Below is my column in The Hill on moving forward with the Biden impeachment inquiry. The column discusses four possible impeachment articles that could be brought by the House and what the House would need to prove.
Here is the column:
With the commencement of the impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Joe Biden, three House committees will now pursue key linkages between the president and the massive influence peddling operation run by his son Hunter and brother James.
The impeachment inquiry should allow the House to finally acquire long-sought records of Hunter, James, and Joe Biden, as well as to pursue witnesses involved in their dealings.
I testified this week at the first hearing of the impeachment inquiry on the constitutional standards and practices in moving forward in the investigation. In my view, there is ample justification for an impeachment inquiry. If these allegations are established, they would clearly constitute impeachable offenses. I listed ten of those facts in my testimony that alone were sufficient to move forward with this inquiry.
I was criticized by both the left and the right for the testimony. Steven Bannon and others were upset that I did not believe that the basis for impeachment had already been established in the first hearing of the inquiry. Others were angry that I supported the House efforts to resolve these questions of public corruption.
Without prejudging that evidence, there are four obvious potential articles of impeachment that have been raised in recent disclosures and sworn statements: bribery, conspiracy, obstruction, and abuse of power.
Bribery is the second impeachable act listed under Article II. The allegation that the President received a bribe worth millions was documented on a FD-1023 form by a trusted FBI source who was paid a significant amount of money by the government. There remain many details that would have to be confirmed in order to turn such an allegation into an article of impeachment.
Yet three facts are now unassailable. First, Biden has lied about key facts related to these foreign dealings, including false statements flagged by the Washington Post. Second, the president was indeed the focus of a corrupt multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme. Third, Biden may have benefitted from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family as well as more direct benefit to Joe and Jill Biden.
What must be established is the President’s knowledge of or participation in this corrupt scheme. The House now has confirmed over 20 calls made to meetings and dinners with these foreign clients. It has confirmation of visits to the White House and dinners and events attended by Joe Biden. It also has confirmation of trips on Air Force II by Hunter to facilitate these deals, as well as payments where the President’s Delaware home address was used as late as 2019 for transfers from China.
The most serious allegations concern reported Washington calls or meetings by Hunter at the behest of these foreign figures. At least one of those calls concerned the removal or isolation of a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma, an energy company paying Hunter as a board member. A few days later, Biden withheld a billion dollars in an approved loan to Ukrainian in order to force the firing of the prosecutor.
The House will need to strengthen the nexus with the president in seeking firsthand accounts of these meetings, calls, and transfers.
However, there is one thing that the House does not have to do. While there are references to Joe Biden receiving money from Hunter and other benefits (including a proposed ten percent from one of these foreign deals), he has already been shown to have benefited from these transfers.
There is a false narrative being pushed by both politicians and pundits that there is no basis for an inquiry, let alone an impeachment, unless a direct payment or gift can be shown to Joe Biden. That would certainly strengthen the case politically, but it is not essential legally. Even in criminal cases subject to the highest standard, payments to family members can be treated as benefits to a principal actor. Direct benefits can further strengthen articles of impeachment, but they would not be a prerequisite for such an action.
For example, in Ryan v. United States, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of George Ryan, formerly Secretary of State and then governor of Illinois, partly on account of benefits paid to his family, including the hiring of a band at his daughter’s wedding and other “undisclosed financial benefits to him and his family and to his friends.” Criminal cases can indeed be built on a “stream of benefits” running to the politician in question, his family, or his friends.
That is also true of past impeachments. I served as lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment tried before the Senate. My client, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, had been impeached by the House for, among other things, benefits received by his children, including gifts related to a wedding.
One of the jurors in the trial was Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who voted to convict and remove Porteous. Menendez is now charged with accepting gifts of vastly greater value in the recent corruption indictment.
The similarities between the Menendez and Biden controversies are noteworthy, in everything from the types of gifts to the counsel representing the accused. The Menendez indictment includes conspiracy charges for honest services fraud, the use of office to serve personal rather the public interests. It also includes extortion under color of official right under 18 U.S.C. 1951. (The Hobbs Act allows for a charge of extortion without a threat of violence but rather the use of official authority.)
Courts have held that conspiracy charges do not require the defendant to be involved in all (or even most) aspects of the planning for a bribe or denial of honest services. Thus, a conspirator does not have to participate “in every overt act or know all the details to be charged as a member of the conspiracy.”
Menendez’s case shows that the Biden Administration is prosecuting individuals under the same type of public corruption that this impeachment inquiry is supposed to prove. The U.S. has long declared influence peddling to be a form of public corruption and signed international conventions to combat precisely this type of corruption around the world.
