Rep Jamie Raskin’s words haunt him in Biden impeachment inquiry.
Democrat Rep Jamie Raskin’s Words Come Back to Haunt Him During Biden Impeachment Inquiry
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, seemed to conveniently forget his own words when he argued that Republicans should have a full floor vote before starting an impeachment inquiry.
The Oversight Committee recently held its first impeachment inquiry hearing into President Joe Biden’s alleged public corruption and bribery involving payments from overseas interests.
“We’ve had to slide awkwardly into a House impeachment process without the benefit of the floor vote that Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy insisted was absolutely imperative and necessary when Donald Trump was impeached,” Raskin said in his opening remarks.
“That’s exactly what has not happened here, because they don’t have the votes, because dozens of Republicans recognize what a futile and absurd process this is,” he added.
Raskin conveniently failed to mention that a vote for an impeachment inquiry against Trump took place on October 31, 2019, but then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi authorized a formal impeachment inquiry more than a month before, on September 24.
According to Politico, Pelosi lacked support within her caucus to bring the matter to the floor for a vote, which is why she proceeded without one.
Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, backed up Pelosi’s decision, stating that there is no formal requirement for how an impeachment inquiry should begin.
During a recent hearing, George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley testified that the Oversight Committee does have enough evidence to justify moving forward with an investigation into President Biden.
“This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment. In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is something that an inquiry has to establish,” he explained.
“But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden,” Turley said.
Turley listed three reasons for his belief: Biden’s false statements about his knowledge of his son’s business dealings, his alleged involvement in an influence-peddling scheme, and the potential personal benefit he may have received from these payments.
The investigation into President Biden should continue to determine if he or his family received compromising payments from overseas interests. If so, impeachment may be necessary.
The post Democrat Rep Jamie Raskin’s Words Come Back to Haunt Him During Biden Impeachment Inquiry appeared first on The Western Journal.
How did Representative Raskin’s previous statements contradict the current impeachment inquiry into President Biden?
Democrat Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland has found himself in a bit of a predicament during the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Raskin, the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, seemed to conveniently forget his own words when arguing that Republicans should have a full floor vote before starting an impeachment inquiry.
During the Oversight Committee’s first impeachment inquiry hearing into President Biden’s alleged public corruption and bribery involving payments from overseas interests, Raskin stated, “We’ve had to slide awkwardly into a House impeachment process without the benefit of the floor vote that Speaker Kevin McCarthy insisted was absolutely imperative and necessary when Donald Trump was impeached.” He further added, “That’s exactly what has not happened here, because they don’t have the votes, because dozens of Republicans recognize what a futile and absurd process this is.”
However, Raskin failed to mention that a vote for an impeachment inquiry against Trump took place on October 31, 2019. It was then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who authorized a formal impeachment inquiry more than a month before, on September 24. According to Politico, Pelosi lacked support within her caucus to bring the matter to the floor for a vote, which is why she proceeded without one. Raskin conveniently ignored this fact while making his argument.
Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, also backed up Pelosi’s decision, stating that there is no formal requirement for how an impeachment inquiry should begin. It seems he conveniently forgot his own previous stance on this matter.
During a recent hearing, George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley testified that the Oversight Committee does have enough evidence to justify moving forward with an investigation into President Biden. Turley explained, “This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment. In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is something that an inquiry has to establish.” He also believes that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden, citing three reasons: Biden’s false statements about his knowledge of his son’s business dealings, his alleged involvement in an influence-peddling scheme, and the potential personal benefit he may have received from these payments.
In light of this testimony, it is clear that the investigation into President Biden should continue to determine if he or his family received compromising payments from overseas interests. If there is substantial evidence to support these allegations, then impeachment may be necessary.
In conclusion, Representative Jamie Raskin’s words have come back to haunt him during the Biden impeachment inquiry. He conveniently forgot his own stance on the necessity of a floor vote before starting an impeachment inquiry, and also failed to mention the previous impeachment inquiry against Trump that did not have a formal floor vote. It is crucial that the investigation into President Biden’s alleged corruption and bribery continues to ensure the truth is uncovered.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...