Biden Impeachment Inquiry

[Robert]

The House of Representatives has voted, along party lines, to open an Impeachment Inquiry on President Joe Biden.

The basic accusations is that he took payoffs through his family for things he did while VP and things he will do/has done as President.

From what I have learned, I think and inquiry is justified. I do not think an Impeachment is yet. I think they have to gather facts, but there is a lot of smoke.

I hope for an open process. I know politics will get in the way, but there are some honest questions that need to be asked.

I do not like that Hunter and James Biden has used Joe Biden's name and access to garner sweet deals. I do not think it was good when Jared Kushner did this either. We have to find out of there were some quid pro quos going on. It looks as though Hunter and James were point men for this process, but they are innocent until proven guilty, just as we should see President Biden.

[Ken]

Cashing in on your famous and powerful parent’s name isn’t illegal. It might be unseemly, but it’s not illegal. The children of the rich, famous, and powerful from every walk of life do it, always have, and always will. So as far as Hunter Biden goes, cheating on your taxes is illegal. As is falsifying firearms paperwork. But cashing in on your famous name is not. Maybe it should be. But we don’t live in that world.

As far as Joe Biden goes. He is apparently being accused of bribery. To date I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden took bribes. But if they think they have the goods they should go for it. Taking bribes would be an impeachable offense. Having a wastrel son is not.

[Grace]

An impeachment inquiry would not be necessary if the DOJ and the Biden family were forthcoming with their information, instead of slow walking, stone walling and refusing to release some records. When huge amounts of money was paid to Joe Biden, from other family members, with the claim the money was a loan, why not show the loan promissory notes, and if any was paid back. If the money was a gift, show proof that taxes were paid on the gift. An example would be the 200K James Biden paid directly to Joe Biden. If it was a loan, was there a promissory note?

And why was there a need for so many shell companies? What services or good were being provided, for the millions that was deposited into those shell companies.Why did the Biden family set up the over 20 shell companies and made a concerted effort to hide payments from foreign adversaries? These are some of the questions an impeachment inquiry will provide answers to.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/com ... %EF%BF%BC/

The fact that the Biden family and the DOJ is NOT forthcoming with information about the Biden family is very telling. The fact that Joe Biden lied to the American people about his involvement in his son's business dealings is very telling as well.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/0 ... y-00125056
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-comm ... im-1816732
https://oversight.house.gov/blog/joe-bi ... s-schemes/

[Bootstrap]

I think any impeachment inquiry should:

1. Explain specifically how they believe the president has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” and
2. Provide some strong evidence to back it up.

Every other impeachment inquiry has done so. And in every other impeachment inquiry, it was something done as president.

https://www.justsecurity.org/90670/the- ... l-anarchy/

... both precedent and common sense dictate that before seeking the imprimatur of the House of Representatives for a formal impeachment inquiry, a president’s critics should be obliged to meet at least two minimal requirements: (1) identify how they believe the president has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” and (2) provide a reasonable quantum of evidence that the president indeed committed such offenses.

As I have explained at length in my book High Crimes & Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump, these minimal requirements have been satisfied in every previous presidential impeachment inquiry. Andrew Johnson was impeached for abusing presidential power in the management of post-Civil War reconstruction and, in particular, for openly violating the Tenure of Office Act by firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

The House opened a formal impeachment inquiry on Richard Nixon only after investigations by the Watergate special prosecutor and the Senate Watergate Committee identified an array of conduct that, once brought home to the president, was plainly impeachable.

The House opened the Clinton impeachment inquiry only after Independent Counsel Ken Starr presented his exhaustive report proving that the president had lied under oath about adulterous sex. Whether that conduct amounted to “high crimes and misdemeanors” was fairly debatable, but the facts of Clinton’s disgraceful conduct and the constitutional theory for its impeachability were plain from the outset.

The first Trump impeachment inquiry was authorized only after public revelation of Trump’s attempt to use presidential power to coerce Ukrainian leaders into announcing an investigation into presidential rival Joe Biden. And the second Trump impeachment followed only days after the former president’s attempt to overturn his election loss produced a riot in the Capitol directed at and witnessed by the members of Congress who voted to impeach him.