This impeachment inquiry is going forward. The House just issued subpoenas on Friday for the financial records of both Hunter and James Biden. The public could soon have answers to some of these questions. Madison called impeachment “indispensable…for defending the community” against such corruption. The inquiry itself is an assurance that, wherever this evidence may lead, the House can now follow.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
One of the items NOT discussed and not brought up by the House (as far as I have heard) is the Presidents policy’s and statement’s re: the border. As the border is one of the major responsibilities of the executive branch, would the failures to enforce and indeed contravene existing law at the border be an impeachable dereliction of his duty under the Constitution?
The president is expressly bound to ‘faithfully execute’ the laws of United States. Biden has sneered at these laws and, on such basis, is in breach of his oath and should be removed post haste.
I am shocked, shocked, that the above conclusion never occurred to me….4+ years ago!!!
🖕🏾
Jonathan: One of your loyal followers, sleepy “Sandmann”. has chastised me for saying Jim Comer only had three so-called “experts” testify at the first hearing who could offer no actual evidence that Joe Biden received bribes. He claims “fact witnesses will come” (10/2@2:29 pm) and I shouldn’t wet my pants before that happens.
Fox host Neil Cavuto put it best when he said on his show the first Comer hearing was a “disaster”. Why? Because Cavuto said Comer should have come with his “A-game”. What did Cavuto mean? Well, for sleepy pinheads like Sandmann let’s draw from a football analogy. You don’t start a game with the subs and a backup quarterback. You start with your best players. You don’t put them in the last quarter.
You didn’t see that happen, for example, in the House Committee investigation of Jan. 6. All the witnesses were FACT witnesses–led off by Rusty Bowers, an AZ elected lawmaker, who testified about the calls he received from DJT and Rudy Giuliani who wanted Bowers to convene a special hearing to consider their charges of “massive fraud” in the AZ election. As I recall only Ben Ginsberg, a conservative election law expert, was called to testify that he had seen no evidence of massive election fraud in the 2020 election.
The fact that Comer could put on no FACT witnesses in the first hearing can’t be excused for lack of time. He’s been at it for 8 months. The fact is, Comer has no witnesses that would bolster his case. All he has are allegations, suppositions and speculation. But sleepy Sandmann assures us the “fact witnesses will come”–just be patient. That’s also what JT hopes. So, pinhead, when can we expect the FACT witnesses to show up? Do we have to wait another 8 months or longer?
Hey Dennis, why didnt Raskin start his All American inside linebacker, Devon Archer? Instead he started some tool that couldnt find his a$$ with both hands.
“I shouldn’t wet my pants before that happens.”
I believe what he said was that you were afraid you might. Although your version is good advice, its typical of the lies and misrepresentations you make daily in this blog. I hope your mom doesnt know what you are doing in her basement all day.
Bug thinks Trump will have to pay property taxes on properties where his assessments were low.
This demonstrates how ignorant he is. Property taxes have nothing to do with an individuals valuation.
He thinks Trump will lose money. That is not the issue. NYC will lose money and the middle class will suffer. Investors are leaving the city. That means tax revenue is leaving NY and will have to be paid by those who remain or they suffer with lost services.
Democrats need courses in economics.
Obviously, idiot, since you called him a chicken sh!t.
If Hunter Biden did not exist, I wonder what excuse the Republicans would be using for having an impeachment inquiry?
There is always something they can make up. Heck, with Obama it was a birth certificate that for some reason was not long form enough for Trump’s taste.
And yet you fell for the made up Russian collusion.
Jim: and so did the Republican-led Senate committee that investigated Russian collusion–they siad it wasn’t “made up”. That’s just drivel that disciples like you bought.
And yet Gigi there was NO collusion per the Mueller report. That is a FACT that even you can’t dispute.
That’s not what the Mueller Report said.
Trump REFUSED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW OR DEPOSITION. THAT’S why Mueller was hamstrung. The Mueller Report plainly said that Trump’s refusal to cooperate limited their conclusions, but that HE WAS NOT EXONERATED. Those are facts you can’t dispute. You can’t be exonerated when you refuse to cooperate and thus limit the evidence that an investigation has to work with.
I said nothing of the sort. The REPUBLICAN Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Trump’s campaign DID collude with Russia.
