Below is my column in The Messenger on my response to Steve Bannon and others who were upset that I testified this week that, while there is ample evidence to launch the impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Joe Biden, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is the purpose of the inquiry in establishing a full record for such articles of impeachment. By withholding judgment and building a record, the Republicans are restoring a regular order to this constitutional process.
Here is the column:
Yesterday, I spent a very long day testifying in the first hearing of the House impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden. Not unexpectedly, my testimony angered many on both the left and the right. As I mentioned in my testimony, there is little tolerance for opposing views in this age of rage.
Today, caution is considered cowardice and impartiality is viewed as chicanery. Yet our Constitution demands more of each of us at these moments. We can rise to that challenge, as the Framers hoped we would, or we can continue our national descent into rage and ruin.
It is the difference between laying the groundwork for a real impeachment or for just another political hit-job.
I was asked to testify on whether the threshold had been met for an impeachment inquiry and what the best practices would be in the investigation of President Biden. I testified that the existing evidence was more than ample to warrant an impeachment inquiry and that these allegations, if proven, would constitute impeachable conduct.
That was not enough for many. One of those was Steve Bannon, who went on social media to criticize House Republicans for not selecting someone who would testify, at the very start of an inquiry, that the case already was made for actual articles of impeachment.
Bannon suggested that I should have been placed on the “maybe list” if I was not willing to say that the committee had the basis to vote out articles of impeachment on the first day of inquiry. That, however, would be akin to calling a special grand jury and demanding an indictment before any witnesses or evidence are presented.
Bannon’s criticism is emblematic of much of what I cautioned against in my testimony. I implored the Republicans not to replicate the last two impeachments, which I believe did considerable damage to this constitutional process. In the first Trump impeachment, I appeared as the only Republican witness in the only hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee. House Democrats then just cut to the chase and impeached Donald Trump on a thin, undeveloped record.
In the second impeachment, they skipped the formalities entirely and went straight to the articles of impeachment in what I called a “snap impeachment.”
Republicans rightly criticized those prior impeachments, and their leadership has tried to return to the more principled approach used in prior inquiries like those of Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. They have spent months developing a record on what is now a clear influence-peddling scheme operated by Hunter Biden, James Biden, and their associates. Even some past critics now recognize that this was a corrupt influence-peddling operation, but most insist that Hunter was simply selling the “illusion” of influence.
As I asked the committee this week, how do we know? The point of an inquiry is whether it was just an illusion and whether the president knew or fostered such corrupt practices. Even if Hunter Biden and his associates treated this as an illusion, it was influence-peddling and turned then-Vice President Biden’s office into a commodity for corruption.
This investigation has gradually tightened the circle around the president, including disclosures this week that payments from China — which the president previously denied categorically — went to Hunter Biden using the president’s Delaware home address. As I laid out in my testimony, there are ten facts that alone justify an impeachment inquiry. However, these remain allegations that must be proven or disproven in the course of the inquiry.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) could have launched an impeachment inquiry at any point in the prior year. He waited until the committees had acquired bank and other records showing millions of dollars flowing to Biden family members and communications from Hunter and others referencing access to Joe Biden for foreign clients.
That is how an impeachment inquiry should begin. The House now has credible, compelling evidence that the president may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It is a substantive case for an impeachment inquiry rather than just another snap judgment.
So why not just declare the president guilty? Because we do not know.
This is a constitutional process, not just some trash-talking cable show (although, admittedly, it was hard to tell at moments in the hearing).
According to polls, a majority of citizens want these questions investigated and believe that President Biden has acted improperly. Roughly half favor an impeachment inquiry. Indeed, according to a poll from ABC News and the Washington Post this week, 58 percent believe that President Biden is being “held accountable under the law like any other president” in this inquiry.
Putting aside the still undeveloped record linking the president to this money, we should not rush to declaring impeachable conduct with a plurality or mere majority of citizens. This is one of the most weighty and consequential decisions for a nation. We should only declare impeachable conduct when the record is complete and compelling.
There will continue to be tensions over how we proceed in this process.
