Ten Reasons Why the Biden Impeachment Inquiry is Justified

There have been repeated references to the ten facts that I alluded to in my congressional testimony as establishing an ample basis to launch a formal impeachment inquiry. I have received emails asking about those ten developments so I wanted to post them. They are found in my written testimony, but I did not have time to go through them all in the course of my oral statement before the Committee.

While many have noted that I stated that I do not view the current evidence as sufficient for articles of impeachment, that is hardly surprising. This was the first hearing of the inquiry and was called to address why the threshold for an inquiry had been established. I was also asked to address the constitutional standards and best practices going forward. Indeed, I criticized the last two impeachments for prematurely declaring impeachable conduct without fully developing a record to support such articles. This hearing returned the impeachment process to a type of regular order in reserving judgment until all of the evidence could be acquired by the three committees.

Here are the ten developments that I cited as justifying an impeachment inquiry (a view with which my fellow witness University of North Carolina Professor Michael Gerhardt disagreed):

The record currently contains witness and written evidence that the President (1) has lied about key facts in these foreign dealings, (2) was the focus of a multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme, and (3) may have benefitted from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family as well as more direct possible benefits. The President may be able to disprove or rebut these points, but they raise legitimate concerns over his role based on the accounts of key figures in the matter. Consider just ten of the disclosures from the prior investigation:

  • Hunter Biden and his associates were running a classic influence peddling operation using Joe Biden as what Devon Archer called “the Brand.”[1] While this was described as an “illusion of access,” millions were generated for the Bidens from some of the most corrupt figures in the world, including associates who were later accused of or convicted of public corruption.[2]
  • Some of the Biden clients pushed for changes impacting United States foreign policy and relations, including help in dealing with Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin investigating corruption.[3]
  • President Biden has made false claims about his knowledge of these dealings repeatedly in the past, including insisting that he had no knowledge of Hunter’s foreign dealings which Archer has declared “patently false.”[4] The Washington Post and other media outlets have also declared the President’s insistence that his family did not take money from China as false.[5]
  • The President had been aware for years that Hunter Biden and his uncle James were accused of influence peddling, including an audiotape of the President acknowledging a New York Times investigation as a threat to Hunter.[6]
  • President Biden was repeatedly called into meetings with these foreign clients and was put on speakerphone.[7] He also met these clients and foreign figures at dinners and meetings.[8]
  • Emails and other communications show Hunter repeatedly invoking his father to secure payments from foreign sources and, in one such message, he threatens a Chinese figure that his father is sitting next to him to coerce a large transfer of money.[9]
  • A trusted FBI source recounted a direct claim of a corrupt Ukrainian businessman that he paid a “bribe” to Joe Biden through intermediaries.[10]
  • Hunter Biden reportedly claimed that he had to give half of his earnings to his father[11] and other emails state that intermingled accounts were used to pay bills for both men, including a possible credit account that Hunter used to allegedly pay prostitutes.[12]
  • At least two transfers of funds to Hunter Biden in 2019 from a Chinese source listed the President’s home in Delaware where Hunter sometimes lived and conducted business.[13]
  • Some of the deals negotiated by Hunter involved potential benefits for his father, including office space in Washington.[14] At least nine Biden family members reportedly received money from these foreign transfers, including grandchildren.[15] For Hunter Biden, this included not just significant money transfers but gifts like an expensive diamond and a luxury car.[16]


These are only some of the serious corruption allegations facing the President, but each could raise impeachable conduct if a nexus is established to the President.


[1] Brain Bennett, Hunter Biden Sold “Illusion of Access” to Father, Former Associate Testifies, Time, July 31, 2023.

[2] Mark Moore, Court Upholds Bribery Conviction of Chinese Exec Patrick Ho Linked to Hunter Biden, N.Y. Post, Dec. 30, 2020,

[3] Steven Nelson, “My Guy”: Hunter Biden Partner Devon Archer Says Joe Biden was on Calls with Foreign Patrons for “the Brand,” N.Y. Post, July 31, 2023.

[4] Steven Nelson, Biden’s Claim he had no Role in Foreign Business Dealings “Categorically False”: Devon Archer, N.Y. Post, Aug. 4, 2023.

[5] Glenn Kessler, Biden said his Son Earned No Money from China. His Son Says Otherwise, Wash. Post, Aug. 1, 2023.

[6] See also Ben Schreckinger, Biden Inc.: Over his Decades in Office, ‘Middle Class Joe’s’ Family Fortunes Have Closely Tracked his Political Career, Politico, Aug. 2, 2019.

[7] John Wagner, Biden was on Speakerphone When Son Hunter was with Business Associates, Former Partner Testifies, Wash. Post, Aug. 1, 2023.