An excerpt from “Wikipedia”–the full piece contains links to the actual document:
“The first volume of the report was released on July 25, 2019, and the fifth and last volume was released to the public on August, 18, 2020.[1][2] The Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation extended more than three years, includes interviews of more than 200 witnesses, and reviews more than one million documents.[2] Marco Rubio, acting committee head,[a] said that “no probe into this matter has been more exhaustive.”[4] On the stature of the report, the Senate Intelligence Committee said the report is “the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s activities and the threat they posed”.[5]
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first part of its five-volume report in July 2019 in which it concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was “coherent and well-constructed”. The first volume also concluded that the assessment was “proper”, learning from analysts that there was “no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions”. The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released on August 18, 2020,[6] ending one of the United States “highest-profile congressional inquiries.”[7][8] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an “extensive campaign” to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump’s own advisers.[7]
Go on. Keep calling me a liar.
There never should have been a Mueller investigation.
See collusion discussion in the beginning of this linked article.
https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/
I give you the Durham Report.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/
Joe Biden has other children or even would stoop to his grandchildren to use/exploit for his grift.
Upstate
Good point, what type of Slim Ball would include their child or grandchild into a syndicate of corruption. It seems the greed has no bounds. Even the notorious Mafia would protect their progeny!
The reference to the Obama “birth certificate” is a red herring. Obama will never be a “natural born citizen” or eligible for the office of president because he did not have two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, and he did not have a father who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, as did all of his predecessors, and his father was not a U.S. citizen but a foreign citizen. The Constitution was written with reference to Book 1, Chpt. 19, Sec. 212, the Law of Nations, 1758, and with reference to this particular section of the Jay/Washington letter, July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
See linked CRS report that has a different conclusion.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42097.html
You mean if FJB’s frontman didn’t exist? LOL. Are you suggesting that FJB wouldn’t be corrupt without his crackhead son? Where would FJB get the money for whatever he has, like a multi-million dollar Rehoboth Beach house, fancy sports cars, his wife’s doctorate…where would that money come from???
There’s FJB’s brother and his wife and the little girls he sniffs and showers with – heck, democrats never lack for fall guys and FJB has no problem handing out ‘favors’.
The real question is, where would the dnc be without FJB and vice versa.
I suppose the pubs could always use the 25th Amendment route to get him out of office…where are all those esteemed psychiatrists from 4 years ago???
Hunter Biden does exists, and there is probable cause for an impeachment inquiry!
I saw one press release mentioning Hunter’s bank account in MALTA getting filled with the bribery money.
What the republicans should do is point out the overseas accounts of the mafia family.
Does anyone have any explanation on what the 20 shell companies were providing as “paid services” ?
Malta IS where money goes to get laundered. Nothing to see here, right Denny?
Jonathan
Like a good little modern marxist pinhead, Dennis obfuscates and misleads. Apparently he is unaware of even the purpose of the FIRST (of many) hearing. Someone please tell him again.
The fact witnesses will come, but apprently Dennis is afraid he will wet his pants before they do. He was busy doing his best Jeffrey Toobin impression while we were watching the hearing.
Denny seems to think this is a trial. Someone please tell him it’s not. And even if it were, “FACT” witnesses are not the only ones who testify. Experts are called ALL the time, and their testimony is quite useful. Funny he doesn’t impugn the Dems choice, some talking head from UNC who does a great impression of Philip Bump with a bad toupee. Who is surprised?
He also seems to think it takes FIRE to convict someone. Wrong-o again Denny. How can someone be that wrong that often??? Someone call the defense teams for Alex Murdaugh and Bryan Kohlberger…Dennis has a new defense strategy…THERE’S NO FIRE!
Someone tell Dennis, Alex is going to spend the rest of his life in jail and Bryan is going to fry on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence alone.
I notice he addresses NONE of the questions posed to him by those he calls MAGA (as if thats a put down anywhere outside of his echo chamber). Why, because he is a coward. The questions he was asked ARE only a small part of the SMOKE thats out there, and even while choking on it (refusing to answer), he claims its not smoke.
Someone tell Dennis he can still have his dead babies, government giveaways, genital mutilation of kids, drag queen storybook hour, high interest rates, high inflation, high poverty rate, high crime rates, and open borders, without staking whats left of his slimy reputation on Pedo Joe.
Keep twisting Denny, it’s fun to watch.
The Impeachment process is a diversion
Meanwhile, California Gov. Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Sen. Feinstein’s replacement. Butler lives in Maryland and is a hard core Democrat lesbian.
Reminds me of questioning, where is out of town brown? Las Vegas of course!
She has served as president of EMILY’s List (demoncrat women who are for murdering babies and want others to do so as well ) since 2021.
wow what a shocker, and out of town murdering minority demoncrat lezzie and that’s probably the good news
Jonathan: Just before he went into the courtroom in NY this morning to face Judge Ergoron in the second damages phase of the civil fraud case against him, DJT stood outside the courtroom and made a rambling and damaging admission that he illegally inflated the value of his properties. DJT also managed to once again attack the prosecutor Letitia James–calling her a “racist attorney general”. He also called Judge Ergoron a “rogue judge”. Not exactly a way to endear yourself with the person that is going to be both the judge and jury of your fate. DJT also called the trial a “scam” and a sham”–but it “a continuation of the single greatest witch hunt of all time”.