Speaker McCarthy has been criticized by Democrats for launching the impeachment inquiry without a floor vote. That was a curious moment, since that is precisely what House Democrats did when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared an impeachment inquiry of Trump — and many of these same Democratic members defended her authority to do so.
In reality, there is no constitutional requirement for a resolution to launch an inquiry. Indeed, when this matter previously went to court, a federal judge held that even “in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry.”
I have previously said that such a vote is a best practice that should be followed in these cases, and a vote still could occur as House Democrats did. However, this inquiry began in the same way as past impeachments and would be considered constitutionally valid even without a resolution.
That brings us back to the Bannon criticism. Ironically, I have been critical of the Hunter Biden team in replicating the Bannon model by refusing to supply information to Congress. Now that obstruction is likely to be addressed quickly by the House. As I told the committee yesterday, “the Constitution is now on your side, the calendar is not.” They will likely move quickly in pursuing critical linkages to the president.
In reality, my views on impeachment were well-known and public before my testimony. There was no lack of what Bannon referenced as staff work. The House Republicans want to return to regular order on impeachments and were not calling the first hearing of an impeachment inquiry to declare impeachment articles.
Indeed, my analysis was consistent with the testimony that I gave as an expert witness in both the Clinton and the Trump impeachments. The best practices that I have laid out would benefit President Biden — just as they would have benefited President Trump if followed. That is as it should be. As I said in all three impeachment hearings, a sitting president warrants basic presumptions and protections in this constitutional process.
Frankly, Steve Bannon is right about one thing: I was appropriately on the “maybe list” — but not in the sense that he meant it. President Biden may be guilty of impeachable conduct, but that constitutional finding must be based on evidence, not impulse.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
The purpose of an impeachment inquiry is to investigate allegations. Allegations, alone, are not sufficient for articles of impeachment, hence the inquiry.
Many believe that Joe Biden was “Celtic” or “The Big Guy” on the emails coordinating payments for political favors. Hunter Biden took great pains to write that Joe Biden’s political influence is the wealthy Biden Family’s only marketable asset. The connection has to be proven. The shell companies tracing back to Joe Biden himself have to be proven.
Of course, the DOJ and FBI do seem to be trying to interfere with the investigation, from offering Hunter a sweetheart deal, to the FBI falsely claiming to the media during the presidential election that the laptop was Russian misinformation.
Professor Turley spoke as any prosecutor would. Allegations have to be proven, even though the crime seems completely obvious. Who else was Hunter Biden selling political favors for in exchange for millions of dollars, if not Joe Biden? Burisma executives discussed Joe Biden’s quid pro quo to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. The money, however, has to be traced right to that lying, smug, slippery, grinning Joe Biden’s door.
At the rate the investigations are going, Joe Biden will be out of office, and in his eternal rest, before the allegations are proven, and then Hillary Clinton will ask, “It’s in the past! What difference does it make?” Then we’ll move on to the next major Democrat above the law, and getting away with it, while conservatives are thrown into oubliettes for jaywalking.
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.
Jonathan: Apparently, some of your loyal supporters on this blog watched a different hearing last Thursday than the one I watched. The one I watched saw MAGA Republicans on the Oversight Committee persist with their allegations about the “corrupt” Biden family but backed it up with no evidence or FACT witnesses. Here is a sample from this blog showing how some simply accept as true what has not be proved.
“Wolfman54” says in his post Rep. Nancy Mace “was really great, she did a great job explaining the extent of the Biden family corruption” (10/1@12:14 pm). What was Mace “explaining” during her 5″? Mace asserted “We already know the president took bribes from Burisma”. What evidence did Mace present? Any witness(s) to back up her assertion? Nope. Here’s a FACT CHECK: Mace’s claim is false. The basis of Mace’s claim is an internal FBI doc that said an informant claimed Biden received bribes. The doc memorialized the informant’s claim but did not demonstrate the informant’s claim was true. It was uncorroborated hearsay. Did Mace attempt to identify the informant and subpoena the informant to testify? Nope.
