CNN Makes the Case for an Impeachment Inquiry

I recently wrote a column about five facts that justified the start of an impeachment inquiry. While I have stressed that I do not believe that there is currently sufficient evidence for an actual impeachment, I am mystified by the claim that there is not ample evidence to warrant an inquiry into possible impeachable offenses. Notably, CNN just reactivated its fact-checking team for a review of the basis for the inquiry. In so doing, the network made an iron-clad argument in support of the decision by Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

CNN presented this claim:

Claim: Biden family and associates got $20 million through shell companies

“Bank records show that nearly $20 million in payments were directed to the Biden family members and associates through various shell companies,” McCarthy said.

Facts First: This is true about Joe Biden’s family and associates, but there is no public evidence to date that the president personally received any money.

That is a fair fact check but it is also the very reason that Speaker McCarthy initiated the inquiry. We do not know where this money went, why it was sent through this labyrinth of accounts, or what it was intended to buy. That is why this is an impeachment inquiry.

The media and a number of Democrats recently admitted, belatedly, that Hunter Biden was involved in a corrupt influence peddling operation. This was made clear by Hunter associate Devon Archer who said that they were selling the “Biden brand” and that brand was Joe Biden. Clearly, these corrupt foreign figures in China, Ukraine, and Russia (including some who were charged with corruption in their own countries) thought that they were getting something other than Hunter for their money. After all, one of these figures reportedly referred to Hunter as dumber than his dog. However, pundits and politicians now insist that it was merely the “illusion” of access.  In other words, these notoriously corrupt figures were chumps fleeced by Hunter and Biden associates.

However, how do we know it was an “illusion”?  You have a trusted FBI informant relaying the claim of a Ukrainian that he gave Biden a “bribe,” but was told not to pay him directly. As I previously discussed, only a moron would pay Joe Biden directly for such influence or access.

CNN repeatedly returns to this fact in each of the checked claims. Again, that is precisely why we have an inquiry. Bribery is a stated basis for impeachment in the Constitution. Even CNN accepts that, if Biden received such benefits, it would be a serious offense.

It is also worth noting, as I have raised previously, that the requirement of an envelope filled with money or a deposit slip into the checking account of Joe and Jill Biden is a bit ridiculous as a condition. If millions went to Biden children and grandchildren, it is still a benefit for the President.

Joe Biden is currently worth more than $8 million. At his age, he will never spend the wealth that he has. Most people in his position are focused on ways to leave financial legacies for their family and minimize estate and death taxes. It is absurd to suggest that millions going to Joe Biden’s family would not constitute a benefit to him.

Finally, the inquiry is looking into whether some of these funds did make their way into Joe Biden’s accounts.  There are indications that both Hunter and Joe received money out of some of these accounts and used shared credit cards. For example, there are indications that Hunter used his Dad’s credit card to pay for prostitutes.

That again is precisely the point of the impeachment inquiry. The House will now have to demand the personal bank and financial records of both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. Thus far, the House Committees have been focused on following the money through bank transfers.

That is why the CNN fact check is a full-throated call for an impeachment inquiry. The nexus between this massive amount of money and President Biden is precisely what the House will now try to establish.

187 thoughts on “CNN Makes the Case for an Impeachment Inquiry”

  1. Sorry, but I’m far too open-eyed to go with the premise. They have probably decided to remove Biden and it’s likely whomever they will install next is still under deliberation. This does not nullify the importance of the investigation, though, and inasmuch as it reflects upon the party will likely determine the extent of the resistance.

    There is nothing ethical to ascribe to this, I think modern dems passed that point many years ago. They are simply trying to figure out how to dispose of the hot potatoes without getting burnt. It is not a signal to anything else.

  2. Please give us your credentials as a constitutional scholar as well as your name so we can all judge who is correct.
    Thank you in advance.

  3. When one posts as “Anonymous”, does it indicate some shame at having your real name associated with posting as a Soviet Democrat apparatchik, attempting to claim 1. “There is nothing mentioned in the Constitution or in the U.S.C. that the million dollar financial ties between Biden And The Kids would violate”, and 2. “There is nothing to see here, and thus we pronounce Turley a disingenuous hack”?

    Or is it possible that the Soviet Democrats’ apparatchicks and reliable police state fascist useful idiots merely find it easier to do their performance art here using the commonly used name “Anonymous” that many use for legitimate reason i.e. fear of being fired by a Woke employer. Hide in the “Anonymous” crowd.

    My guess is that this nameless Soviet Democrat apparatchik is using “Anonymous” for the latter reason.

    1. That doesnt explain why he doesnt just use his given name…bug face the lawn boy. There are plenty of bug faced liberal women out there. Just turn on the news.