DJT knows the stakes are high in this trial. He has already lost the right to do business in NY and his properties have gone into receivership. All of them will soon be up for sale. This time around he is likely to have to disgorge all the money he illegally got from overvaluing his properties–up to between $250 million to over a billion. No wonder Melania wants a new pre-nup!
As I write this Letitia James’s prosecutors are making their opening statements. Since you don’t seem interested in this case, as a public service, I will keep your loyal supporters updated on the trial–which should last for weeks.
But Denny, we wanted to hear about Melania this morning. Is that all you have for us from the McInlyre/Toobin sewing circle?
Circle Jerk
But by all means Dennis, please continue giving our scroll buttons a good workout, bypassing your keyboard diarrhea!!
Bwahahahahahah
Dennis thanks: legal pundits are commenting all over the web about the fact that Trump’s attorney-model, Alina Habba, failed to request a jury trial, which constitutes a waiver of the right to trial by jury.. To do so would only require checking a box on a form. So, the trial will be to the bench, before the Judge Trump trashes every single day. Before this, she got herself and Trump sanctioned for frivolous litigation. From the NYT:
Judge Orders Trump and Lawyer to Pay Nearly $1 Million for Bogus Suit
After the scathing ruling, the former president also dropped a lawsuit against New York’s attorney general that had been pending before the same judge.
Alina Habba, a lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump, was ordered to pay sanctions in the suit.Credit…Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times
Michael S. SchmidtMaggie HabermanCharlie Savage
By Michael S. Schmidt, Maggie Haberman and Charlie Savage
Jan. 19, 2023
In a scathing ruling, a federal judge in Florida on Thursday ordered Donald J. Trump and one of his lawyers together to pay nearly a million dollars in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against nearly three dozen of Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.
The ruling was a significant rebuke of Mr. Trump, who has rarely faced such consequences in his long history of using the courts as a weapon against business rivals and partners, as well as former employees and reporters.
In an indication that the ruling may have had immediate consequences, other Florida-based lawyers for Mr. Trump filed a terse notice on Friday that he was voluntarily dropping a lawsuit he had filed against the attorney general of New York, Letitia James. Mr. Trump had filed the suit against Ms. James over the objections of his own longstanding legal advisers, who had told him it was frivolous.
Thursday’s sanctions ruling in the Clinton conspiracy case — which followed an earlier imposition of sanctions for one defendant in the same case — was the latest setback for Mr. Trump as he faces a broad range of legal problems and criminal investigations. His lawyers are increasingly under scrutiny themselves for their actions in those cases, as well as divided in the advice they are offering him.
Never forget–Trump only hires the best.
Fani Willis has also filed a suit against all of her perceived enemies. Will the courts have the courage to sanction her for her frivolous prosecution?
AND, looks count more than skills or knowledge–right? Why didn’t Bannon and the other alt-right media figures who whined over the weekend about the Judge not giving Trump a trial by jury know it’s because Ms “smokin’ beeotch” forgot to ask for one? It wasn’t difficult–just check a box on a form–but she failed to do it, so it’s waived. After she got him sanctioned to the tune of almost a million dollars for frivolous litigation, most reasonable clients would chuck their lawyer. Not Trump, because he only hires the best. The sanctions order would prove to any reasonable client that if the stakes are high, you might want another lawyer, but he kept her on, so it will be hard down the road to blame her. if he gets dinged.
From “Newsweek”:
“”I have a Deranged, Trump Hating Judge, who RAILROADED this FAKE CASE through a NYS Court at a speed never seen before, refusing to let it go to the Commercial Division, where it belongs, denying me everything, No Trial, No Jury,” he [Trump] wrote.
Newsweek reached out to a representative for Trump via email for comment.
Laurence Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard, took exception with such comments from Trump.
“Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron noted that ‘nobody asked for’ a jury trial. So Trump’s complaints about being tried by Justice Engoron, in addition to being baseless, make no sense,” Tribe wrote on X. “Had he wanted a trial by jury, he should’ve requested one.”
Some have asserted that one of Trump’s lawyers, attorney Alina Habba, forgot to ask for a jury. Trump’s team has not commented on these reports.
“When the judge just informed your client that the only reason he doesn’t get a jury trial is because you forgot to check the box to ask for one,” Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of the media outlet MeidasTouch, wrote on X in a post that included a photo of Habba at Monday’s hearing.
