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.

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

  1. I will donate $100 to the charity of choice, for any lefty who will honestly answer this question.

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

      1. Like any good Lawyer, he knows the answer before he asks it. He has already been told by Archer who it was. It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove.

        He also knows he aint gonna get sh!t from Blinken. That jacka$$ was at the core of Russiagate. But he will get the answer, if this process plays out as it should.

        But thanks for being brave enough to step up to the plate. The pine is waiting for you though.


        1. But it was a two part question, so lets hear what you think about the other part. Why did they call? Has there been testimony as to the reason they called?

          1. If you’ll answer that second part, name your charity.

            Because your vaunted “news media” has long claimed that Viktor Shokin was NOT investigating Burisma, providing NO evidence for their claims. Gigi and others here have repeated that lie.

            So, why did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call DC that day???

            Come on, one of you cowards has a chance to set the record straight AND get $100 for your charity. Anon, you want another swing???

        2. James Comer is not a lawyer. He is a farmer.

          Please provide your source for the claim that: “He has already been told by Archer who it was.”

          Any other falsehoods you would like to contribute?

          Too many on this site have a hard time with fact vs. opinion. The second graders I used to teach were very good at deciphering the two. Why is it so hard?

          1. OK, since you were too lazy to look for yourself, here it is, jacka$$…

            From the Congressional Transcript.

            3 Q What did Hunter Biden do after he was given that request? 14 A Listen, I did not hear this phone call, but he — he called his dad. 15 Q How do you know that? 16 A Because he — because I think Vadym told me. But, again, it’s unclear. I 17 just know that there was a call that happened there and I was not privy to it. 18 Q What did Vadym tell you about the call? 19 A Just that — just that they — “We called D.C.” But he didn’t — you know, 20 again, it’s not like the — there was not a — there was not, “Oh, we’ve got all our problems 21 solved” kind of, you know, revelation. I was — I was not on that side of the equation and 22 kind of working on the lobbying side of the business. 23 Q When Vadym told you this, where were you? 24 A I was — you know, basically what — then we drove back to the hotel I was

            If you want the link, I can provide it.

            1. Love the twisting in the wind. So dang funny.

              Right, it was Captain Kangaroo they called. And 5 days later, Captain Kangaroo went to Ukraine and told them to fire Shokin.

            2. So sad. Archer is Hunters business partner in this deal but he has “no clue”. Right. I guess the guy lied to him about who it was. Right. Or maybe Archer just made that sh!t up to implicate himself in bribery. Right.

              Keep twisting, dude, this is soooo much fun!

            1. Where you at, big mouth? Let me guess whats next…”oh thats hearsay..oops”

              No, thats cause to get the phone records and sworn testimony. Double checkmate LOL.

              1. See, just as I predicted you’d say….LMAO

                It’s like knowing what a 6 year old is gonna say when you catch him misbehaving.

  2. it’s just really fun to watch you encourage R impeachment attempts

    But for the fact, this post is specific to Impeachment inquiry. But carry on with the gaslighting.

  3. Tony Bobulinski to Joe Biden “How are you getting away with this?”

    Jim Biden to Tony Bobulinski “Plausible deniability”

    For the left, represented sadly here, it doesnt even have to be plausible.

  4. An impeachment inquiry is not warranted, but a DNC exorcism is.

    Praise the Lord. Oh Hosanna. “Hosanna to the Son of David!” “Blessed is the One coming in the name of the Lord!” …

  5. The D’s had Articles of Impeachment drawn up before Trump was even sworn in. Where did you expect Turley to land on that? Then they impeached him on his way out the door. You cant make this sh!t up LMAO

    1. Shouldn’t you be mowing some lawns? Is it raining there?

      “Immediately after his inauguration, The Independent and The Washington Post each reported on efforts already underway to impeach Trump, based on what the organizers regard as conflicts of interest arising from Trump’s ability to use his political position to promote the interests of “Trump”-branded businesses, and ongoing payments by foreign entities to businesses within the Trump business empire as a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause.[1][2]” —-Wikipedia

      Eat it, bug boy. Took me 6 seconds…Now show me yours

  6. Of course nothing is done in D.C. without first considering the political fallout. If the Democrats truly believed the Republicans were pursuing a purely political and soon-to-be failed impeachment inquiry, then the Democrats would be assisting the Republicans in their efforts to commit political suicide.