Wolfman54 is not the only one to willingly accept assertions and allegations as true without the need for FACTS to back them up. “Anonymous “(not the sane one) is another. He simply trolls: “Dennis [me] and Gigi are two of the finest fiction writers that I have ever come across”(10/1@1:34 pm). No attempt to analyze what happened at the hearing. Anonymous simply attacks those that disagree with him. Then “Sandman” declares “Soon there will be enough smoke for even you to choke on, Denny boy”(10/1@1:39 pm). Did Sandman offer any FACTS revealed at Thursday’s hearing to show there might be more than “smoke”? Nope.
Wolfman54, Anonymous and Sandman aren’t interested in FACTS. They are loyal MAGA supporters who think the conspiracy theories they see on FoxNews or other alt right media about the Biden family are true without bothering to find out whether the claims are backed up with FACTS. This is a malady suffered by many on your blog. They are lazy an suffer from what is called “cognitive deficit disorder”. They nod off or attack the messenger when asked to back up their claims with actual evidence.
When you testified on Thursday you acknowledged there was no evidence to bring articles of impeachment against Joe Biden. Comer didn’t think it was necessary to present any FACT witnesses at Thursday’s hearing. He and the MAGA members of the Committee, like Nancy Mace, simply made unfounded claims without bothering to back them up with evidence. That’s why I say this is a sham investigation that doesn’t deserve the name “impeachment inquiry”.
Does it look like there is a crap ton of evidence against the Bidens including Joe. Yes. Does it prove the case yet? No. That is the whole point of the inquiry. The DOJ had zero interest in pursuing any of these leads on their own and was in fact blocking the House from accessing much of the evidence that will tie different pieces together or not. Turley here is saying that a case has not yet been proven but there is certainly enough evidence to have a real investigation with real subpoena power.
A few things that we have zero doubts about as these are proven facts:
1) Hunter Biden was being paid millions by Burisma at a time that he had zero experience in oil & gas or anything in Ukraine.
2) Joe Biden insisted that Ukraine fire the prosecutor Shokin or he would withhold a billion dollar loan guarantee that we already approved by the State Department and Congress. (Trump was impeached for delaying such a loan by about two months).
3) Shokin has testified that he was investigating Burisma.
4) Poroshenko has testified that Shokin was investigating corruption and this included Burisma.
5) Joe Biden knew that Hunter worked for Burisma and was on a phone call with Burisma board members 5 days before the visit where he demanded the firing of Shokin.
6) Prior to Joe’s visit to Ukraine there were state department communications showing that Ukraine was doing enough to receive the loan.
7) Prior to Joe’s visit to Ukraine the US ambassador to Ukraine also had communicated that Ukraine was progressing in prosecuting corruption.
8) New reports show that Joe called an audible on the plane ride over to Ukraine and announced the change in policy to the team just hours before he demanded Shokin be fired.
9) FBI confidential informers with ties to Ukraine provided testimony that Burisma CEO paid off the Bidens to fire Shokin.
10) Devin Archer, business partner of Hunter, was on the phone call and present at meeting of Burisma board where they discussed the issue with Shokin and Hunter once again called his dad on the phone.
11) We have information from Hunter’s laptop about how Hunter paid many of his dad’s expenses.
12) We have emails saying that money was set aside for the Big Guy.
So do we have definitive proof. There is a very strong case with both direct and indirect evidence. They now are getting more of the bank records.
They are getting more details on the 20+ shell corporations in the Biden names and the tens of millions paid to their family by foreign sources.
Is a rock solid criminal case required for impeachment? No. We saw that Trump was impeached twice with no actual crimes alleged and zero direct evidence of wrongdoing. Here they are trying to put together a case that will get the Democrats that have been protecting Biden to turn on him.
Let’s not forget that they have the ability to also impeach Biden on political crimes such as ignoring the Supreme Court on student loan forgiveness or his ignoring federal laws on immigration control.
“They nod off or attack the messenger when asked to back up their claims with actual evidence.”
This could be your best one yet, Denny. We all know that McIntyre is Gaelic for “tuck tail and run”.
The FBI informants claims HAVE BEEN corroborated. By bank records showing millions of dollars going from Zlovchevsky to Biden accounts.
Twist on, Denny.