  4. Fact-checkers revise narrative on Biden’s role in firing Ukraine prosecutor as new evidence emerges
    “Washington Post new cites State Department documents recently made public by Just the News, concedes Biden may have called “audible’ in threatening to withhold loan guarantee to force firing of Victor Shokin.”

    It appears Pravda is trying to back peddle so if more evidence comes to light, they will not look totally in the wrong as they have been in the past.
    Unfortunately for our DNC Brown Shirts, they are doubling down on their DNC talking points.

      1. Yes u are. Anon=bug face lawn boy

        Say something intelligent and maybe we can differentiate. Continue to spew the same nonsense, and your name is bug. Or Smeagol, your choice n

          1. Furthermore, you ARE all the same Smeagol.

            The coward crew. All exactly alike. Lock step just like ther rest of your alt-left friends. Identical.

            The only one different is Dennis, and only in that he won’t even bother to try and substantiate his ridiculous positions.

            1. “Thanks for admitting you can’t tell the difference. I’m still not Bug.
              Weird. You are in lockstep with those on the right.”

              Of course I admit it. No one can tell, because there is none. Thanks for admitting that.

              Wrong AGAIN smeagol. You shoulda got some “incontravertible proof” before you said that. I have called out Ralph several times, and George is a moron. I didn’t vote for Trump, and having held a top secret clearance and been involved with the prosecution of people mishandling clasifed documents, I can tell you that regardless of where you come down on his right to have them, that they were mishandled. I.e., There is a process for declassifying documents that even the president must follow, and it involves, among other things, removing the markings.
              I can give other examples if you like, so eat it, lemming.

        1. And I know exactly who you are Smeagol. You are the one who said there is no evidence without “incontravertible proof”. Possibly the dumbest thing ever said in these hallowed halls.

          1. “Didn’t say that. Nice try.”

            LIAR…guess I will go back and get it. its been a minute so could take me a while.

            “The “evidence” YOU cite is not evidence. ”

            Thats your opinion. But you think evidence is incontravertible proof, so there’s that.

            “What IS needed is incontrovertible proof. That you can’t discern the distinction speaks volumes about your comprehension ability.”

            You just said it again, LMAO.

            “What IS needed is incontrovertible proof.”

            Since when??? There are two standards in jurisprudence.
            Proof a) beyond a reasonable doubt
            Proof b) with a preponderance of the evidence

            Proof c) incontravertible…not a thing.

            Not to mention, we arent at trial. Probable cause is even less restrictive and only require one lousy person to decide.

            We have been down this road before, lame brain. Why do you want to do it again? Its plain words, no need for “comprehension”.

            Alex Murdaugh is gonna rot, and Brian Kohlberger is gonna fry, both without a scintilla of “incontravertible proof”. Explain how that is, please.

            1. in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
              not able to be denied or disputed.

              Here, for your comprehension. Wait I see the problem now, and why you lied about not saying it. I spelled it wrong…my bad.

          2. The “evidence” YOU cite is not evidence. What IS needed is incontrovertible proof.

            Thousands of people are locked up with overwhelming circumstancial evidence.

            “Proof” is the product of evidence.

            1. This is the point I have made ad nauseum Iowan, but they act like they don’t know what I mean. Maybe I give them too much credit.

        2. OK. So you are claiming to be Anonymous the Stupid. What is the big difference? Bug is an absolute a$$, and you are an unconditional a$$. Do you think you are smarter? It makes no significant difference at the level of idiot.

          1. I do have a question for you, so maybe I can somehow understand those tards better. Why don’t you choose a name to post by? Isn’t “Wally” just as anonymous as Anonymous?

            I think one reason THEY do it is so they can claim it wasn’t them that said something stupid when its shown to be such. ATS did that today.

            What other reasons are there? It makes it a little easier. For instance, I can skip George’s repetitive ramblings and make sure to read Daniel’s thoughtful and fair responses.

            1. Pretty sure ATS and bug are the same person, or at the very least, they are in adjoining cubicles. They both have pathetic arguments, and resort to bashing or changing the subject when they are getting destroyed. Neither seems to mind though, because they just keep on. ATS seems to delight in “you can’t tell I’m not bug”, as if thats a reflection on my cognitive ability and not his lockstep stupidity with bug.

              As I related yesterday, it’s a good thing they weren’t in the military. Guys like them on a submarine, ended up taped head to toe in what we called EB Green tape. Its a cloth impregnated tape, that is extremely tacky and strong. It has been said to hold submarines together before. When removed, their naked bodies would have not one hair left on them. If that attitude correction wasn’t sufficient, they would be taken to the aft workbench in the engineroom, their thumbs placed in a vice, a handful of grease applied, and an 18″ breaker bar shoved halfway up the orifice where their heads currently reside.