  7. I agree. Trumps laundry list of imaginary offenses are infinitely more threatening to democracy than Joe Biden,s actual offenses. Any idiot can see that.

    1. Sho Don’t post and reflect your stupidity which is more than just a figment of you limited imagination.

    2. Shoshin: Did we “imagine” that Trump stole classified documents, claimed they were his property, and, despite multiple polite requests, refused to return them, lied about mentally “declassifying” them, told his employees to move boxes around and to try to destroy security footage? Did we imagine that Judge Cannon set forth, in her order yesterday, that disclosre of such documents carries the penality of criminal prosecution and that’s why she refused to allow Trump to try to set up a scif at MAL? Did we imagine that Michael Cohen was prosecuted for election fraud for falsifying a campaign expenditure report to benefit Trump by claiming a $130K payoff to Stormy Daniels was “attorney fees”? Did we “imagine” that Trump told his followers to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”? Did we “imagine” that Trump sat, watching his fans attack the Capitol, hunt down Mike Pence with a noose, break doors and windows, assault police officers and deface the Capitol, while he watched the carnage unfold and didn’t call them off until he found out that Mike Pence refused to leave the Capitol grounds and was intending to proceed with validating Joe Biden’s victory? Did we “imagine” that Trump asked Brad Raffensberger to “find” 11,780 votes “which is one more than we have”, and that “we won Georgia”, despite 3 recounts, one of which was a hand-recount, that proved Biden won, and that there wasn’t, and still isn’t, any proof of widespread voter fraud? Did we “imagine” that those citizens in swing states who falsified Electoral College documents by signing, under the penalties for perjury, that Trump won the popular vote in their state, when, in fact, he didn’t?

      What are Joe Biden’s “actual offenses”? Name one–and produce proof.

  8. “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 security state doesn’t care what you think. It’s a rigged game and they deal the cards. The only solution is a total displacement of the Dim federal monarchy by local/state government where the fleas haven’t burrowed yet and the officials still feel some connection with the governed. We need a return to federalism to destroy a corrupt bureacracy. Defund the cops? How about defund the security state? We’d do better without a CIA and FBI and DHS. In truth, we’d be safer.

    1. “only 1% say he was involved but did nothing wrong.” Those people figure prominently on this blog as commentators.

  9. “Indeed, it is that very clarity that many in Washington may fear the most from this inquiry.” And herein lies the crux of the matter. Dig too deep into the good old boy network of the swamp and you begin to involve far more than joe. Trump was not a member of “the club”, so to speak so digging into his past was a safer thing. Dig too deep in to what biden has done for 30+ years and you may find links to others still in power in the swamp. This attempt to shut down this inquiring coming from the white house is another example of the smell of desperation on the part of, not only the prog/left, but most swamp dwellers to preserve the status quo and keep dark secrets hidden from view.

    1. Real President Donald J. Trump’s TRUE CRIME was being a PATRIOTIC, CONSTITUTIONAL BILLIONAIRE who COULD NOT BE BOUGHT by the Deep Deep State “Swamp.”

      Lincoln’s TRUE CRIME was being an abject and unrepentant racist, by the communist standard, as described below:

      “The ‘Great Emancipator’ and the Issue of Race”

      Abraham Lincoln’s Program of Black Resettlement

      Early Experiences

      In 1837, at the age of 28, the self-educated Lincoln was admitted to practice law in Illinois. In at least one case, which received considerable attention at the time, he represented a slave-owner. Robert Matson, Lincoln’s client, each year brought a crew of slaves from his plantation in Kentucky to a farm he owned in Illinois for seasonal work. State law permitted this, provided that the slaves did not remain in Illinois continuously for a year. In 1847, Matson brought to the farm his favorite mulatto slave, Jane Bryant (wife of his free, black overseer there), and her four children. A dispute developed between Jane Bryant and Matson’s white housekeeper, who threatened to have Jane and her children returned to slavery in the South. With the help of local abolitionists, the Bryants fled. They were apprehended, and, in an affidavit sworn out before a justice of the peace, Matson claimed them as his property. Lacking the required certificates of freedom, Bryant and the children were confined to local county jail as the case was argued in court. Lincoln lost the case, and Bryant and her children were declared free. They were later resettled in Liberia.1

