patrick.net

https://x.com/SpeakerMcCarthy/status/1701616470793547969

An impeachment inquiry can be opened in two ways. The first, traditional, way is a vote of the full House of Representatives, which until President Trump’s term was the only way you could do it. The new second way has been called the “Pelosi Precedent,” where the Speaker of the House can just “announce” an impeachment inquiry, and bingo-bongo, you’re cooking with gas. That’s how former Speaker Pelosi started the Trump impeachments, both of them, breaking from prior procedure and creating a whole new easier and faster way.

It was turbo impeachment! So, that’s what Kevin McCarthy did. He just followed the Pelosi Precedent and announced the impeachment. It only takes one person now. Game on.

There seems to be some confusion over whether McCarthy actually commenced impeachment proceedings. He did. And if you have any doubt, Establishment Media sure thinks he did:




The funniest headline I saw was Vanity Fair’s. This is, supposedly, a straight news piece:




Speaking of fiesty Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), she explained the process at length yesterday. She also confirmed that the impeachment process has in fact begun. ...

Is the long-awaited Biden impeachment a good thing? Some Republicans wonder whether there is even any point in trying to impeach President Peters, since the Senate is unlikely to vote to convict, no matter what the evidence shows.

There are two compelling reasons why impeachment is necessary.

First, as Marjorie explained in the above clip, the hearings and the investigation could roll right through November 2024, giving Republicans a high-profile forum to drip out damaging information on Biden, which could arguably help with the presidential campaign.

That might also explain Governor Newsom’s stealth presidential campaign. If Biden steps out and doesn’t run for a second term, democrats will start wailing that the impeachment inquiry is moot, since there’d be no chance or even any point in removing Biden before next year’s election.

But second, and maybe even more important, the impeachment inquiry turbo-charges the House’s investigative powers. For example, Biden directed the National Archives to refuse to turn over 5,400 emails he sent under his various clever pseudonyms like “Robert L. Peters.”

With impeachment powers, the National Archives must now turn those emails over to House investigators. I can’t wait to see them.

Democrats are in denial, so far keeping a brave face on that this impeachment thing is just a lot of political smoke and no bribery fire. So let’s turn to the democrats’ clownish argument that there is “no evidence” Biden did anything wrong and the whole thing is a partisan witch hunt.

The Evidence

Democrats are claiming there’s no “evidence” Joe Biden did anything wrong. It’s a go-to argument for democrats (see, e.g., “no evidence” of election fraud), but it won’t work this time.

First of all, keep in mind that during the first Trump impeachment, the only “evidence” required by democrats was some highly-sketchy testimony from a sold-out partisan witness about something Trump said on the phone that, if you twisted it just the right way, could possibly be interpreted as being improper political pressure for partisan purposes. In other words, “quid pro quo!”

Ironically, the call fueling Trump’s first impeachment discussed the exact same Biden corruption in Ukraine that is now driving Biden’s own impeachment investigation (from Epoch Times):




... The way democrats try to confuse people is they conflate the word “evidence” with “absolute proof.” When they say “there’s no evidence,” they actually just mean “you can’t prove it.” It’s an argument from ignorance. If you asked democrats, they wouldn’t agree that bank statements, for example, are evidence, even though bank statements are used as evidence every single day.

Democrats just want to argue about what the bank statements mean.

But no one needs to engage with that kind of argument. The decision about what evidence means is not up to democrats or anyone else, it is up to the legal fact finder: the judge, the jury, or the House of Representatives in this situation. ...

From comments to the various impeachment-related Twitter posts, it’s obvious that a common democrat talking point is “there might be evidence to impeach Hunter, but he’s not the president!” The implication being that Republicans might be able to prove Hunter committed some crimes, but can’t link Hunter to Joe.

That’s a rubbish argument, and here’s why.

If a politician does a “favor” for a crime boss, and the crime boss pays the politician’s wife, it’s still bribery. If the crime boss pays the politician’s crackhead son on account of the favor, it’s still bribery. So, evidence that Joe Biden did a favor for a shady Ukrainian oligarch who was paying Hunter millions — for doing nothing — is also evidence that Joe Biden was bribed.

It’s up to the judge or jury to evaluate (“weigh”) all the admitted evidence and decide whether it’s more likely that Biden took a bribe or whether it was all just a fabulous coincidence. In the case of impeachment, the “jury” is ultimately the full House of Representatives.

Apart from Biden’s Bribery, what about Hunter’s Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) violations? Isn’t that just Hunter’s business? What does that have to do with President Peters?

Everything!