In short, in every previous case, the essential focus of the inquiry – both in terms of the range of conduct at issue and nature of the alleged constitutional violation – was clear to Congress and the public from the outset. Likewise, in every previous case, the House did not launch a formal inquiry until substantial evidence supported some identifiable constitutional offense.

Neither is true of the Biden inquiry.

[Bootstrap]

As far as Joe Biden goes. He is apparently being accused of bribery. To date I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden took bribes. But if they think they have the goods they should go for it. Taking bribes would be an impeachable offense. Having a wastrel son is not.

Well, not actually accused of bribery. And not actually accused of any specific impeachable offense. Weird, eh?

The impeachment inquiry memo carefully avoids actually saying that Joe Biden ever received any money from his family’s foreign business ventures. So far, I have seen no credible evidence that he did so.

If the impeachment inquiry memo made this specific claim and provided credible evidence to back it, it would look a lot more like other impeachment inquiries.

And if Trump did not make open public threats to Republicans who do not go along with an impeachment inquiry, it would also make the process look more credible.

[Bootstrap]

An impeachment inquiry would not be necessary if the DOJ and the Biden family were forthcoming with their information, instead of slow walking, stone walling and refusing to release some records. When huge amounts of money was paid to Joe Biden, from other family members, with the claim the money was a loan, why not show the loan promissory notes, and if any was paid back. If the money was a gift, show proof that taxes were paid on the gift. An example would be the 200K James Biden paid directly to Joe Biden. If it was a loan, was there a promissory note?

I think this is well explained here, and the oversight committee has the records that this relies on:

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/cherr ... joe-biden/

The $200,000 payment from James Biden on March 1, 2018, was labeled “loan repayment” in the memo field on the check, and Democrats on the oversight committee say bank records also show a payment from Joe Biden to his brother six weeks prior, which they say is consistent with a no-interest, short-term loan to James Biden.

At the very least, Comer should take this into account and explain what the problem was. He has these records.

The Trumps never provided this level of financial information. Donald Trump didn't even release his taxes like every other president. And the Trumps have over 500 shadow corporations.

[Ken]

As far as Joe Biden goes. He is apparently being accused of bribery. To date I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden took bribes. But if they think they have the goods they should go for it. Taking bribes would be an impeachable offense. Having a wastrel son is not.

Well, not actually accused of bribery. And not actually accused of any specific impeachable offense. Weird, eh?

The impeachment inquiry memo carefully avoids actually saying that Joe Biden ever received any money from his family’s foreign business ventures. So far, I have seen no credible evidence that he did so.

If the impeachment inquiry memo made this specific claim and provided credible evidence to back it, it would look a lot more like other impeachment inquiries.

And if Trump did not make open public threats to Republicans who do not go along with an impeachment inquiry, it would also make the process look more credible.

Well, the accusations here on this forum are that he is guilty of bribery. For example, in the post that started this thread, Robert wrote: "The basic accusations is that he took payoffs through his family for things he did while VP and things he will do/has done as President." The technical definition for that behavior is bribery.

Those allegations are being widely made in the right-wing ecosphere and being repeated by various Congressional Republicans like Comer in their public statements and tweets.

The fact that they have no actual evidence to back up those accusations is telling.

[Bootstrap]

The fact that they have no actual evidence to back up those accusations is telling.

They have spent a year investigating.

That's enough time to come up with a specific charge and clear evidence for the charge. Which is what you normally have for an impeachment inquiry. I agree with this:

https://www.justsecurity.org/90670/the- ... l-anarchy/

The Republican memo cites five basic episodes to justify a formal inquiry. All of them crumble under even modest scrutiny.

The article gives details.

And none of these "episodes" is an actual charge of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.

[Robert]

I think any impeachment inquiry should:

2. Provide some strong evidence to back it up.

No. An inquiry is to allow for the gathering of strong evidence.

[JimFoxvog]

Has someone here studied the history of impeachment?

The impeachments I have heard of all involve alleged misdeeds done while in the office a person was being impeached from. Here the alleged misdeeds are way back when Biden was VP. Is this normal?