The Biden Impeachment inquiry. A dangerous precedent?

The Congress recently voted (along party lines, of course) to open an official impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. I know that this post is in the politics category but I don't wish to make it a partisan political discussion but rather a constitutional one about the process itself. It should not be a partisan issue as while it affects one party at the moment the precedent it sets may affect political figures on both sides of the aisle for generations to come.

This is uncharted territory and a true precedent. First of note is that they are not calling it an "Impeachment Investigation" but rather a "inquiry". There have been 6 impeachment investigations against 4 different Presidents. Those investigations have led to 4 impeachments, 1 for Andrew Johnson, 1 for Bill Clinton and 2 for Donald Trump. Andrew Johnson had one investigation that did not lead to impeachment and a second which did and James Buchanan had an investigation which did not lead to impeachment. So, what is so different this time? It's all in the reason it's an inquiry.

In every impeachment investigation to date, it was an investigation into credible evidence of alleged acts. In the case of Johnson, it was a direct violation of the 'Tenure of Office Act" over illegally firing the Secretary of War and appointing a interim one without congressional approval. And a second one for a violation of the "Command of Army Act". Clinton was accused of lying under oath when testifying about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Donald Trump's first impeachment was on 2 charges. The first was "Abuse of power by "pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals ahead of the 2020 election while withholding a White House meeting and $400 million in U.S. security aid from Kyiv." The second was "Obstruction of Congress by directing defiance of subpoenas issued by the House and ordering officials to refuse to testify." His second impeachment, of course was based on several acts he engaged in relating to the Jan 6 riots. Note the one thing that all these had in common. The investigation was into an identified act that the President had done. It was simply a matter of whether that act rose to the level of warranting impeachment. The difference this time is that while the House has spent the last 3 months investigating to see if they can find anything on the President and to date has alleged no act that might warrant impeachment. They simply opened an "impeachment inquiry" to see if they can't find an act that they haven't yet found, all with no evidence that such act even exists.

If you think of the Congressional Impeachment process as the court of law for federal employees, then this is analogous to a court saying, I think we'll hold a preliminary hearing to determine if you might have committed a crime even though there's no evidence you have and no one has credible assertions that you have. What are the implications for such a precedent? My research indicates this is the first time an American citizen has had a formal inquiry from a law enforcement agency or congress into whether they committed a crime with no evidence and even no credible allegation that they have done anything wrong. Is this precedent dangerous? Any thoughts on the future implications?

WilliamLhk said:

I believe that specific allegations include bribery through foreign influence peddling. By means of his son, who is required by law to register as someone acting as an agent for foreign governments, but has not done so. But being covered for by Biden senior and the Justice Department. Those seem to be the main lines the investigation is following.

Click to expand...

I understand the "allegations" and the "lines they are following". They are the same ones they have been following for 3 months and have found not even a credible allegation of wrongdoing by the President. That's the question. The "allegations" are unsubstantiated and the lines they are following have to date resulted in no credible ones and no evidence of an act that would warrant impeachment, else they would list them, just has every previous impeachment investigation. So, why begin an impeachment inquiry without any specific act to investigate? Is that constitutional? Can a US citizen (or President) be subjected to a formal inquiry by a law enforcement entity or a court with no evidence of a wrongful act or tort, much less a crime? Is that a dangerous precedent? Can you imagine the chaos that will result if those standards begin being applied to others with whom those in power wish to find something for which to blame or prosecute them?

Jermayn said:

Dems wanted to weaponize the impeachment process against Trump. Congrats. It's now a weapon. Expect at least 1 impeachment per President from now on.

Click to expand...

You are making a partisan political thing of it. It's about the fact that a President (or anyone else for that matter) has never before been subjected to a impeachment "inquiry" without a specific alleged act and the constitutional legal precedent this sets. The Trump impeachments were, like all others before, about specific acts and were convened to determine if those acts met the requirements for impeachment. This is an inquiry to see if an act can be found, so your comparison is a false equivalency.