              You see, we fought for their freedom to act like embeciles, but in the Navy, you didn’t have that freedom.

    1. Thanks UF. The new narrative is that it had become US policy that Shokin had to go, and Biden made the unilateral decision to implement this through the tactic of linking the loan guarantees to his firing. So, for this to be true, there must be documentation of the decision by US policymakers to eliminate Shokin, notwithstanding the prior determination that progress on corruption was sufficient to issue the guarantees. John Solomon has discussed Nov 22 memos/talking points forwarded to Joe Biden by the State Department that he says advocated for the elimination of Shokin. Those documents have not been made available, and it is unclear if they embodied US policy to eliminate Shokin. Comer has now requested the State Department to provide all the documentation on this. We’ll see if Blinken complies and, if he does, what it reveals.

      The main purpose of the inquiry needs to be to uncover evidence that Biden actually altered or departed from US policy to benefit his family. The question whether he received benefits “directly” is a bit of a red herring.

      1. This is strong take by Daniel. I haven’t heard this angle before. The best possible solution for Republicans, in my humble opinion, is to get to the doorstop of impeachment and fail to pull the trigger. “There’s not enough evidence to impeach,” McCarthy should say. I write this, because I think Democrats might be able to paint Biden as a victim, something all Democrats love. By failing to impeach, the Republicans do run the risk of “failing to impeach”, but weighing the two, I think the discovery involved in the inquiry might be enough to derail the Biden campaign without painting him as a victim.

        1. R, generally I agree. They should only proceed to an impeachment vote against Biden if there emerges very strong evidence of bribery/extortion or obstruction, to the point that reasonable Democrats (if there is any longer such a species) should consider it justified. They should also publish all the evidence against Biden they gather, even if they do not proceed to a vote.

          Regarding obstruction, they may find that there are strong cases against Garland, Weiss and Wray. The apparent burying of the Form 1023 should be a focus on this, as should the whistleblower testimony about the conduct of the HB “investigation.”

  5. Attn: all 2nd year law students
    re. ‘evidence’

    The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision.


  6. I have a slightly different take on the latest CNN “fact check” issue. In my opinion I think that CNN was actually trying to gaslight the public by using the “fact checking” device to lie about the evidence but in their usual incompetence they ended up making the case for the inquiry, if not impeachment itself.

    The low IQ “fact check” regarding a few of the many Biden issues was embarrassing to anyone with an ounce of analytical ability, but after watching KJP, Dan Goldman, Jamie Raskin and the rest of the media it is just another example of how little respect they have for the people and how really shallow and dumb they truly are. It is like reading low IQ people like “Anonymous” repeating time and time again that there is no evidence. It is a level of shamelessness that is laughable.

  7. Turley is spot on. An inquiry is fully justified and Joe and his son should want to fully cooperate in light of the numerous claims of innocence by non other than the BIG guy himself…let the inquiry shine light on the shell companies, bank accounts, laundering, rational for alias names used by JB, claims from Hunters business associates of JBs full involvement in Hunters business dealings, claims from Ukraine officials, China relations, JBs brother, tax evasion, foreign agent status and the list goes on and on. JB should be raising his hand as the first to step help inquiring minds fully understand why he is not compromised or guilty of bribery or worse…unless he guilty as sin…in that case then he should keep his hand down and let the main stream media bury the story!! Turley is spot on!!

  8. “Second year law students know better.”

    LOL yea, maybe thats what Murdaugh needs—-a second year law student.

    A second year law student might be like you and my 15 year old. You all THINK you know better.
    Frankly, I wouldnt trust any if you to find your a$$ with both hands.

    It’s hyperbole like that that shows who the real hack is.

  9. Joe Biden has always known of his son’s dealings, and did nothing to prevent him from using the Biden name to benefit the family. Joe Biden is the “brand” that benefits him as directly as other members of his family. The inquiry is very much warranted.

      1. Lmao, thats what you’re going with???

        Yes it is a crime. His exact words were that “pop’s made me give him half” for 30 years. That is coercion.

        No but he was VP when he met with Marc Holtzman, hunter biden, and devon archer.

        Twist on bug face

        1. “He was VP when he Hunter was making deals and using his father’s name. It’s not a crime either.”

          Twist on, Smeagol

          The 10% deal was MADE while he was VP, Could be a crime there as well. Worth looking at. Sorry you don’t like it. Could be China is still getting the quid. “I don’t want to contain China”—sleepy Joe 6 days ago.

