<p>If you follow the spin on the leftwing media, you would believe that the Republican-controlled House is holding hearings to impeach President Biden. That is not the case. What the House IS doing is opening an INQUIRY to see if there is evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors – to see if Biden has done things that deserve an impeachment hearing. The House is merely launching an INQUIRY – an investigation – to uncover the facts.</p>
<p>An actual impeachment is comparable to an indictment. An impeachment INQUIRY is more like the work of a prosecutor or grand jury BEFORE an indictment (impeachment). The House only charges the President with impeachable offenses – like an indictment. It then turns the case over to the Senate for trial.</p>
<p>An impeachment INQUIRY is an investigation based on accusations, suspicious activity and whatever preliminary evidence might exist. It is the first step in the process.</p>
<p>There is a tendency in the public arena to confuse an investigation with an indictment. Biden &; Company use misinformation and spin in the court-of-public opinion to prematurely try the entire case. They claim there is no evidence that establishes that Biden did anything warranting an impeachment. They want the case settled in the public mind before there is an investigation.</p>
<p>Even to launch an investigation, there should be some nominal evidence to suggest a crime MAY have been committed. It is to see if there is enough there there to warrant an initial investigation – and there seems to be more than enough evidence to warrant a deep look in the Biden case. It is that possibility that has team Biden frantically attempting to avoid, undermine or discredit any investigation before it starts.</p>
<p>The critical question is whether there is sufficient suspicious activity to launch an investigation into both Hunter Biden and Papa Joe Biden? I do believe that based on any objective review of what is already known, the answer is “yes.” That means that the House has a right and obligation to pursue an impeachment INQUIRY. It is the normal process by which we deal with suspicious activity in courts-of-law and in the impeachment process.</p>
<p>So, what is the suspicious activity that warrants an investigation of the relationship between President Biden and his son’s questionable business dealings. As in any investigation, the investigators know more than the public at the onset. But there is a lot of factual information already known.</p>
<ol>
<li>The initial reaction to the Hunter Biden issue by President Biden and the leftwing establishment was not true – a lie to be specific. Biden said he knew nothing of his son’s business dealing and never discussed them. Later hard evidence showed that Biden had frequent contacts and discussions with Hunter AND Hunter’s business associates. Biden spoke with them. He entertained them at the White House. He golfed with them. And remember, Hunter’s former business partner said Joe knew a lot about Hunter’s business interests.</li>
<li>There is the appearance of a cover-up. Once Hunter’s laptop surfaced the White House said it was a Russian hoax – and the media dutifully spun their reports in that direction. Facebook censored stories about the laptop. More disturbing is the fact that government agencies, including the FBI, perpetrated the same bogus story. Hunter knew better, and the President and the FBI had to know the truth.</li>
<li>Then there was that reference to the “big guy” getting ten percent. There can be no doubt that the “big guy” is President Biden. If he was getting a cut of the action, an investigation is needed either to prove the contention or disprove it.</li>
<li>There have been previous reports that Hunter was paying his father’s personal expenses – and they gained credibility with a message from Hunter to a lady friend in which he expressed frustration over paying his father’s expense. He said, “half goes to pop.” Why was he paying for them? Papa Joe is a multimillionaire and already has the taxpayers providing him with a high salary, great benefits and all the prerogatives of the presidency. And You will recall that Hunter had to “borrow” approximately $200,000 from his lawyer to pay the IRA his back taxes. That makes the payments to his dad look more like a payoff then necessary financial help to the old man.</li>
<li>Biden has taken official actions that at least give the appearance of helping his son in his business interests. If Hunter was influence-peddling, his dad gave all the hints and indications that Hunter had the influence. Biden took his son on official trips aboard on Air Force One and Air Force Two (when Vice President) – intermingling the White House’s official business and Hunters private enterprises. The most notable example was using the threat of financial assistance to Ukraine to get the prosecutor fired who was investigating Hunter’s employer, Burisma Holdings – a mega energy company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch. That investigation would have naturally involved Hunter’s role in the Company. The fact that the new prosecutor did not take up the investigation of the company suggests that ending that investigation into a corrupt enterprise was the purpose of Biden’s action.</li>
<li>It is known from initial bank records that Hunter and other members of the Biden family, including children, received huge sums of money for no apparent services rendered. Some of that money flowed through shell corporations in what appears to be a laundering effort.</li>
</ol>
<p>While Hunter’s business interests and potential criminal activities – in and of themselves &#8212; are not the focus of an impeachment of Biden, they are critical from the standpoint of the President’s involvement – actively or passively as a financial beneficiary. The question is: Were hunter’s activities or crimes carried out with the knowledge, participation or promotion of the President? Would any of it been possible if he were not the son of Joe Biden – Senator, Vice President and President of the United States? Without that relationship it is more likely Hunter would be shooting up as a homeless resident of San Francisco. (I know that is harsh speculation, but only to make the point.)</p>
<p>To understand the rationale for the impeachment INQUIRY, we need to examine what activities of Hunter appear suspicious – and how they might relate to the President.</p>
<ol>
<li>First and foremost is the job with Burisma. Hunter had no experience in the energy industry. He knew nothing about Ukraine – the country, business practices, the laws, etc. The only logical reason for his hiring was that he is the son of the President of the United States. That corrupt oligarch, Mykola Zlochevsky, must have seen some corporate and financial benefit from that fact. Maybe even some protection from prosecution. After all, Zlochevsky not only hired Hunter, but paid him an exorbitant amount of money. It was also a job for which Hunter did not have to show up at the office. That deal alone raises more red flags than a national celebration in China.</li>
<li>Speaking of China, there has not been a definitive answer as to why Chinese – and Russians – provided Hunter with millions of dollars.</li>
<li>The gun charge is relevant to the issue of daddy’s position and influence. Why did the Hunter investigation by the Delaware prosecutor David Weiss take five years? And when it finally came to a head, Hunter was offered such an outrageous sweetheart deal that the judge in the case would not accept it. When it was obvious that the case would require a special counsel, why did Attorney General Merrick Garland break precedent and appoint the same guy, David Weiss, who offered the special deal? In fact, why was the case handled in Delaware in the first place, where the Bidens have the most political influence?</li>
<li>And then there is the tax fraud case. Was Hunter offered a sweetheart plea deal because of the charges or because he is the son of the President. Pay the back taxes and the prosecutor will essentially forget the criminal charges.</li>
</ol>
<p>And there is a lot more.</p>
<p>We can understand that there will be a lot of political bullcrap going back and forth in terms of the legitimacy of the impeachment INQUIRY. And we can expect the left-leaning media to play public relations agency for the Bidens. Biden &; Company want to prejudge the investigation. Hopefully that will not work.</p>
<p>There can be no mistake in believing that the investigation of the Biden family is well warranted. When the White House and others claim there is nothing to see, they want the American public to put on the blinders (as opposed to the rose-colored glasses, when it comes to the economy).</p>
<p>Finally, all this has nothing to do with Trump, so whataboutism is no reason to discourage this totally unrelated investigation – this impeachment INQUIRY.</p>
<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

The House is not impeaching Biden … at least not yet