“Apparently, some of your loyal supporters on this blog watched a different hearing last Thursday than the one I watched.”
We’ve already established this fact. Apparently, you and Jeffrey Toobin were watching the baby formula shortage hearings and dreaming about baby boys.
Maybe this will help Dennis….https://geopolitics.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/KVBJHB.pdf
And I could have repeated that ALL again for you, Dennis, but why should we have to every time you say “there is no evidence!”, like a petulant 3rd grader.
You’ve discredited nothing, and just like your pinhead idols in Congress, you havent even tried. Sure, you discredit the witness, when it suits you, but not the evidence. By the way, circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
These people reek to high heaven of corruption and you KNOW it. Its why you keep twisting in the wind, and asking us to justify it.
No, Jonathan testified that there is enough eveidence to warrant an inquiry investigation into the Biden enterprise. He never said there was no evidence. “As I laid out in my testimony, there are ten facts that alone justify an impeachment inquiry. However, these remain allegations that must be proven or disproven in the course of the inquiry.”
Mr. Comer & Co have some of the receipts, but not all necessary for solid proof. That is why this inquiry is necessary. They need it for the ability to compel testimony and for the authority to demand their subpoenas be answered. Without this inquiry, it’s just hearing after hearing with the oppositions’ ability to thumb their noses at the whole process. A waste of time.
No Dennis, this is what Prof. Turley said. “As I laid out in my testimony, there are ten facts that alone justify an impeachment inquiry. However, these remain allegations that must be proven or disproven in the course of the inquiry.” He never said there was NO evidence, just not enough proof to back it all up. Mr. Comer & Co. have some of the hard proof, but not all. This “official” inquiry gives them power they don’t have under the hearing process. They can now compel testimony and enforce subpoenas under threat of consequences. They can’t do that in a “hearing” setting.
“If I read ‘the age of rage’ one more time, I might fly into a rage for the ages.”
Until that age is in the dustbin of history, it cannot be repeated often enough.
Some of you seem to think that JT writes just for you: Well, Joe has heard that expression numerous times, and is probably sick of it. I should use a new one, just to placate him.
Did you ever consider the fact that JT writes for the general public? And that any writer worth his salt tries to reach *new* readers — you know, the ones unfamiliar with that phenomenon, the ones who he is trying to inform.
They have already have 50 million plus outlined but strangely that is only softly spoken of on rarer occasions.
It will be like the lies of the covid manufactured nightmares, in a few years, the same quiet methodical save face colluders will catch up to the known facts in a half hearted veiled and vague manner, admitting nothing outright but alluding to the idea their caution was well warranted and now that the chips have been partially revealed, they have attained the better part of valor. In the covid nightmare that cost hundreds of millions of lives.
So the slow walking lies and obfuscations will continue to hammer the weak willed and weak minded into the peanut butter happy open face stance that goes nowhere and hopes the winds of time cover the problem effectively, as before. Though that game has been exposed dozens of times in the past few years, habits are hard to break, and gulping down any personally known information and not sharing it is always a good resting for the corrupted conscience.
Yes, Archer used that phrase in his testimony.
Where you at bug boy? We are waiting….
I’m sure the little coward is off doing his best Jeffrey Toobin.
What a shame that Turley is such a loser that he “works for Fox”, instead of trolling the internet obsessing over DJT
Unsurprising that you’ve got a staph infection.
Dennis McIntyre – Readover Country
Jonathan: The weekend wouldn’t be complete without mentioning Melania Trump. She is terrified the gravy train is over. Just after Judge Engoron took away all of DJT’s certificates to do business in NY and will probably force him to disgorge perhaps billions he made from persistent business fraud, Melania realized she had to do something to protect herself and her son Barron.
So, in a purely transactional move, Melania is demanding DJT renegotiate their pre-nup. This is the third time she has done this. Melania sees the handwriting on the wall. She knows about all the four criminal indictments and the possibility her husband could land in federal prison. She wants the money up front before that happens. And Melania wants a sizable trust for Barron.