          I don’t gotta prove jack in court, Mr “incontravertible proof”. They have what they need to investigate further, and you can stick your head in the sand or cover your eyes and stamp your feet all you want. Not gonna change a thing.

          One grown man “makes” another one do something. How is that done, other than coercion?

          Also, why do you keep throwing the “court” red herring? Who gives a sh!t what can be proven in court? The American voter is not bound by your “incontravertible proof” standard of evidence. Not to mention, you lost your standing to say what the rules of evidence are in court with “evidence is not admissable in court without incontravertible proof”. Lost it. Gone. Poof.

          1. There won’t be an impeachment trial, so whats your point?

            “You’re flailing Tom. You can’t offer a credible refutation.”
            LMAO at the irony

  10. “Biden didn’t make these deals, didn’t set up the shell companies, and didn’t receive the money.”

    The crime boss never does. That’s the job of the front men (e.g., Archer), the front organizations (shell companies), and the bagman (Hunter).

    1. You nailed it, and Alinsky taught Obama and Hillary that because he learned it from the mafia. Joe cribbed off of all of them.

  11. “Hunter is a private citizen, not the president. Republicans want pretend Hunter Biden’s actions are Joe Biden’s and therefore justify impeachment.”

    Lets just pretend that hunter didnt fly on AF2 and run around washington with his head up joe’s a$$. Lets just pretend he didnt call joe from dubai. Lets just pretend that joe didnt meet with hunters business partners and clients. Lets just pretend tony bobulinski is a liar. Lets just pretend we never heard of Marc Holtzman. Lets just pretend we never heard of eric schwerin. Lets just pretend Joe Biden really is the dumbest person on the face of the planet and didnt know what his son was up to.—-bug face

    Someone call the defense teams for Alex Murdaugh and Brian Kolberger! Bug has a brilliant defense that they may not have thought of. The “that’s not evidence because thats not a crime” defense.

  12. The Dem operatives who are commenting here to defend bribery and insult JT are particularly lame today. I’m disappointed.

    1. Old man

      Clearly you have magical powers yourself, and can resist their incantation

      “No proof no proof no proof no proof no proof”

      1. Thats your take, you’ve made that clear. I never mentioned proof except to explain to you the difference between proof and evidence. You have made the statement that evidence isnt evidence without “incontrovertible proof”. So it’s clear that you will never admit there is evidence, even though you know there is. If demonstrating that you have no ability to reason and a low IQ suits you then I guess we have to be OK with it. Still going to call you out for it though.

        1. Keep it up, its a good look.

          “Evidence is inadmissable without incontravertible proof”

          Your words. Explain.

    2. Shokin?!? You think shokin is the one who accused him of bribery?

      We cant even have a conversation if you are that uninformed.

      1. You’re questioning credibility?? Rich. “evidence is not admissable without incontravertible proof”

        I think it is more likely than not that Hunter called his dad from Dubai. You think it is more likely that he called Captain Kangaroo. OK

        I think there is a way to determine the truth about that. you would rather not. OK

        I think that it’s a fact that Biden met with Hunter, Archer, and Marc Holtzman at the Naval Observatory, evidence “never involved with Hunters business” is as much a lie as “never discussed with anyone”. You think it proves nothing. OK

        I think Tony Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice, and discussed business. You think he doesn’t exist. OK

        I think It’s likely that Devon Archer knows first hand who was called from Dubai and why. You think that is “inadmissable in court”. OK

        I think Joe Biden is the least credible person on the planet. Shall I list his proven lies here for you? You think he is credible. OK

        I think there is a lot of evidence here. You believe that there is NO EVIDENCE WITHOUT INCONTRAVERTIBLE PROOF. Not OK. For that, I think you are an idiot or lying about what your truly think.

      2. Oh, now its they…before it was Shokin.

        You said “Shokin didnt say what was exchanged”. Either you knew Zlovchevsky allegedly said it was 10 million or you just googled it again. Which makes you either purposely deceiptful or willfully ignorant. Sorry, bro, I can’t fix stupid.

  13. If you think it was all fine and dandy so long as the money was paid to his family members and not to him directly, ask yourself this question: if this were Trump selling influence so his kids could get money, and the Democrats launched an inquiry into that, would you have the same criticism? What is your honest answer?

    1. You’re dreaming if you think you’ll get an honest answer. The feigned disbelief is proof that you wont.

      They all know he’s guilty, and still they protest

      1. “He’s innocent until proven guilty.”

        Lame, even for you. We aren’t a jury pool, dufus. These are opinions. Yours stinks like rotten cheese, but hey, you’re entitled to it.