In my opinion, when Biden directed his DOJ to not prosecute his sex-trafficking son who was peddling political influence and lobbying for shady oligarchs without registering, that was also “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

And I bet a lot of folks would agree with me. The excuse that “any loving father would do the same thing” is a defense Biden’s lawyers can try out during the impeachment hearings.

Finally, Republicans aren’t required to already have all the evidence in order to justify starting the impeachment process, because it begins with an investigation.

For instance, if democrats say, well, you can’t prove Biden corruptly influenced the DOJ — that’s what the impeachment investigation is for! It’s about collecting all the evidence to prove the case. Maybe the DOJ has been keeping secret its wonderfully compelling reason why it never prosecuted Hunter. The DOJ can now reveal that compelling reason under oath if it wants to.

But of course, the democrats don’t really mean there’s no evidence anyway. It’s just the politics of convenience. Former Fox News commenter Kyle Becker made a great point yesterday, comparing and contrasting the tiny scraps of “evidence” required for the democrats’ two Trump impeachment inquiries versus the Republicans’ mountain of actual evidence against Joe Biden...

Let the games begin! And here you thought the Fall was going to be a long boring news cycle. Nope. Get ready. It’s on like Donkey Kong.

According to Becker, the evidence gathered so far includes:

Hunter’s business partners & associates met in the White House over 80 times when Biden was VP.

Biden on the phone call with Hunter’s business associates at least 20 times as VP.

Hunter taking trips to at least 15 countries when his dad was VP and subsequently meeting with business associates on multiple occasions.

Joe Biden meeting IN PERSON with Hunter Business partners and a Moscow mayor’s wife who subsequently wired $3.5 million to Hunter’s firm and then avoided Russian sanctions under his presidency.

Joe Biden meeting with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskiy in 2015 which prompted his turn on the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office.

Joe Biden was “the brand” behind Hunter’s influence-peddling operation.

Hunter Biden cashed in on his father’s name to the tune of millions of dollars.

Joe Biden used three different pseudonyms to exchange official government information with Hunter Biden: Robert L. Peters, Robin Ware, JRB Ware.

A “trusted” and “reliable” source in the FBI provided testimony that both Hunter and Joe Biden participated in a $5 million international bribery scheme.

There are bank records and shell company statements showing multiple suspicious transactions amounting to over $20 million to the Bidens.

An email trail shows that Hunter Biden sought ’10 held by H for the Big Guy’ – the Big Guy meaning Joe Biden according to multiple witnesses.

Hunter Biden described Joe Biden as an office mate and then listed Chairman Ye of CEFC as his partner.

Business associate Rob Walker told the FBI that Joe Biden met personally with CEFC business members.

CCP-connected businessmen, including spies, sent millions of dollars and even a diamond to the Bidens as part of the influence-peddling scheme.

The Bidens set up elaborate methods of hiding these illicit Chinese payments.

Hunter business associates implicated that Joe Biden was involved but not to mention it because “they are paranoid.”

Joe Biden wrote a recommendation for the daughter of a Hunter business partner to get into Georgetown.

Joe Biden met with Hunter’s Mexican business associates on Air Force 2.

IRS whistleblower investigating Hunter Biden’s business affairs testified that Biden-appointed D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves refused to charge Hunter Biden in his jurisdiction and allowed the statute of limitations to pass for specific tax charges.

IRS whistleblower on the Hunter Biden case Joseph Ziegler testified how the Bidens were given preferential treatment during the Justice Department’s investigation.

Both IRS whistleblowers confirmed they were not allowed to follow evidence that could have led to Joe Biden.

Hunter Biden lamented to his daughter in a 2019 text message that he was giving Joe Biden “half” his salary.

Emails between Hunter and his business partner Eric Schwerin detail bill payments for ‘JRB’ – believed to be Joseph Robinette Biden – incidentally one of Joe Biden’s pseudonyms was JRB Ware.

The Left is now suddenly voicing warnings that those who recently undermined the system could be targeted by their own legacies.

So, for example, now we read why impeachment is suddenly a dangerous gambit.

True, the Founders did not envision impeaching a first-term president the moment he lost his House majority. Nor did they imagine impeaching a president twice. And they certainly did not anticipate trying an ex-president in the Senate as a private citizen.

In modern times, the nation has not rushed to impeach a president without a special counsel investigation to determine whether the chief executive was guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

But thanks to the Democrats, recent impeachments now have destroyed all those guardrails. After all, Trump was impeached the first time on the fumes of an exhaustive but fruitless 22-month, $40 million special counsel investigation—one designed to find him guilty of Russian “collusion” and thus to be removed from office but found no actionable offenses at all.