In a separate message on X, Filipkowski noted that Trump has made disparaging comments about Engoron.
“I have to say it was brilliant for the stable genius to waive his right to a jury trial and have the case decided by a judge who you just said should be removed from the bench for criminal conduct,” he wrote. “Hard to complain about a biased judge when you wanted him to decide the case.”
Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman wrote on X that “it’s incredibly easy to ask for a jury trial. You just check a box on a form.
“Hard to believe that Trump understood that his lawyers hadn’t done it when he’s been savaging the judge who is now the factfinder in his huge fraud trial,” Litman said.
Democratic Representative Ted Lieu of California suggested Trump could have intentionally decided against a jury.
“The former President and his legal team likely concluded a jury would find he committed fraud,” Lieu wrote on X. “This way Trump can keep falsely blaming the judge for the outcome.”
So, here are 3 legal experts saying you only need to check a box on a form. You have Rep. Lieu saying that Trump essentially wants it both ways: whine about not getting a jury because if he had a jury and found to have committed fraud, he couldn’t blame the judge.
Show us the form, GG, the liar!
I do hope that you are actually a woman. Because if you are some dude acting like a swollen taint all the time you need to be slapped.
I say it again: THE JUDGE said NO ONE requested a jury trial. Is HE a liar? The form hasn’t been posted on media, and it doesn’t really matter because HABBA doesn’t deny that there was no request for a jury. WHY are you trying to focus on the FORM rather than the undisputed FACT that a jury was not requested? It is either the case: 1. that Habba blew it by failing to request a trial by jury; OR 2. this was strategic: Trump loves to have a person on which to focus his rage, just like he has done with Dr. Fauci, Letitia James, Fani Willis and Gen. Milley. If a jury found him liable, then he couldn’t blame the judge. In any event, he went on a rage claiming that the Judge denied him a right to a jury–which is yet another lie that was echoed by Bannon and others in the alt-right universe.
When you constantly respond to inconvenient truths by comments about female genitalia, or accusing me of being toothless, or claiming that I “need” to be assaulted, you reveal what sort of person you and many of Trump’s disciples really are, plus the overarching fact that you haven’t any substantive response–so, you resort to gutter talk and threats of violence.
Given the Durham Report, I fail to see how the lawsuit could possibly be frivilous.
It seems to me that the United States Government at all levels including the bureaucracy cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. We have a president that can’t walk without stumbling, a congress who can’t function without urgency, and a bureaucratic complex that uses its left hand only.
Dysfunction is the best description, led by partisan beliefs [your SOB is guilty, your concepts of governance are wrong and you’re a low-down scoundrel.] The United States has base problems and is teetering on the edge of demise while leadership quivers in corner fearful of confronting the truth(s). We have a prior President being persecuted by various prosecutors by the current Presidents Political party, the current President accused of accepting bribes, a Congress functioning in self-interest not for the people, federal, state and local legal authorities’ refusing to enforce or obey the statutes, school systems producing functional illiterates, and students so fragile even words scare them. An economy wobbling about without any firm or known direction. An energy infrastructure in total kayos pushing costs to unsupportable heights, all while increasing future demands on the electrical component and reducing supply of the production side. Food costs exceeding most family budgets. Then there’s increased interest rates making loans less affordable pushing the average Joe/Jane further down the economic ladder. I could go on and on, so I ask is Rome not burning?
George W,
Just an FYI, yours are one of a pool of commenters here on the good professor’s blog that I look forward to reading.
Well said and yes, I do believe Rome is burning, the barbarians are at the gate and they are us.
Upstate
As Roger Miller wrote “You Can’t Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd” so thanks for including me in your pool!
George W
George W,
The imagery alone is priceless of “You Can’t Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd”!
Thank you for the laugh!
Billy Carter was involved in influence peddling. Sitting President Jimmy Carter responded as follows:
“I am deeply concerned that Billy has received funds from Libya and that he may be under obligation to Libya. These facts will govern my relationship with Billy as long as I am president. Billy has had no influence on U.S. policy or actions concerning Libya in the past, and he will have no influence in the future.”
— Jimmy Carter, August 4, 1980[
This is in stark contrast to Joe Biden’s silence concerning Hunter Biden’s influence peddling.
Not really silence. His claim is that “Hunter did nothing wrong”.
Jimmy Carter is a decent Man in the final analysis.
Any question how history shall evaluate Joe Biden?
Another serious question for Dennis McInlyre.
The democrats were allowed to call a witness of their choosing. Why did they call that tool who talks like Philip Bump with a bad toupee, instead of Archer, Parnas, or Giuliani?
It seems that just like pinhead marxist Raskin, you take us all for the type of idiots that play in your echo chamber.
