Ample evidence supports Joe Biden’s impeachment inquiry.

Uncovering the Truth: ⁣The‍ House Impeachment Inquiry⁢ into Joe Biden

Without evidence.

Those are the two words they want​ imprinted in‌ your ‍mind when you hear about the House impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. “Since ⁣gaining the House majority,” writes the Associated Press, “House Republicans​ have‍ aggressively investigated Biden and his son, claiming without evidence that they engaged⁢ in an ⁣influence⁢ peddling scheme.”

Sticking the ‍words “without evidence” into a story is meant ‌to ⁣insinuate that the impetus for an investigation is itself ⁣meritless. But, as they know, inquiries exist for⁢ the purpose of uncovering ​evidence.

The Substantive Evidence

Wait, what am I ⁤saying? There already exists tons ⁤ of substantive evidence that Joe Biden was “engaged” in the ⁢family racket. Now, it goes without saying that without the Biden ‌last name, there is ⁣no ‍Biden Inc. But numerous ⁤people‌ have independently‌ testified that he was involved.

• The IRS whistleblowers charged with investigating Hunter Biden’s tax case ‌testified under oath that Joe was present in at least one meeting with Hunter’s foreign clients.
• In numerous private emails ‍and texts he never imagined would⁤ be made public, Hunter talks‍ about his dad not only helping ‍him secure payments ​but taking a ‍cut for himself.
• Hunter’s former business partner contends that‍ Joe was involved.
• Another‌ of Hunter’s partners, who is also a former close​ friend, maintained under oath that Joe spoke to Hunter’s associates ⁢at least ​24 times,⁤ often being dialed in ‌on the phone during ‍business meetings.
• An FBI informant documented ​conversations that indicated to him that Joe pressured ​foreign companies to send millions to the family business.

And listen, I get that Democrats want us​ to believe ‍it ‍was just crazy happenstance⁣ that Joe‌ Biden pressured the Ukrainian ‌government to fire ‍a prosecutor who happened to be investigating a company⁢ that was ⁣paying his son $1 million a year. But if the vice president knew the two​ were in‌ business — and since he had a sit down ​with ⁤Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi,⁣ it‍ is highly ⁣likely he did — then his actions were a corrupt conflict of ​interest.

That’s also all⁣ evidence.

The Changing Standards

Yet, Democrats want to create new evidentiary standards ⁢for both⁣ investigations⁣ and for impeachment. No, Joe didn’t need to commit ‍a crime ⁣to be impeached. No, Biden didn’t need to directly benefit from​ his family’s corrupt business ventures to ⁤be ⁣corrupt.

If⁢ one⁤ of the most⁣ powerful people ⁢in the United States government allows or participates in ⁣a scheme to trade on his power to make millions for his family (or deliberately gives the impression that he’s willing to do so), it may or may not be illegal, ‍but it‍ is clearly unethical.

Money, incidentally,⁤ is‍ fungible. Just because a shady Ukrainian isn’t writing “re:‍ Joe Biden ‌influence trading” on the memo line of a check doesn’t mean the president didn’t benefit. Perhaps further inquiry into ⁢the⁤ 20 shell companies and‍ dozens of bank accounts, or the 5,000 emails in which⁢ Joe ‌ used pseudonyms to converse with Hunter ‍and presumably others — all ‍of it completely normal stuff⁢ for an above-board family business, right?​ — will provide some answers.

The Double Standard

Now, ⁣obviously there are partisan dimensions to an impeachment. And obviously some people‌ overstate the existing case against the president. But let’s not forget that Joe Biden has been lying about his knowledge of⁣ Hunter’s business⁤ dealings ‌for years. ‍When Biden was asked if he had ever spoken to Hunter about Burisma in 2020, he said, “No. No, I don’t, because I never discussed with my son‌ anything having ⁢to do ‍with⁣ what was going on ‍in Ukraine. That’s a fact.” That was a lie. When Biden was asked in⁢ 2020​ if his⁢ son ever made money from Chicom business ventures, the Biden‍ campaign said no. That was ‌ a lie. And there are many other instances.

If the president’s relationship with ⁤Hunter was entirely separate and innocent — ⁢a product of their love — why has Joe been lying about it for years?

Whatever the ‌case, standards ⁣have suddenly changed. Recall that Democrats claimed without evidence ​ for years that Donald Trump was⁢ a Russian asset. To say there is ‍more ⁢evidence ‍of Biden’s wrongdoing than was ⁤offered in any story connected⁤ to Trump-Russia collusion, a‍ hysteria based on ‍leaks, anonymous sources, and⁤ fictitious works of political opposition, is to dramatically understate the matter.

Take Rep. Adam‍ Schiff,⁣ who famously claimed not only to have uncovered a criminal conspiracy by Donald‌ Trump’s 2016 campaign ⁢but also ⁢to be in personal possession of smoking-gun “direct evidence.” I have gone through dozens of pieces ⁢related to Schiff’s⁤ declaration, and ⁤not one reporter writes that the California congressmen did so “without evidence“⁣ — or‌ anything approaching that kind of wording. Not in the text, much less⁢ in a⁤ headline.

If the legacy political⁣ media were doing their job defending “democracy,” outlets would be deploying teams⁣ of crack journalists to ⁤track down leads and find out if there‍ is any evidence related to⁤ Biden’s wrongdoing, as ‍they did with‍ Trump, rather than playing defense for the most powerful⁢ man in the world.