WilliamLhk said:

According to you and the globalist media. Not according to members of the committee and many others.

And remember, not all of what the committee has already discovered has been made public, nor should be at this stage of the process.

All the public posturing and name-calling and accusations against the committee show most people, I think it is evident, that the Bidens and their supporters are trying to keep damning information from coming to light.

Click to expand...

WilliamLhk said:

it doesn't matter what the committee has found, it's what they haven't. If they had an actual act to investigate they would surely have opened an investigation into a specific matter. And I'm curious, how do you know that there's even any damning information there to come to light. That doesn't make sense on several levels. Don't you think if the Committee had any "damning information" they would have listed it in authorization request so that they would be able to go directly to actually investigating whatever the mysterious "damning information" about whatever the mysterious unnamed act is? And as far as that is concerned it's totally off topic anyway. The topic is the precedent that's been set by opening an official legal inquiry without an act listed to inquire.

Click to expand...

eleos1954 said:

It is known that Hunter Biden had several shell companies. It is known (through bank records) money received by these shell companies was dispersed to Biden family members .... it is known taxes were not appropriately paid. They question that needs to be answered is what services were rendered to justify payment to these shell companies and from there who and how were funds dispersed to Biden family members. As far as President Biden is concerned ... via bank records there are large amounts of money that were transferred to him via Hunter Bidens' LLC companies.

These knowns are enough to warrant an official impeachment inquiry ... where it may lead is yet to be seen

Click to expand...

I asked in the initial post about the precedent set by the fact that an official impeachment inquiry had been convened with no actual act to investigate. The "knowns" you mention are nothing short of partisan talking points. I've heard them by every right wing pundit on TV. But let's look at some things that you fail to mention that make this the precedent that it is.

First, as to the "knowns" as you present them. You say "It is known that Hunter Biden had several shell companies. It is known (through bank records) money received by these shell companies was dispersed to family members." Your description lacks any detail and mentions only one side of the picture, which I must assume you are presenting as an argument that this is not a precedent. So, let's look at what is actually, known and alleged. It is known that Joe Biden received Hunter Biden’s law firm, Owasco PC, which had received payments from foreign companies, made 3 payments (in Sept., Oct & Nov 2018) in the amount of $1380. It is also known, from the e-mails and bank records that at that period in time, Joe Biden had purchased a 2018 Ford Raptor and those payments were $1380 per month. It is known that this truck was purchased for the use of Hunter Biden and he was making the payments. We know this because the committee has spent the past 3 months investigating it and between committee leaks, corroborated thorough investigations from the AP, the Washington Post and countless others, it is all public record. So, when you say "as far as President Biden is concerned...via bank records there are large amounts of money that were transferred to him via Hunter Biden's LLC companies" and fail to mention that the payments were from his law firm which received payments from foreign and shell companies or that these large amounts equaled a total of $1380 per month for 3 months and that those same records indicate that he made the car payment of the same amount, you are only serve widen the schism that has developed in today's highly charged partisan political arena. You mention that "it is known that taxes were not properly paid". You fail to mention the details. It is known that Hunter Biden has been indicted for tax evasion charges stemming from the late payment of taxes during that same period. You fail to mention that these taxes along with the penalties and interest were paid in full before the investigation even began.


So, let's look at precedent. I wasn't going to go into such great detail, as I had hoped a discussion of the one single precedent with the biggest possibility of future negative repercussions, but since we've gotten into some of the nuts and bolts, let's look at the precedents that are being set here.

First, it's almost unprecedented to bring further tax evasion charges in a case where the defendant had already paid the taxes along with the penalties and interest and so actually owed nothing at the time of the investigation.

Second, even if you can somehow make out a case for an unnamed malfeasance from the above facts, as you will note by the dates, they occurred when Joe Biden was not President or Vice President or even a member of any administration. It is unprecedented to hold an investigation for things that were done while not in office.