Will DJT go along? Maybe, because he needs Melania by his side on the campaign trail next year. Sure, DJT thinks his wife is trying to extort him. He knows a lot about extortion. But that’s the price DJT will have to pay. What if DJT refuses Melania’s demands? He probably doesn’t have the money to pay off all his debts–which won’t leave much for Melania and Barron. We know where that will end. Splashed on the front pages of every newspaper, and in social media will be this: “Melania sues her deadbeat husband for divorce”–right in the middle of the 2024 campaign. Not good optics for the “family values” crowd. Whatever happens Melania has DJT by the short hairs! And it’s gonna hurt!
Poor Denise.
Melania Trump is setting up funds for Baron in case Trump has to declare bankruptcy.
(Which is more and more likely in that he’ll have to do this if found guilty in NYC. )
-G
Tom says:October 1, 2023 at 4:35 PM
“Melania has DJT by the short hairs”
Look at Dennis daydreaming about Trump’s pubic hairs. Are they orange, Dennis?
No doubt he found more than a few of those in his coffee when he was “stationed” at the Presidio.
You are a disgrace to this forum.
+1
Or the whole thing could be Trump hiding assets from, well, everybody. It does not take one NY minute that Trump is right now hiding money.
The weekend wouldnt be complete without Dennis fantasizing about DJT’s short hairs.
Dennis you are truly gifted at narcissistic projection. This bit of shocking news is from the gossip rag of the the New York Post – Page Six. https://pagesix.com/2023/09/28/melania-trump-quietly-renegotiated-donald-trump-prenup/ But its absolutely true since it comes from unnamed “sources” and that unimpeachable fella “insider.” Is Page Six where you get all you talking points. It would explain allot. Inquiring minds want to know.
Professor Turley, you are the truth and the light of human freedom, rational self-governance, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
The evil, greedy, power-hungry deniers of freedom and purveyors of the illogical, incoherent, and preposterous “dictatorship of the hired help” cannot bear the light of truth.
As Bolsheviks, they slaughtered the Romanov Family as wanton, heinous, megalomaniacal criminals seeking contrived, illegitimate dominion in the name of evil incarnate Karl Marx.
Democracy, in its republican form, has restricted the vote and perpetuated the “dictatorship of the worthy” since its inception in Greece.
The inquiry begged to be opened on Constitutional grounds and proceed from there. Civics is a hard lesson to learn in the ‘modern’ era. They should have given it to Mark Levin. He made that case well recently. I suppose it’s all about the money with this lot.
A “hard lesson” in uncivil civics class!
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1707797015688826964
An impeachment inquiry, like any other inquiry, is but an investigation aimed at seeking information about facts that show a probability of the occurrence of corruption. The persons asked to testify at the the hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability brought their expertise not as fact witnesses, but more importantly at this juncture as experts who appreciate that there are many dots to be connected. Three of the panelists performed as they should have, i.e., methodically, deliberatively, and most important apolitically. It is regrettable that University of North Carolina Professor Michael Gerhardt was the lone exception. But then in his defense, he was not called by his fellow democrats for his professionalism, but rather for his politics.
The fact that Turley is criticized at both extremes of the political divide is evidence of the rush to judgment that is too often the result of narrow-minded thinking. For the intolerant on the left there are no troubling questions to be answered and thus no inquiry needed. For the intolerant on the right the troubling questions are themselves answers enough to convict. Turley satisfies neither, but he serves well the interests of those who simply wish to know the truth that an inquiry will ultimately reveal.
Where are the steady hands in Congress? There are a few in both Houses. It’s not the Squad or raghead Jamie and it’s not the disrupters trying to unhorse Kevin McCarthy. Maybe they are working behind the scenes in both parties to avoid making both the GOP and the Democrat a clown show, but they need to get vocal and help us look like a real Constitutional Republic. When this is all over, we would like to have our nation back in one piece, if not two.
Jonathan: I title this comment “The Proper Way for DJT not to get in Further Legal Trouble”.
Joint Chiefs Chair Mark Milley could be a witness against DJT in the Jack Smith’s Jan 6 case against DJT. Milley has been outspoken about DJT’s attempt at a coup to overturn the 2020 election. DJT knows Milley will likely be a witness against him. So what does he do? Here is what DJT said about Milley last weekend:
“This guy [Milley] turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was
actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the US.
