Jonathan Turley: 5 Key Points Supporting the Impeachment Inquiry

Law professor Jonathan Turley, saying he does not believe that a case for impeachment has yet been made against President Joe Biden, maintained there is “clearly a need for a probe into a growing array of allegations facing the president.”

Turley, a constitutional law scholar at George Washington University, made his comments about the House impeachment inquiry in a post on his website.

“I also reject the notion that, because a conviction is unlikely in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the House should not go down this road,” he said. “I rejected the same argument made by some Republicans during the Trump impeachment.

“The House has a separate constitutional duty in the investigation of potential impeachable offenses and to pass articles of impeachment if those allegations are found to be valid. 

“The Senate has its own constitutional function under the Constitution that it can either choose to fulfill or to ignore. A House impeachment holds both constitutional and historical significance separate from any conviction.

“That does not mean that grounds for impeachment will be found in this inquiry. While the President deserves a presumption of innocence in this process, the public deserves answers to these questions.”

Turley detailed his position on the impeachment inquiry in a column for The Messenger.

“The House has established a labyrinth of dozens of shell companies and accounts allegedly used to transfer millions of dollars to Biden family members,” he said.

“There is now undeniable evidence to support influence peddling by Hunter Biden and some of his associates — with Joe Biden, to quote Hunter’s business partner Devon Archer, being ‘the brand’ they were selling.”

He called the suggestion that this “evidence does not meet the standard for an inquiry into impeachable offenses” an example of “willful blindness”

“It also is starkly different from the standard applied by congressional Democrats during the Trump and Nixon impeachment efforts,” he said.

He asked readers to consider “five established facts.”

“First, there appears to be evidence that Joe Biden lied to the public for years in denying knowledge of his son’s business dealings,” he said. “ Hunter Biden’s ex-business associate, Tony Bobulinski, has said repeatedly that he discussed some dealings directly with Joe Biden.

“Second, we know that more than $29 million was paid to the Bidens by foreign sources, including figures in China, Ukraine, Russia and Romania. There is no apparent reason for the multilayers of accounts and companies other than to hide these transfers.

“Third, specific demands were made on Hunter, including dealing with the threat of a Ukrainian prosecutor to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter was given a lucrative board position. Five days later, Joe Biden forced the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor.

“Fourth, Hunter repeatedly stated in emails that he paid his father as much as half of what he earned. 

“Fifth, there is evidence of alleged criminal conduct by Hunter that could be linked to covering up these payments, from the failure to pay taxes to the failure to register as a foreign lobbyist. What is not established is the assumption by many that Joe Biden was fully aware of both the business dealings and any efforts to conceal them.”

Turley said the inquiry “may not result in the impeachment of  [Joe] Biden, but it will result in greater clarity. Indeed, it is that very clarity that many in Washington may fear the most from this inquiry.”