Instead, dejected Democrats moved immediately for a second try. In September 2019 a few weeks after Trump had announced his 2020 reelection bid, the Democratic House began to impeach the president on the new grounds that he had talked to the President Zelensky of Ukraine and said he might delay offensive arms shipments—unless the Ukrainians could demonstrate that they had ended corruption and, in particular, were no longer influenced by the Biden family quid pro quo shakedowns.

Trump was proven right: the Biden family is not just corrupt, but, in particular, Joe Biden as head of the family and Vice President had intervened in the internal politics of an aid recipient, by threatening not to delay but rather to cancel outright all U.S. aid to Ukraine—unless it fired Viktor Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor.

Shokin was then looking into the misadventures of Biden’s son Hunter, and why the Vice President’s imbecilic son was receiving lucrative compensation on the boards of a Ukrainian energy company Burisma, yet without any demonstrable expertise or education in matters of energy policy.

Since Trump was impeached, we now know that Joe Biden did lie that he had no connection with or even knowledge of his son’s business. And we know that the fired prosecutor believed the Bidens were recipients of bribes. We know that contrary to Biden’s assertions, he was not following State Department policy.

In contrast, the U.S. had, in fact, lauded Shokin’s efforts to repress corruption. In sum, Biden was undermining the stated policy of the U.S. government to protect his son’s—and his own—efforts to leverage money from Kyiv by monetizing the influence of his own Vice Presidency. In some sense, Biden was guilty of the very “treason” charge—altering U.S. foreign policy for personal benefit—by which Rep. Adam Schiff had earlier falsely accused Trump.

Given that reality, it is easy to argue that the House impeached Donald Trump in 2019 for crimes that he did not commit, but which the current president Joe Biden most certainly had during his Vice Presidency.

But weaponizing impeachment is just one baleful legacy of the Left. There are plenty more of their own precedents that Leftists now would not wish to have applied to themselves...

"Those conniving Republicans are at it again," said Senator Chuck Schumer ever so nasally from the steps of the Capitol. "They're always trying to undermine our Constitutional structures just to get around how we undermined our nation's election process. The nerve!"

Democrats claim Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars by using bank records, whistleblowers, credible allegations, and first-hand witnesses to scheme their way into removing from office a man who rightfully won the election by millions of rigged votes.

At publishing time, Democrats had expressed worries House Speaker McCarthy would finish the impeachment process sometime in the next 17 years.

In the latest Biden family reveal, a new report has just dropped showing that Joe Biden’s niece secretly messaged Hunter Biden about a Chinese business deal while she was working in the Obama administration.

Casey Owens was a treasury official while her uncle was vice president. This further goes to show that there was a huge conflict of interest and other shenanigans likely going on while Biden was in the number two highest office in the land. The family is now coming under increased scrutiny for its connections to China and the Communist Chinese Party (CCP).

Owens reportedly shared tips with Hunter Biden concerning China’s largest government wealth fund, which he later sought as a potential investment opportunity, according to emails from the “laptop from hell.”

“Casey Owens, the daughter of first sister Valerie Biden Owens, notified her cousin and his business partners at now-defunct Rosemont Seneca Advisors about an investment conference held by China Investment Corporation (CIC) while working as a special assistant for the department’s US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, an April 12, 2010, email shows,” the New York Post reported.

Ted Cruz Drops Hammer on Biden: ‘There’s at Least Two Instances of Direct Evidence of Joe’s Corruption’

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said there was both circumstantial and direct evidence of “corruption” linked to Democrat President Joe Biden.

The senator was responding to false claims from the Democrats and their corporate media allies that there’s “no evidence” to justify an impeachment inquiry into Biden. ...

“You know, the latest talking points Democrats are trying to trot out in response to this impeachment inquiry is there is no direct evidence of Joe’s involvement in the corruption.

“So they’ve pretty much given up on Hunter.

“There’s at least two instances of direct evidence of Joe’s corruption.

“Number one, you played on this show, which is Joe Biden’s admission in front of the Council on Foreign Relations that he held a billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer loan guarantees hostage in order to force the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian oligarch.

“That is one of the critical elements of bribery, of the quid pro quo.

“Quid pro quo, as you know, is Latin for this for that.

“The ‘that’ Joe Biden has admitted to that is direct evidence that he’s admitted to.

“The only question is, is there the ‘quid?’ Is there the $5 to 10 million of payments?

“Now, on that, there is circumstantial evidence.

“There are the million dollars plus of payments to the Biden family, and there is also the consistent pattern of obstruction and covering it up, which in any court of law you would draw a negative inference from.”