[8] Jessica Chasmar, Joe Biden Met With at Least 14 of Hunter’s Business Associates While Vice President, Fox News, July 28, 2022.

[9] Fatma Khaled, Hunter Biden Allegedly Threatened Chinese Official with his Father’s Power, Newsweek, June 22, 2023.  The WhatsApp message stated:

“’I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.'”

[10] Anthony Zurcher, Senator Releases FBI’s Source of Biden Bribes from Ukraine, BBC, July 21, 2023.

[11] Jon Levine, Hunter Biden Frequently Covered Expenses, Texts Reveal, N.Y. Post, Apr. 9, 2022.

[12] Andrew Kerr & Jerry Dunleavy, Joe Biden Unwittingly Helped Finance Trysts with Russia-Linked Prostitutes, Washington Examiner, Sept. 27, 2023.

[13] Annie Grayer, House Oversight Republicans Say New Bank Subpoena Shows Hunter Biden Father’s Wilmington House in Wires from China, CNN, Sept. 27, 2023.

[14] Matt Viser, Tom Hamburger, & Craig Timberg, Hunter Biden’s Multimillion-Dollar Deals with a Chinese Energy Company, Wash. Post, March 20, 2022.

[15] Steven Nelson, Nine Biden Family Members Who Allegedly Got Foreign Money Identified by House GOP, N.Y. Post, May 10, 2023.

[16] Andrew Prokop, How Much Legal Jeopardy is Hunter Biden In?, Vox, Apr. 11, 2023.

102 thoughts on “Ten Reasons Why the Biden Impeachment Inquiry is Justified”

  1. Professor Turley’s star witness, Devon Archer, was convicted of defrauding Native American tribes of $60 million in security bonds. Republicans call Michael Cohen & Lev Parnas discredited witnesses because they’ve been convicted in federal court of various crimes, yet now present Archer as a squeaky clean, trusted witness.

    When Devon Archer testified to House Oversight committee members, he agreed that “Shokin did not pursue corruption investigations against Burisma’s owner, effectively shielding the owner from prosecution.”

    Yesterday, Professor Turley said he believed the 2 impeachments of Trump “did considerable damage to this constitutional process.” 10 House Republicans voted to impeach Trump & 7 GOP Senators voted to convict Trump for “incitement of an insurrection.” Romney revealed that many other Republican Senators wanted to convict Trump, but feared for the safety of their families. Yet Turley apparently believes it does considerable damage to the constitutional process when a President is impeached on a bipartisan vote for inciting an insurrection at our nation’s Capitol which hospitalized 15 officers & injured 138 officers.

    Turley reluctantly admits the current evidence doesn’t warrant articles of impeachment. So he surely must be outraged that House Republicans have filed articles of impeachment against Biden on 13 separate occasions over the past 20 months. Marjorie Greene Taylor filed articles of impeachment on Biden’s second day in office. But at Thursday’s hearing, Turley admitted that after 7 months of investigation & testimony from witnesses, Comer, Jordan & their House GOP cohorts still haven’t found enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment.

    1. @ Anonymous #3

      >”Professor Turley’s star witness and Hunter Biden’s best friend and business partner, Devon Archer, was convicted of defrauding Native American tribes of $60 million in security bonds”

      *fixed that for you.

        1. Happy to clarify Hunter Biden’s best pal and primary business partner is an uncredible, unreliable witness, Anonymous #3.

          *I guess congress, such as they are, will just have to use their best judgement wrt the testimony of Devon Archer.

        2. Very credible. He’s a crook, Hunter is a crook, and Joe is a crook. It takes a crook to know a crook. Thanks for playing.

    2. “When Devon Archer testified to House Oversight committee members, he agreed that “Shokin did not pursue corruption investigations against Burisma’s owner, effectively shielding the owner from prosecution.””

      That is a complete and utter lie. He said that Shokin was who Zlovchevsky wanted help with. Period.

  2. Jonathan: The fiasco from Thursday’s House impeachment inquiry continues. Rep. Jared Moskowitz brought laughter when he said: “As a former director of emergency management, I know a disaster when I see it”. And your “Ten Reasons” only add to the disaster. There is nothing there that would justify articles of impeachment–let alone continuing this distract and deflect exercise.

    The Q is why neither Comer nor Jordan wanted to call some FACT witnesses to testify? The Dems on the Committee called for Devon Archer, Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas to testify. Comer has refused because he doesn’t want any testimony that would contradict the false narrative the MAGA Republicans are pushing. So far there is nothing to even justify continuing the inquiry.