In August 2019, President Joe Biden said he “never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else anything having to do with their business, period,” and yet there is a significant and growing body of evidence that Biden did, in fact, talk business with his son.
— There is a photograph of President Biden golfing with Hunter and Hunter’s business partner, Devon Archer;
— Hunter Biden’s business partners said Joe Biden was sometimes on speaker phone as they discussed business;
— Then-Vice President Biden dined and drank coffee with his son’s foreign business partners;
— A Biden family associate said President Biden attended a meeting about CEFC, a Chinese energy company;
— Hunter Biden recently said his father was in the room when he demanded payment from someone at CEFC.
— And now it turns out that a Chinese investment company sent $250,000 to Hunter Biden in July and August of 2019 and that the bank wires named President Biden’s Delaware home as the beneficiary address.
In fact, a close look at the deals Hunter Biden made, selling access and influence over his father to foreign companies, betrays an insider knowledge of Obama administration policy that Hunter could not have had separate from his father.
Up until now, commentary on the Biden family influence peddling racket has focused on the countries from which the companies they worked for hailed: China, Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. This country-focused perspective is crucial to understanding how those nations may have affected American foreign policy.
But the country-heavy focus has obscured the massive global business at the heart of the Biden influence peddling, the source of much of the Democrats’ political donations, and the underlying driver of much of America’s foreign policy.
Jonathan: Seems you have pared down your original 10 “reasons” for impeaching Joe Biden down to only four. Maybe you realize the other charges are unmeritorious. So now you claim there are “four obvious potential articles”–bribery, conspiracy, obstruction and abuse of power.
As you know “bribery” is defined in the criminal code as accepting anything of value as to “being influenced in the performance of any official act” (18US Code Section 201). Between 2017 and 2019, the times Hunter was allegedly giving his dad money, both were private citizens. That doesn’t make a case for bribery under the statute. And conflating the Menendez case with the allegations against Joe Biden are non-sense. Menendez is charged with bribery while a SITTING Senator. There is no evidence Biden received bribes when he was VP.
Now you refer to the “FD-1023” as a basis for the charge of bribery against Biden. The FBI form is used by agents “to record unverified reporting from a confidential human source”. As pointed out in my previous comment, “the doc simply memorialized the informant’s claim but did not demonstrate the information was true. It was uncorroborated hearsay”. The FD-1023 does not prove anything you are Sen. Grassley are claiming.
Now, if Comer thinks the unidentified informant’s claim in the FD-1023 is true why didn’t he have the FBI track down the informant and have him testify at Thursday’s hearing? The claim from the informant has been around for months. I would think that would be the “smoking gun” kind of testimony you and Comer would want–an actual FACT witness. Comer is not interested in FACT witnesses. He has so far refused to call important FACT witnesses to testify–like Devon Archer, Rudy Giuliani or Lev Parnas. Why? Because they would ruin the false narrative about the alleged “Biden family corruption scandal”.
That’s why I continue to say Comer’s investigation is an “impeachment inquiry” in name only!
“Seems you have pared down your original 10 “reasons” for impeaching Joe Biden down to only four.”
Look y’all, Dennis doesn’t even know the difference between reasons and articles. Yikes!
Can there even be a discussion with someone this dumb?
I guess Trump should have been indicted 7,421 times, because at last count, thats how many reason Fani had.
What a dunce.
Look y’all, Anonymous doesn’t even know that Turley didn’t present any articles. Yikes!
Can there even be a discussion with someone this dumb?
What a dunce.
YAWN
“The column discusses four possible impeachment articles that could be brought by the House and what the House would need to prove.”
Res ipsa loquitur
But he only list the possible topics for articles of impeachment, not actual articles of impeachment.
Apparently you’ve never read actual articles of impeachment and you don’t understand the difference. What a dunce!
try again dum dum
nobody used the word “list” except you. bwahahahahaha
Turley “discusses” in the column.
Bwahahahahaha but thanks for the link, Schoolhouse Rock!
BTW, if you want to educate yourself:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/articles_of_impeachment
“the times Hunter was allegedly giving his dad money, both were private citizens. That doesn’t make a case for bribery under the statute”
Huh??? Seriously dude??? Bribery isn’t bribery if you don’t get the money until years later??? WOW…better read that statute again, dum dum.
Not to mention, Hunter “allegedly giving his dad money” spans 30 freaking years, according to Hunter.
Rudy Giuliani or Lev Parnas…fact witnesses???
What an idiotic claim. Whats “FACTS” did they witness, Dennis?
Rachel Madow called, she wants her talking points back.
“That’s why I continue to say Comer’s investigation is an “impeachment inquiry” in name only!”
