House Initiates Impeachment Inquiry into Biden: Where’s the Evidence?
Modern impeachment inquiries generally follow a specific pattern. They typically commence after the revelation of undeniable incriminating proof. Take, for instance, the impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton in 1998. It was initiated only after DNA tests on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress exposed Clinton’s perjury regarding their affair. Similarly, in 2019, the House launched an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump following reports of his attempts to coerce President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine into investigating his political rival. The release of a transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky confirmed these allegations.
We all remember the events that transpired on January 6, 2021. Trump’s weeks-long dissemination of falsehoods about election fraud culminated in a violent attack on the Capitol, leading to his second impeachment by the House.
However, on Monday, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy authorized an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden without substantial evidence, contradicting the usual sequence of events. In fact, the absence of evidence becomes a twisted justification for this inquiry. The ostensible pretext is the need to grant greater investigatory authority to House committees examining whether Biden lied about his business dealings with his son Hunter and if he afforded him special treatment during his ongoing criminal investigation.
But here’s the crux of the matter: Where is the blue dress? Where is the incriminating phone call? Where is the riot? It’s indisputable that members of the Biden family, especially Hunter, have financially benefited from Joe Biden’s political career. However, concrete evidence implicating the President directly in Hunter’s schemes or sharing in his profits is currently lacking. There is also no evidence suggesting that the President violated the law.
Ironically, McCarthy’s announcement comes after previous Republican investigations failed to discover any incriminating activity by President Biden. The evidence presented is nowhere near comparable to the evidence that prompted inquiries against Clinton or Trump.
Republicans might argue that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” They may point to Hunter’s text message to his daughter, where he seemingly stated that half his money goes to his father. They could highlight Joe Biden’s false denial of Hunter’s business dealings in China. They could even mention certain federal whistleblowers who faced obstacles in their investigation of Hunter. Some Republicans may even resurrect the debunked claim that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor, because of Hunter’s affiliation with Burisma, an assertion without substance.
It is also worth noting the glaring hypocrisy displayed by Republicans. Their deep concern about Joe Biden possibly profiting from his position appears comical when compared to the Trump administration’s blatant channeling of federal funds into Trump properties. If we’re discussing the sleaziness of relatives of presidents profiting from their access to power, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who worked in the administration, have gained exponentially more from Saudi Arabian and Chinese favoritism.
Furthermore, the claim that the House cannot properly investigate the President’s finances without an impeachment inquiry is unfounded. The House possesses extensive investigatory authority even in the absence of such an inquiry. Just last year, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s attempt to prevent the House from obtaining his tax returns, highlighting the House’s legislative oversight role.
McCarthy’s approach can be aptly described as a fishing expedition. He is unilaterally launching an uncommon inquiry into a sitting President not based on existing evidence, but on the evidence Republicans believe might exist. This significantly expands the House’s interpretation of its role in impeachment, potentially endangering future presidents whenever the House is controlled by the opposition party.
To understand the motive behind all this, one must comprehend the almost fanatical significance that parts of the right have placed on Hunter Biden. He has become the central focus of obsession in right-wing media. In their world, the temporary suppression of contents from his laptop by tech companies cost Trump the election. In their minds, the Biden family resembles a criminal syndicate, guilty of offenses far surpassing the typical sleazy profiteering seen in other political families.
Moreover, McCarthy clings to power, partially relying on the support of far-right firebrands like Matt Gaetz. These individuals constantly threaten his speakership unless he complies with their demands. Impeaching Biden has become a critical aspect of right-wing activism. In fact, two prominent House Republicans, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, recently engaged in a public quarrel after Greene accused Boebert of plagiarism regarding her proposed articles of impeachment against Biden.
Lastly, we cannot underestimate the extent to which claims of Democratic corruption serve as a justification for continued Republican support of Trump. This is how individuals who assert their commitment to integrity reduce themselves to becoming Trump sycophants. If everyone is guilty of such acts—if Joe Biden is just as corrupt as, or even worse than, Trump, and he’s a Democrat—then why not back the man they believe at least fights their enemies and advances their causes?
I write this piece not to vouch for Joe Biden’s integrity or to defend any aspect of Hunter Biden’s conduct or career. If solid evidence of significant misconduct exists—equivalent to proof of Clinton’s perjury, Trump’s quid pro quo call, or Trump’s incitement of a riot—then opening impeachment proceedings would be a legitimate response. However, initiating an impeachment inquiry without such evidence is an abuse of the House’s power and another dangerous escalation of American political warfare.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