    I suggest Comer just put up a “Closed for Business” sign and spend his time trying to prevent a shutdown of the government tonight at midnight. That would be a much more productive use of his time!

    1. The questions exist regarding Joe Biden’s corruption. There is evidence that he is guilty, but not enough to convict, because there might be alternative rationales that would make one change their mind.

      That is why we are dealing with an impeachment inquiry instead of actual impeachment, everyone can now provide evidence and reply to charges, Joe Biden included.

      That you cannot see a distinction between an inquiry, and a trial only demonstrates a mindless partisan or an ignorant person.

      1. S. Meyer,
        Well said.
        I agree this inquiry is needed to present the evidence of possible corruption to the American people.

    2. The Dems did NOT call for Devon Archer. You are a liar. Archer will testify when he is given immunity, not until.

  3. Snap? Do you define snap in terms of minutes, hours, days, months, years or decades?

    There was no “house vote’ prior to Nancy’s precedent setting actions. So, since ‘ol Nancy set the stage, you are now concerned about “best” practice? How about just sticking to Constitutional practice and not quibble over subjective aspects?

    1. It does not matter when it comes to facts or evidence to the Trump cult. Their minds are made up, regardless of the facts or evidence.

  4. The premise of a constitutional “rule of law” Justice system is that there are written laws (or rules) that are enforced equally to everyone.

    The political justice system in Congress (impeachment, censure, etc) is contrary to that concept of how a justice system works. Justice only depends of the membership of politicians in Congress – essentially a “rule of man” Justice system that changes the enforcement of rules every election.

    Congress is not real justice system. So what about giving the U.S. Department of Justice exclusive authority for justice? Although there are many fine DOJ employees, the DOJ is part of the “political” Executive Branch – enforcement of laws and rules also changes every election.

    While everyone is focusing on Trump and Biden, why didn’t the George W. Bush officials face any accountability legally or politically? Bush officials publicly admitted to violating Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty (also federal criminal violations). Bush officials violated the FISA Act and lied to the FISA Court (felony crimes), warrantless domestic spying (also felony crimes) and even tried to illegally purge the U.S. Department of Justice of federal employees not deemed loyal to Bush (federal crimes and impeachable offenses).

    Enforcement of these Bush criminal violations of federal law and impeachable offenses never happened because this is not a constitutional “rule of law” system. If the makeup “politically” of Congress had been different, some (not all) Bush officials would have been held accountable for wrongdoing arguably far worse than Trump or Biden. Had some Bush officials been held accountable, it would have created a “deterrent effect” to future administrations.

    Image how foreign citizens view the United States Justice system. It probably looks like a Kangaroo Court to people outside the USA. Selective enforcement of laws and rules, only determined by the politicians in power at the time.

    Bottom Line: America may have a “systematic” crisis in our justice system that requires a constitutional amendment. Maybe if Congress does this it should be retired members of Congress with lesser political interest. Maybe the fine employees at the U.S. Department of Justice should be located under the least political “Judicial Branch” of government, the branch responsible for “constitutional judicial review” – not executing political agendas.

  5. the evidence clearly satisfied the threshold for an impeachment inquiry

    That’s just it, what is that threshold? Where is it written down, or otherwise established, e.g., by precedent?

  6. Even if “Joe Biden” is impeached, he will never be removed from office. Kamala Harris is his insurance policy.

  7. How about we forget all the dirty corruption and grifting and just focus on his unwillingness to defend our borders and send him packing on that purposeful act of not fulfilling his oath of office. Corruption is just established past practice for all the dems and some of the rest but aiding and abetting the invasion of our nation is more than enough to charge him with dereliction of duty and failure to uphold his office if not find him guilty of treason to the nation and just call it a day.

  8. Just his lack of defense of our borders should be enough to send him packing… The rest is gratuitous over-kill as corruption (think Menendez and Pelosi) is just established past practice.

  9. Thank you for pointing that out and providing sources.
    “While I stated that I do not believe that the current evidence would support an actual article of impeachment, I testified that the evidence clearly satisfied the threshold for an impeachment inquiry and, if these allegations are established, President Biden could be impeached.”

  10. Dear Prof Turley,

    Despite the slings and arrows of outrageous and lewd accusations and propositions, I thought you did real good son-brother (*an Appalachian term of endearment.). Just like before, I & II, thought you were pretty much the only marginally sane person in the room. A lonely voice of moderation and introspection, to say the least.

    The larger, more immediate threat from the ‘Biden brand’s far-flung corruption around the world, of course, is the grave harm to U.S. national security and world stability and peace. As Chairman Comer surmised recently.

    * If these scum-bags have anything untoward or malign to do with the hugely consequential war in Ukraine – and I believe they do – mere impeachment will not be a sufficient remedy, imho.