Just like your hero, Pedo Joe, you can’t remember what you said yesterday. I believe you said it was a “sham”. And the day before you said it was “illegitimate”.
“The answer will not change and will continue to be that Joe was never in business with Hunter”—KJP, as she was changing the answer from “never talked to”
Keep twisting, Denny
“It was uncorroborated hearsay””
It was a lie the first time you told it Denny, and it still is. The 1023 is corroborated by bank records showing MILLIONS of dollars flowing from Zlovchevsky to Biden family members, via the shell companies that Z said it would take ” 10 years to unravel”. The only thing he was wrong about was that it took the IRS about 10 minutes. LMAO at your disingenuous stupidty.
Denny
Do you pay bug boy to run interference for you? Cuz I find it hard to believe he would make himself a laughingstock for nothing. Tell him he will get no more responses, because its transparent, what he is doing, trying to get the questions you’ve been confronted with removed along with his keyboard diaarhea.
“Turley didn’t present any articles. Yikes!”
“So now you claim there are “four obvious potential articles”–bribery, conspiracy, obstruction and abuse of power.”—Dennis
Wow, bug face the demented lawn boy, you are in rare form this morning.
Yikes! Can there even be a discussion with someone as dumb as Tom?
What a dunce.
Turley didn’t present any articles of impeachment, while also saying what Dennis quoted.
Then I guess Dennis is a dunce, because he thinks Turley did.
Mushroom.
YAWN.
BTW, you keep referring to me as Bug, but I’m not. You’re apparently too stupid to tell us apart, along with being too stupid to understand what articles of impeachment actually are and why Turley’s discussion doesn’t include any.
Dennis You have no idea what Joe Biden received in 2015, 2016. I know what J Biden supposedly reported in the 2015, and 20216 portions (sopies) of tax returns he posted on his political web site in 2020. Those postings reflected reporting Sch E page 2 S-Corp K-1 extraordinary income exceeding $10 Million. Those two years (2015-2016) reflected no extraordinary income as compared to his posted 2017 and 2018 returns. I can tell you who knows if and when Joe Biden received any funds that originated from Any Foreign Source(s), That would be the Money Laundering Unit of the US Treasury Dept that tracks and traces said sources of funds. House Judiciary Committee should subpeona J Biden’s 2015 and 2016 Tax Returns and his 2015, 2016 Bank Statements and info from the US Treasury money Laundering Unit. They have much more right than the Dems did in subpoenaing DT’s Tax returns under the false guise of Russian Collusion and activities. The Dem House Reps waived documents on the Floor of the House contending that thy had the DT evidence and knew it was a lie. I would allege Joe Biden is going down with the evidence after all is said and done. Mark it on his prison wall. Need tribunal hearings and prosecutions from GITMO for all those alleged criminal acts. PS why don’t you apprise as to why Joe, Hunter, and family et als are entitled to receive $Millions from China and the Ukraine?
Totally incorrect reading – or are you just being willfully obtuse?
JT gave ten reasons to justify launching a impeachment INQUIRY. He explained that, ad nauseam. This column explains four avenues which merit deeper investigation, using the enhanced powers due to the Legislative Branch now they’ve launched this INQUIRY. I-n-q-u-i-r-y, inquiry.
FYI:
inquiry
noun
in·qui·ry in-ˈkwī(-ə)r-ē ˈin-ˌkwī(-ə)r-ē; ˈin-kwə-rē ˈiŋ-; ˈin-ˌkwir-ē
plural inquiries
Synonyms of inquiry
1
: a request for information
2
: a systematic investigation often of a matter of public interest.
Of course, this could have all been cleared up IF Joe Biden, his family, the DOJ, banks, the Archives et al respected the legitimate oversight role of the Congress., but they don’t, so here we are.
Dennis–thank you. Turley HAD to admit there’s no evidence that JOE Biden did anything wrong–he would have had to lie in order to come up with something, But, he’s on the payroll, so he has to say something, anything, to defend Republicans for wasting taxpayer money pursing Joe Biden because Trump demanded that they do so, and forcing a last-minute temporary reprieve. Turley speaks of Hunter Biden leading a “massive influence-peddling operation” (as if it has been established as a fact)–but, where’s the proof of this? As you pointed out, between 2017 and 2019, JOE Biden wasn’t even in office, so how could he influence anything to benefit Hunter’s clients. Turley speaks to “key linkages” between what he asserts are actual bribes received by Hunter that are missing. Because he knows that Republicans haven’t come up with any “key linkages” to JOE Biden, he tries to make the case that JOE Biden benefitted anyway, so Republicans can proceed with trying to impeach Joe Biden, even after they don’t come up with any nexus between money received by Hunter going to JOE Biden. That’s what purchased advocacy gets you, and it’s pathetic. Never forget that Marjorie Taylor Greene promised that Biden would get impeached, long before he even took the oath of office.