Third, the only allegations of any "high crime or misdemeanor" given the evidence, are against Hunter Biden, who was the drug addicted son of the President. There are no credible allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the President, only the one sided attempts by the committee leders and the right wing media to make a case of that he must have been involved in his sons crimes (for which he has yet to be tried). It's a precedent that an impeachment inquiry has been opened based on allegations, not against the President but against a family member with no proof that teh President ahd anything to do with any of the alleged crimes.

So, with all the evidence after 3 months of investigation, all the right wing rhetoric and 2 years of justice department investigation, there is no credible proof of any act of malfeisance by the President. Again, it is a precedent to open an impeachment "inquiry" into a President with no credible allegation of an act that might be a "high crime or misdemeanor".

For that matter, while we're on precedent and the current situation, Hunter Biden was also charged with a gun charge. This was because he answered on a gun permot application that he was not on drugs when indeed he has now admitted he was. I can't find a precedent where this charge was ever brought against a recovering addict for lying about their addiction while still addicted when that lie didn't lead to that firearm being used in another crime. It might have something to do with wishing addicts well on their recovery instead of dragging up old charges that wouldn't ever have been known had the addict not admitted their addiction as part of their recovery. Charges that could possibly cause enough stress so as to cause a relapse. Just a thought.

Now, since some seem to feel the need to make this a partisan issue, let's look at some possible ramifications from the other side of the coin. Let's assume a scenario where Trump (who is at the moment the odds on favorite to win the Republican nomination for President) wins and is elected again in 2024. (This in itself would be precedent setting as no President has been elected again after being imeached in their previous administration) Using the same criteria as is being used in the Biden matters, in July 2021, New York prosecutors charged the Trump organization with 10 counts in an alleged 15-year tax avoidance scheme. This was Trump's own company, not that of another relative. Before anyone asks about due process, I know that the case has not been adjudicated, but neither has the case for Hunter Biden, so we're talking apples for apples. So, using the precedent that was applied to Joe Biden, should there not be an "impeachment inquiry" on day 1 based on credible charges of tax evasion?

Then let's talk about allegations based on the business dealings of family members and the possibility of profit based on official actions of a President. Remember the uncorroborated allegations of profit by Joe Biden were during a time when he wasn't President and thus could not have used the weight of his office to benefit his son. The Chinese government granted a total of 41 trademarks to companies linked to Ivanka Trump by April of 2019—and the trademarks she applied for after her father became president got approved about 40% faster than those she requested before Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. That is known fact, so could they possibly have an impeachment inquiry into all 41 at the same time or per the new precedents, should that be 41 seperate inquiries?

During the Trump administration, Jared Kushner, the President's son spearheaded, along with Steve Mnuchin, a government-sponsored program dubbed the Abraham Fund, which the Trump administration said would raise $3 billion for projects around the Middle East. He met with and cajoled the leaders of more wealthy middle-east countries, including Saudi Arabia. The fund itself was pretty much a fiasco and never invested any money but Kushner becme his father-in laws defacto go between with the Suadis. Kushner then found himself in dire straits after he found himselfbadly upsidedown in property that he had purchased for well above appraised value and could borrow no money from traditional sources. Then after he advised the President to speak out in support of the Saudi leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, after he ordered the murder of American journlist, Jamal Khashoggi his compny received a $2B bailout from the Saudi investment fund even though when he had first requested the funds the panel that performs due diligence for the Saudi fund concluded that no one in their right mind would give the former first son-in-law a dime. Among other concerns, the panel noted that management was “inexperience[d],” that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk,” that its fee seemed “excessive,” and that the firm’s operations were “unsatisfactory in all aspects.” Yet they gve him the money anyway and he has been profiting from his delings with the fund ever since. So, there's another inquiry, as these dealings were during time when the President was taking advice from Kushner on Saudi policy and are public record.