This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH”.
Well, not exactly “times gone by”. 18 US Code, Section 2381, defines “Treason” as, in part: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them, or adheres to their enemies…is guilty of treason and shall suffer death”.
So DJT is at it again. Threatening a witness with DEATH. That’s witness tampering and also a crime. Retired 4-Star US Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey called out DJT for his threats saying “what we are seeing is a parallel to the 1930s in Nazi Germany”. When those opposed to Hitler’s rule were shot for treason. This is why Jack Smith is asking Judge Chutkan for a gag order on DJT to prevent him from continuing to threaten witnesses. Will that stop DJT? Probably not because he is desperate to regain power and is pulling out all the stops.
What we see on full display from DJT is a neo-fascist MAGA cult leader who thinks he is above the law. DJT’s worldview is that any opposition is not to be debated, it is to be destroyed. Just like Hitler. That includes Mark Milley who no doubt DJT would, if he becomes the next President, put to death for standing up for the Constitution. DJT and his cult followers are engaged in acts of democide!
. Milley has been outspoken about DJT’s attempt at a coup to overturn the 2020 election.
Something Milley has zero reason to suspect, because the President never signaled such an intent.
Shorter response. NO evidece.
What Milley
What Miley did with is China call was colluding with China (the enemy). violating chain of command.
That is treason and the sentence incudes being put to death.
President Trump speaks accurately.
In Great Britain in recent centuries, the penalty for demonstrations of fealty and allegiance to an enemy, or treason, was Drawing and Quartering.
That which was reference by Trump to which “the punishment would have been DEATH” could have been ESPIONAGE, not Treason. Trump never said Treason in the information provided by you.
But aside from that, when you claimed that Trump was referring to “DEATH” as the only punishment PRESENT DAY, you directly contradicted what you quote Trump as actually saying, as he was apparently quite clear about placing that as the only available punishment at some time in the unspecified PAST — “in times GONE BY.”
It was YOU, not Trump, who dragged the death penalty into the present, claiming that that’s what Trump was saying while you IGNORED the very legal authority you PARTIALLY cited, which more-fully reads:
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
So today — especially under peace time — the punishment might be as low as 5 years and $10,000.
You’re the one that said it was “Treason” and you’re the one that said it required the “death” penalty. Trump never said ANY of that.
I think Professor Turley is correct, not enough has come out yet to warrant impeachment, but an inquiry is certainly justified given the evidence produced by the GOP so far. While Joe Biden himself maybe has not gotten any payoffs, the evidence is growing that he encouraged his family to monetize his powerful VP position. This is Banana Republic like stuff. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, none of these Presidents knowingly allowed thier relatives to “cash in” on the Presdency, this is an unseemingly thing to have going on. We cannot allow the US to be put up for “sale”. While not enough evidence has come out to warrant an impeachment, certainly GOP members are giving indepedant voters a reason not to vote for Biden’s re-election which will doom his campaing for re-election. The Clinton’s really set the stage for this, they were greedy beyond belief; I voted againt Hillary because she she was giving all these speeches for money – 100K a pop for speeches – to foreign govt., billionare types, etc in the lead-up to her POTUS run. She was monetizing her past as White House occupant, Senator, and Sec of State. But she also schemed to monetize her future occupancy of the White House. This had never been done before (the Clinton’s banked a reported 150 million leading up to Hillary’s run). The greed of the Clinton’s was sickening; thier greed for money, for fame, for free vacations (on somebody else’s dime, including taxpayers), I about bart now ehen i see them on TV.
The check apparently to Joe Biden’s home certainly hard evidence apparently $250K from China. I was a government worker but not in the Federal tier although in 17 years was dispatched many times to Federal agencies to assist. Not one time was any communication from a citizen or concern permitted to reach my desk w/o being screened and opened by higher ups for security purposes first and if determined withheld. So why did that check go directly to Biden’s home address? Was there an endorsement on the back we can check? Shersha la Femme as the French say.