Turley accuses those who point out the flaws in his logic as spinning a “false narrative”. He claims: “Even in criminal cases subject to the highest standard, payments to family members can be treated as benefits to a principal actor. Direct benefits can further strengthen articles of impeachment, but they would not be a prerequisite for such an action.” Most legal scholars beg to differ. The Constitutional standard is “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Assuming Republicans can prove that Hunter took bribes, which they haven’t so far, how does this translate into a “high crime” or “misdemeanor” committed by JOE Biden? Hunter is an adult, not a dependent.
It is called probable cause. There is probable cause.
Well, if you read what Turley wrote, the cases in which someone was found guilty were those that involved paying for a band at a child’s wedding band–something a parent would ordinarily pay for– or lavish wedding gifts, There are no such facts here. You can’t find a parent guilty of a crime because of some financial benefit to their adult, non-dependent child.
It is probable cause.
Surely you have heard of the concept.
Dennis – 1) Biden was VP when he forced the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin. I believe Hunter was still getting money from Burisma then. If not, it is still possible to be influenced by earlier payments.
2). The issue with the report of the confidential agent is not whether it is evidence at this point but whether it justifies further investigation. The House is just now issuing additional subpoenas. And, as you should know, Archer has already testified before another committee.
Edwardmahl: 1) Yes, Biden, as VP, led the effort to get Shokin fired. But there is no evidence that that was because Shokin was investigating corruption inside Burisma when Hunter was on the Board. In fact, the opposite is true as reflected in Lev Parnas’s statements, followed by others, that Shokin was not investigating Burisma. That’s why the Dems on the Committee asked Comer to have Parnas testify. Comer doesn’t seem interested. Why is that?
2) The FD-1023 is not from a confidential “agent” but an “informant”. As pointed out in my earlier comment why hasn’t Comer asked the FBI to find the informant and have him testify? It’s not for lack of time because the FD-1023 has been around for months. We’ll see if Comer actually does that. But I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one.
As to Devon Archer’s deposition the MAGA Republicans on the Committee have cherry picked his statement. Why didn’t Comer call Archer to testify before the Committee? That’s because Archer’s full statement clearly stated that Joe Biden was not involved in his son’s business activities nor did he receive any payments from those business ventures. That’s the inconvenient truth Comer doesn’t want to come out and why I don’t think Archer will be testifying any time soon. You have to ask yourself this Q. Why is it that Comer has so far not called any FACT witnesses who could shed some light on the allegations they assert?
“But there is no evidence that . . .”
According to the Left: JB wanted Shokin fired because he was *not* investigating Burisma — the company that paid HB some $50k/month.
In what universe does that make sense?
“Seems you have pared down your original 10 “reasons” for impeaching Joe Biden down to only four. Maybe you realize the other charges are unmeritorious.”
Or maybe you intentionally misrepresent JT’s arguments, by evading the distinction between reasons for an inquiry and standards for an impeachment.
So what! More legal smegal kabuki for the dumb ox masses…. Clinton was impeached, like Nixon was, by both the house, and senate. Then by congress. Clinton stayed in office then ripped us off of antiquities when he and his thieving wife finally left after his term was up. Nixon had the good grace and manners to adhere to the impeachment.
There is no mechanism to remove the potus or any other seditious liberal who sets about to enrich themselves off the backs of the tax paying American citizens.
So…. blah blah blah blah… much to do about nothing. We know the crooks will look us in the eye and lie like the lying dogs of communism that they are. And, enjoy every second of it, such is their ilk.
Nobody _ucks with the Biden. Independent Bob
Dear Prof Turley,
It’s a start, but there is many a slip between cup and lip. Especially with Joe Biden who, despite his demented and disheveled appearance, is slicker than snot. And the clock is ticking. Tick tock.
The Extreme MAGA hat Trump apostles have placed Democracy and Freedom Itself at stake, according to president Biden, and it doesn’t matter if you believe it. .. he clearly does.
I move for immediate article 25.
*he’s quite mad, you know.
Professor Turley writes, “Biden withheld a billion dollars in an approved loan”. It’s my understanding that he threatened to withhold the loan unless the prosecutor was fired, and guess what? The SOB got fired.
It was a threat. Not that this makes any difference to a possible impeachment.
“.. . and the best part is, they replaced him with someone who was solid” ~ VP Biden
*it was a solid shakedown .. . the feet do not slip upon it.
If the House actually can do it right, we might have another presidential impeachment.