s phone call. And as an aside I believe Biden made up his involvement in so-called Fact 3. So-called Facts 4 and 5 have nothing to do with Biden

        And what have I written anywhere ever that would make you think I am a Democrat?

  14. want a taste. go look at hereshunter website which exposes SO MANY CRIMES!
    Heck I think they should arrest the secret service that HELPED Hunter with his crimes as well!

  15. I think we should round up all the FAMILIES selling access. If their kids/brothers, etc are paid to get people in the DOOR in DC and the ELECTED official is helping…that is a CRIME! Romney, Kerry, and MANY others….are THE SAME!

    The solution is to REMOVE power from DC…cut federal gov. 50%, move 75% of government workers from DC, cut all federal aid and loans to cities, states and colleges. REMOVE THE POWER!

  16. oh come on. Bidens have been corrupt for DECADES! You don’t know why? Tony Bobuliski at great personnel risk….STATED the Biden LIED and was directly involved in Hunter’s Business! WITNESS…and the GOP did NOTHING, DOJ…nothing, FBI…nothing….media NOTHING!

    When Biden took a plan to China as VP with Hunter and Ashley I thought it very unusal. It is documented they GOT business deals and MONEY…immediately afterwards!

    Ukraine…was PAYING Hunter who had ZERO business experience….while JOE THREATENED Ukraine to STOP the rule of LAW or he would STOP a Billion Dollar forgivable “loan”. I can go back to Hunter’s FIRST job…and Joe’s actions for THAT company!

    Bidens should have been in jail…his brothers, kids and wife as well!

    DC is Corrupt to the CORE! Remember Trump was IMPEACHED FOR asking ABOUT Biden’s corruption!

  17. The most corrupt President in US History. A crime family that puts La Cosa Nostra to shame. Biden makes the Clinton’s look like petty thieves. Biden’s foreign policy has destroyed Carter’s Legacy.

    Nixon told a lie; Biden has never told the truth.

    Biden has sold America’s Soul to China, and funneled massive amounts of Citizens money to cover up the family corruption.

  18. The question that remains unanswered by any of our lefty friends here:

    Who did Hunter and Zlovchecsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

    1. “61% of Americans admit they believe Joe Biden was involved in his family’s business deals with China and Ukraine. The rest know it but wont admit it”

      Fixed that

    2. The flip flopping and hypocrisy seems to have conveniently escaped Turley’s attention.
      How can following the lead of Pelosi be questioned?

      1. “Because Republicans vehemently insisted that what Pelosi did was illegitimate. Now McCarthy seems to think it’s ok.,

        Just like Republicans vehemently insisted eliminating cloture for judicial nominees was wrong, none the less, Republicans started operating under the rules created by Democrats.

    3. Thanks for stepping up to answer the question.

      Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

Leave a Reply