        What you aren’t entitled to, is your own reality. Is that “proven guilty” “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “incontrovertibly”?

      1. In spite of all the evidence, you assert that there is no evidence. Like JT, I am mystified by the claim that there is not ample evidence to warrant an inquiry into possible impeachable offenses.

        Tom is right that I won’t get an honest answer from you. Enjoy your day.

        1. Yes you did. And my bad for thinking there was even a smidgen of a chance of getting an honest answer. Paid dem operatives will be Dem operatives, i.e., they will lie and fabricate all to try and put a fig leaf over their own embarrassment.

      2. He was present on a telephone call where his son used Joe’s name to shake down a Chinese businessman. This is evidence of a conspiracy.

  14. What Turley is saying is that this is an impeachment inquiry, not an impeachment. You missed it from the get-go.

  15. Some commentary from James Howard Kunstler. More can be read on his blog. His one omission, when he laments the shallowness of the Dem bench, is that he overlooks the Michelle factor. I’d post the link but it includes four letters preceded by the word cluster. This trips the WP censors. But you can get the link simply by googling “James Howard Kunstler blog”.

    Just as a janky investment can turn catastrophically ruinous in the finance world, “Joe Biden” has transmuted from an asset to a liability for the Party of Chaos as we enter the season when things get real. Just weeks ago, the phantasm in the White House could do nothing wrong, despite doing absolutely everything wrong in the thirty-two months he’s haunted the Oval Office. But now, an odor of rot and sulfur trails his every bumbling misstep while his maunderings from the podium set off alarms in party HQ. What to do, indeed…?

    As of five minutes ago, “JB” was still pretending to run for reelection, which, of course, was a bamboozle that only the Wokester rank-and-file, hoaxed into an epic psychotic rapture, might swallow. The “president’s” stage managers run a “campaign committee” on next-to-zero contributions, you see, but all it really does is send out millions of algo-concocted, drivel-filled emails five times a day to keep the big pretend going while the DC Blob desperately looks for a way out.

    Ever since the fabled Laptop from Hell entered stage left, the un-raptured of the land have been exposed to gales of evidence that “Joe Biden” ran a family influence-peddling racket as veep, and that it likely has something to do with the extravagant mess spawned in Ukraine. The crude and lawless labors of the DOJ and the FBI to cover all that up have been failing lately as a harsh music of blown whistles ominously cleaves the dank night air over the Potomac swamp.

    The coming House impeachment inquiry, with its extraordinary subpoena powers, can easily un-confuse these matters as Rep Comer (R-KY) goes after the Biden family bank records. The equation is pretty straightforward: Millions of dollars rattling around the coffers of “Joe” and Jill, and Jim and Frank, and the Biden kids and grand-kids divided by the low six-figure salaries of a senator and vice-president, times, say, the $20 to $50-million inflows of revenue (for no discernible services rendered) from Ukraine, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, and Gawd-knows how many other entities arguably hostile to the USA’s interests through Hunter Biden’s multitudinous shell companies. It’s called money-laundering.

  16. Contorted? Not even close.
    Either you do not follow the case and associated circumstances or you are intentionally making a statement meant to deceive.
    The fact that you go on to bash Trump suggests your real mission.

  17. It’s times like this that the elimination of all academic standards and integrity is on full display. Are journalists just pretending, for partisan reasons, that they can’t grasp the difference between an impeachment and an impeachment inquiry, or are they really that stupid?

      1. Oldman, that is perfect. The old “journalists” know that they are selling themselves out, the young ones think they are doing what they have been taught to do…lie for the cause. Remember that J Schools now teach that being objective is a sin while driving an agenda is doing God’s work.

        1. And that was evident in Speaker McCarthy’s recent interchange with a report who was doing her level best to act as a partisan but she got outwitted.

          In the old days journalists saw their role as being skeptical of government, holding its feet to the fire, and exposing corruption. Today, they are not even journalists. They see their role as disseminating Democrat propaganda, covering up Dem corruption, and smearing Republicans. It really is that simple.

          1. Oldman, what we witnessed with McCarthy’s takedown of the AP “reporter” is a fine example of using the dreaded FOLLOW-UP Question. This is why Democrats/liberals cannot debate in front of an audience. Imagine asking the Democrat if they support men swimming against women, how would they handle it? Imagine asking about the border and sanctuary cities. Imagine asking about the new no bail laws. Imagine asking about gas prices and the moronic push to eliminate gas cars. Imagine asking about all of the Biden corruption issues as the Speaker did.

            That little girl working for AP was a prime example of how unsophisticated these “reporters” really are. She is a stenographer for the Dems and that is all she aspires to be.

Leave a Reply