      In 1842 Lincoln married Mary Todd, who came from one of Kentucky’s most prominent slave-holding families.2 While serving as an elected representative in the Illinois legislature, he persuaded his fellow Whigs to support Zachary Taylor, a slave owner, in his successful 1848 bid for the Presidency.3 Lincoln was also a strong supporter of the Illinois law that forbid marriage between whites and blacks.4

      “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”5

      One of Lincoln’s most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:

      There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …

      Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, “must be effected by colonization” of the country’s blacks to a foreign land. “The enterprise is a difficult one,” he acknowledged,

      but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

      To affirm the humanity of blacks, Lincoln continued, was more likely to strengthen public sentiment on behalf of colonization than the Democrats’ efforts to “crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him …” Resettlement (“colonization”) would not succeed, Lincoln seemed to argue, unless accompanied by humanitarian concern for blacks, and some respect for their rights and abilities. By apparently denying the black person’s humanity, supporters of slavery were laying the groundwork for “the indefinite outspreading of his bondage.” The Republican program of restricting slavery to where it presently existed, he said, had the long-range benefit of denying to slave holders an opportunity to sell their surplus bondsmen at high prices in new slave territories, and thus encouraged them to support a process of gradual emancipation involving resettlement of the excess outside of the country.

      – Robert Morgan, Institute For Historic Review

  10. “Holy ‘I’m from Missouri’, Batman!!” When the likes of a Hakeem Jeffries and others of his ilk maintain that there’s nothing to see here, it is clear that something is rotten in Denmark, and Dracula has the keys to the blood bank.

  11. I think that you missed the point. The column describes the legitimate reasons for an “impeachment inquiry” not the possible content to be included in the Articles of Impeachment.

    1. I don’t think the point was missed. The author of the blog completely misstated the situation with his five so-called Facts
      1-Neither a crime nor impeachable
      2-Neither a crime nor impeachable
      3-Only thing worth investigating but even if Biden did what he claimed (I think Biden was lying), it is no more impeachable than Trump’s phone call (by which I mean it is not impeachable)
      4-Nothing to do with Biden
      5-Nothing to do with Biden

        1. Just guessing what you mean by that, I think you mean that Hunter getting a million dollar a year no show job in 2014 (and 2-3 years after) was really a bribe to Joe Biden to do something in 2016 that no one in 2014 could have possibly known at the time needed to be done and that Joe Biden could not even do even if the briber had known two years in advance that it needed to be done. I think Joe Biden lied about being involved well after it happened (as he tends to do). Now if you are referring to the alleged $5,000,000 bribes to both Hunter and Joe story, if they can document that that is different

          If Hunter had anything to do with the prosecutor being fired (by jawboning Kerry, Obama, the IMF, etc and having them talk to the Ukrainian parliament members), that’s what influence peddlers get paid to do. But I can’t see Obama, Kerry etc caring a whit about what Hunter Biden thinks. Maybe the prosecutor was corrupt since all of Ukraine seems to be.

  12. I am perplexed by the reluctance of the DOJ and other agencies such as NARA, FBI, IRS, etc. to provide requested information to congress or any other investigative body. If there is no “there, there” then they have no worries. Simply provide the information and put an end to the charade.

    The more the they resist and the more they employ propaganda the more guilty and untrustworthy they appear. If there is nothing to hide, then let the citizens see it. This is not rocket science.

    The truth is that this President and his family have taken tens of millions of dollars in bribes over the years and their actions have caught up with them. The propagandists will put up a fight, but behind the scenes, I am sure there are frequent meetings by the DNC and other “progressive” operatives trying to figure out how to deep six Ol’ Joe from Scranton and replace him at the last minute with a younger candidate. The clock is ticking.

    Sure, there are many others, both sides of the political parties that have in the past and are currently feathering their nests with their political power. This is likely why nothing every really gets done in our nation’s capital.

    It is all really sad. This is a great nation that was built on great principles. This nation has lifted countless people out of despair. It is not perfect and we have had our problems along the way, but we tend to work through them. It will not be many more years before a good deal of these older politicians will pass from this life to the next. Some are at the jumping off place. What legacy will they leave when the dust settles and in good time, history will record what really happened? All their wealth will not follow them to the next life. What remains here on this earth will eventually be the unvarnished truth.

    1. E.M.
      Great comment.
      Wait and see to what degree those agencies you mention will go to, to obstruct, delay, or excuse will they use to deny the inquiry access to those documents.
      The 2024 election will not just be judgement on Biden but the DNC as well.