  11. You admit millions of dollars went to bidens family from corrupt dealings, only an idiot with 2 digit or less IQ would doubt Joe benefited from all those millions, this case is over your head I truly hope Congress isn’t paying you with my money.

    1. The name is peddling influence. In Menendez’s case, it is his wife who is accused of acting as a go-between with those trying to buy the senator’s attention. Nadine Menendez allegedly had lunches and countless communications with people, who, according to the indictment, sought favors from the senator. She is accused of marketing her ability to deliver access to her husband. In March 2020, she allegedly texted an Egyptian official that “anytime you need anything you have my number and we will make everything happen.” Indeed, the alleged object of these payments was influence.

      1. R. Biggs, the rules on this site is if democrats do it, they must go to jail, no jury, no trial. If a republican does it then it’s fair game and just part of business.

  12. Excellent analysis as usual, the stunning part of this is that no matter what the evidence shows, the Senate is not likely to convict. Our country is in a very sad state at this point in time.

  13. With all that we see, the large amount of money, the contacts, Hunter flying around on our tax dollars for family deals. My question is where was mister “fair share” while this was going on?

  14. Thank you for the clarity of analysis and the effective communication you bring to the matter. It is vitally important that people understand the nature and basis of the allegations.

  15. This is enough evidence to impeach that worthless sack of crap right there and then try him in a criminal court or military tribunal. They impeached Trump for a phone call wanting answers on Biden’s corruption. Disgusting.

    1. “don’t have evidence to impeach”? Where does that requirement come from?
      There is no mention of such a requirement in the Constitution (as stated below). Add to that, the Constitution preceded any federal criminal code.

      Article II
      Section 4
      The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

      And, “The majority of voters don’t care about this issue” statement is inconsistent with published polls. Care to share your source?

  16. Roughly speaking, an impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. Then the Senate is the jury that convicts or acquits.

    But . . . is there a standard that must be met to justify an impeachment inquiry? And if so what is it?

    Or is it nebulous – kind of like, when is law enforcement justified in commence an investigation? (As far as I know, LE can investigate any time they want; they don’t have to have a specific quantum of evidence.)

    1. A “specific quantum of evidence” needed is a non-issue for purposes of initiating impeachment hearings and the repeated raising of that topic by Democrats suggests either subterfuge or sheer ignorance of the Constitution. There is no mention of such a requirement in the Constitution (as stated below). Add to that, the Constitution preceded any federal criminal code.

      Article II
      Section 4

      The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    2. It is important to emphasize what this hearing. It is not a hearing on articles of impeachment, what has launched is an impeachment inquiry.

      Most importantly in seeking to establish whether impeachable conduct has been committed by the president this process can assure the public, that allegations of corruption have been fairly and thoroughly investigated by Congress.

      The House needed to create a full record to support the articles of impeachment. We need a fair, precise and detailed explanation inquiries of the final merits for make an investigation or impeachment, based on irrefutable evidence of potentially impeachable conduct in the investigation.

      An impeachment inquiry is warranted, when the evidence meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor, needed for an article of impeachment.

      https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Turley.Testimony.Biden-Inquiry.pdf (“The Basis for the Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph R. Biden”) 36 page in detail.

    3. Es importante recalcar de qué se trata esta audiencia. No es una audiencia sobre artículos de impeachment, lo que se ha iniciado es una investigación de impeachment.

      Lo más importante es que, al tratar de establecer si el presidente ha cometido una conducta impugnable, este proceso puede garantizar al público que las acusaciones de corrupción han sido investigadas de manera justa y exhaustiva por el Congreso.

      La Cámara necesitaba crear un expediente completo para respaldar los artículos del impeachment. Necesitamos una explicación justa, precisa y detallada de los méritos finales para realizar una investigación o impeachment, basada en evidencia irrefutable de una conducta potencialmente impugnable en la investigación.

      Se justifica una investigación de juicio político cuando las pruebas cumplen con el estándar de delito grave y delito menor, necesario para un artículo de juicio político.

      https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Turley.Testimony.Biden-Inquiry.pdf (“La base para la investigación de juicio político del presidente Joseph R. Biden”) 36 páginas en detalle.

  17. Best to have led off with his glaring failures to uphold existing promulgated law, but what the hell do they know. As for the Democrats, its party politics first, patriotism last. Got to hold on to the power and their paychecks. Why should they care about evidence casting suspicion regarding malfeasance? That there’s something rotten in Denmark. They’d defend having a ham sandwich and a glass of milk on the menu of a kosher restaurant. Pendejos todos!!

Leave a Reply