The Trump organization boasts around 500 companies, with approximately half of them being probable shell companies and receives regular payments from them. Should we not impanel an impeachment inquiry to investigte every one of them to see how they may have influenced his official policy decisions?

Now, lets talk about shell companies and shady dealings as reltes to Rep. James Comer, the chair of the committee in charge of the "inquiry" . He is a multi-millionaire and one of the largest landholders in his hometown in rural KY. He hs documented his nearly 1600 acres of landholdings, as required on his congressionl financial disclosude documents. What he never disclosed until someone dug it up is 6 acres that he bought in 2015 and co-owns with a longtime campaign contributor that he has treated differently, transferring his ownership to Farm Team Properties, a shell company he co-owns with his wife. Farm Team Properties functions in a similarly opaque way as the companies used by the Bidens, masking his stake in the land that he co-owns with the donor from being revealed on his financial disclosure forms. The He also falsely claimed that the donor, Darren Cleary, “wasn’t a campaign contributor” at the time the property was purchased. Cleary and his family have donated to Comer’s political campaigns since at least 2010, records show. Ethics experts say House rules require members of Congress to disclose all assets held by such companies that are worth more than $1,000. The property is valued at around $1M. So, should we also have n impechment inquiry into Mr. Comer for hiding assetes in shell company and failing to report them on congressional finiancial disclosure forms?

So, when you look at the "rest of the story" from both sides you can see where ll this unchrted territory and precedent setting attacks on politicians could turn into a pandora's box of backlash and chaos. That's the question. I don't care how well you can parrot right wing talking points, but am curious as to waht you think of the aforementioned precedents and their possible rmifictions for the futiure of our democracy.

I's2C said:

Joe Biden did publicly brag about threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma, the corrupt company that was paying his son Hunter millions of dollars. This appears to be a clear case of quid pro quo and abuse of power for personal gain. If a Republican had done something similar, the Democrats would be screaming for impeachment. The double standard is galling. Biden has a lot to answer for regarding his Ukraine dealings.

Joe Biden's careless handling of classified documents should disqualify him from higher office. As Vice President, he had no authority to improperly remove classified documents and store them in an unsecured location like his garage. This shows a reckless disregard for national security. In contrast, everything President Trump has done with classified information has been proper and within his full authority as Commander-in-Chief. The way the media and Democrats tried to twist his perfectly appropriate actions into some kind of scandal is disgraceful. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Biden gets a free pass for genuinely bad behavior, while they aggressively pursue hoaxes and witch hunts against President Trump. It's outrageous. There is so much evidence against Joe that if we had just politicians they would side with impeachment.
Using Joes own words is enough to convict where don't even need all the bank statements. The weaponization of our government affects all Americans and all Americans should want justice not made up justice. Even many Democrats know that they have gone to far and finally waking up

Click to expand...

This is nothing more than the same old partisan rhetoric that only tends to divide us further. You speak of Biden "bragging" threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma , the corrupt company that was paying his son, Hunter millions of dollars. That is the right wing talking point but is it supported by the facts? You fail to mention that the entire Western coalition was pushing for his ouster because he was corrupt and was taking payments from those who he was prosecuting. You also fail to mention that it has now been proven that at the time there was no investigation into Burisma. That investigation had been set aside a full year before the call. You also fail to mention the call where Trump threatened to withhold $391M in military aid to Ukraine unless they announced a new investigation into the Bidens. You say that "Joe Biden's careless handling of classified documents should disqualify him from higher office". So, by the same token, should Trump's careless handling of classified documents disqualify him from higher office? What's good for the goose is good for the gander! That's the problem. Everyone wants to point fingers at the other guy while ignoring the other side of the coin. As a matter of fact, Biden voluntarily returned the documents in question while Trump lied about them and then refused to turn them over until they had to raid Mar-a-Lago to get them. So, since we know that there is corruption on both sides, why as a Christian would you take a hyper partisan stand? Is it worth risking your Christian testimony with those on the left just to parrot some right wing talking points?