    2. Where is the proof that Joe Biden took any money, or that there was bribery involved? Who bribed him? When? How much was paid? What benefit was conferred? You have no proof of any of this, yet you beleive it. Why do you believe it–is it because you have been conditioned to believe anything bad about Democrats? You speak of the “great principles” upon which this country was built–but such “principles” do not include lying.

      1. “but such “principles” do not include lying.”

        Really, Gigi the LIAR???

        Do I need to list them all again here??

        8% inflation under Trump?? LIAR

      2. Gigi is NOT Gigi, Gigi is NUTCHACHACHA, aka Natacha.

        Does that constitute a lie issued by a liar while lying?

      3. Natasha,
        How about that Inflation Reduction Act, eh?
        I see the pain of Bidenomics every time I go to the grocery store. The fuel pump. Remember, inflation is cumulative.
        So does 90% of the rest of Americans who are suffering under Bidenomics.

  13. It’s pretty plain to see here that the White House also has teams of bot-like numbskulls defending the corrupted husk in the Oval Office. These people never touch the FACT of Biden family members receiving millions of dollars. Why? They never talk about the the actual evidence of corruption on the laptop. Why, is that still “Russian disinformation”? If any of the five things outlined by Professor Turley were applied to Trump, he would have been tried and hanged the same day.

    1. Jim22,
      The evidence is mounting of corruption and wrong doing.
      The inquiry just may show not only more evidence but proof.

  14. Somewhere the people who really run the Demo Party have already decided to dump Biden after the primary season concludes, or near to then. A press release over Biden’s name will say that his health has suddenly changed for the worse. Then at convention, we will learn of the identity
    of the new candidate. (I am stealing this from Kim Iverson, but it sounds right.)

    1. Edwardmahl,
      Read an article about how more and more Dems are calling for Biden not to run to include a editorial at the WaPo. Yes, I was mildly shocked too.
      But who would the new candidate be?

      H Clinton, again? Contrary to what she claims, “. . . you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” the fact was she is just not likeable. And according to the postmortem of the 2016 election, it was less about voting for Trump than it was a FU to the DC establishment.

      Michelle Obama? Have seen polls saying she is the only one that could defeat Trump. Or would that just be Obama’s fourth term according to some.

      Newsome? If he tries to run on his “success” in CA, he is going to lose on that one.

      Did read that RFK Jr. just may run as a third party candidate based on the DNC will not even consider alternative candidates to Biden. Which is funny seeing as how more than a few polls show most Democrats do not want Biden to run or just someone else as one put it.

      1. “…according to the postmortem of the 2016 election, it was less about voting for Trump than it was a FU to the DC establishment.” That exactly right, Upstate. But rather than actually listen to or learn any kind of lesson from the people that voted against them, the cabal has decided to double-down on their political gamesmanship. Hello DC? 18th century France calling and they’ll only hold for so long.

          1. Pelosi never looked that good.
            She looks more like the Crept Keeper.
            As the Bee recently stated, Pelosi is running for office again for two more year of insider trading!

        1. JAFO,
          Ah, thank you for pointing that out, re: “But rather than actually listen to or learn any kind of lesson from the people that voted against them, the cabal has decided to double-down on their political gamesmanship.”
          Interestingly enough, the postmortem I was referring to was two reports from NPR, before they totally went advocate journalism.
          One was of whom made up those who voted for Trump. You could hear her disdain for all the blue collar workers who did. She clearly looked down upon them.
          The second was a bit more nuanced. He spelled it out: Him and journalists like him, stayed in their urban bubbles, not bothering to seek people in the suburbs or rural areas out to understand their conditions and points of view. He even lamented that even months after the election, they still would ignore those people. Those people who make up half of America.
          Later, the Guardian of all news outlets, ran an article of a journalist who went out to rural America and interviewed those same people. The photographs were really good.
          I recently commented on how I was reviewing 18th century France to our conditions in America today. They are not a one for one, but the parallels are disturbing.
          I would not rule out neighbors shooting neighbors over what political sign was in their yard at a given time.
          I also would not rule out some seeking to hang those in power in DC.
          And I also would not rule out some seeking to hang those of even higher power who influence those in DC.
          Could get real ugly real fast.

          1. You could hear her disdain for all the blue collar workers who did. She clearly looked down upon them.

            Much like Enigma conveyed to you, until I throttled him and then he disappeared limping like the pathetic albatross he is

            He spelled it out: Him and journalists like him, stayed in their urban bubbles, not bothering to seek people in the suburbs or rural areas out to understand their conditions and points of view.

            When do Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Charles Chuck Schumer, the Biden crime mafiosos, any of these “wokettes” ever walk amongst the ordinary people? Biden has yet to visit Palestine, OH. Neither Adam Schiff nor Nancy Pelosi have walked the streets of Los Angeles (Schiff) or San Fran (Pelosi) to survey the horrendous decay that has grown, not to mention violent crime. They don’t live in bubbles. They gloat living disconnected from the masses. Schumer has yet to say anything about the collapse of NYC as Mayor Adams describes it.

            Schumer battles back against claims he and Jeffries are MIA on migrant crisis

          2. Upstate, we have a Legacy Media problem as much as we do political in this country. Their willingness to write-off more than half of their audience as potential paying customers in order to continue 69-ing with their DC friends, makes no business sense to me. Trustworthiness equals audience which equals revenue which equals profits. I’m surprised this CBS News web reporter had (and still has) a job after Trump was elected.


  15. Thank you for making the case of blindness so clearly, albeit perhaps not willful as we do not know your legal credentials.

    Circumstantial evidence is plentiful which is all that is required in order for Congress to gain the necessary administrative authority to get documents heretofore being withheld. Secondly, there is direct evidence of the President’s misconduct in the shakedown described in the whatsapp messages of Hunter Biden. Yes, it is hearsay, however it IS direct evidence which necessitates further investigation. The House will now have MUCH broader authority which those associated with these allegations- or those covering them up – will be unable to escape.

    You leap to the conclusion that the proof must exist even to begin an inquiry, but you would be 100% incorrect.

    Best to keep an open mind as the good professor is- otherwise you may end up with significant egg on your face.

    PS: do you understand what a “snap impeachment” is? Here’s a clue- this ain’t it…

  16. I don’t disagree, but the Dem-S-M will spin it as though it is actually a trial, and a warrantless one, and the average lo-fo voter will believe it just as they did with the J6 hearings (hearings and investigations are not trials or verdicts. I know that goes without saying here. Elsewhere, not so much).

    It will kill all kinds of birds with one stone, including at least the perception or understanding of our checks and balances in a further erosion of comprehension and solidarity. There is nothing redeemable left in the American dem party, and if they spin this right it’ll be like walking into a trap: the facts that are finally presented very much publicly will be discredited in a deluge of Normandy-like proportions from dem levers. The open mendacity of those like Lujan-Grisham in NM pretty mych point to that – the dems now care about as much regarding optics as they do equal justice or the Constitution.

    Still, this is indeed crucial, and I guess we’ll see where the people stand.

    1. James,
      Great comment.
      It will be interesting to see how the DNC Pravda spins the inquiry.
      So far, our DNC Brown Shirts have given us a preview today on the good professor’s blog.

  17. Jonathan, can you comment on whether you think McCarthy’s launching of an impeachment inquiry without a vote will add to the GOP’s investigatory powers and defuse the ability of the Biden Administration to resist subpoenas? Thank you. Absent those enhanced powers, it’s questionable whether this move was wise/necessary even though it’s warranted.

      1. Dennis Byron

        Please answer the question

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

        Or will you run from it like all the other cowards on this blog.

    1. Waaaaaaaa.

      You might want to stop whining about what mccarthy did. Its done and now we all hope the press starts asking questions instead of spinning narratives

    2. In January 2020, the Donald Trump-led Justice Department formally declared that impeachment inquiries by the House are invalid unless the chamber takes formal votes to authorize them.

      That opinion — issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — came in response to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to launch an impeachment inquiry into Trump without initially holding a vote for it. Not only is it still on the books, it is binding on the current administration as it responds to Tuesday’s announcement by Speaker Kevin McCarthy to authorize an impeachment inquiry into Biden, again without a vote.

      “[W]e conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony,” wrote Steven Engel, then the head of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, backing the Trump administration’s rejection of subpoenas from the Democratic congressional investigators.

      1. “[W]e conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony,”

        The Executive Branch lacks the constitutional power to challenge Congressional rules.

          1. The DoJ response is non-sensical. The executive branch has no sway on House rules. There “opinion” amounts to an excuse, not a legal opinion.

Leave a Reply