Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, in a column posted on his website, explains that it now is Joe Biden's own attorney general, Merrick Garland, who has made the case for an impeachment inquiry. Even if it was unintended.
Of the Biden family's influence-peddling operations.
In the commentary titled, "Why the House has no alternative to an impeachment inquiry into President Biden," the George Washington University professor who has testified to Congress, and even has represented members in court, explained this came just as Brian Kilmeade was preparing to interview Victor Shokin.
He was the Ukrainian prosecutor fired on Joe Biden's orders, at a time when Shokin was investigating corruption at Burisma, which then was paying Hunter Biden $1 million a year, reportedly to protect it from such investigations.
"What was striking about the interview is not just the contradiction with other accounts (like insisting that he was investigating Burisma and the investigation was expanding when he was fired), but that he claimed that Kilmeade was the first to seek to interview him. This is just Shokin’s account and many question his veracity. However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal. It highlights the need to still fully investigate a scandal that the media has largely avoided in prior years," Turley explained.
What is known so far about the Biden family's influence-selling schemes includes that family members have been paid some $20 million or more in recent years – apparently for nothing more than providing access to Joe Biden, as vice president and then president.
In return, he has spoken repeatedly to Hunter Biden's business associates in person and by phone, evidence shows. What other actions may have occurred remains under investigation by Congress.
Turley now explained Garland's case for a congressional investigation of Biden.
"When Congress returns next month, it has little alternative but to launch a long-discussed impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. For House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the case for an inquiry came from a most unlikely source: Attorney General Merrick Garland."
He said he has repeatedly discouraged Republican House members from doing what Democrats did in their repeated attacks on President Donald Trump, those "snap impeachments" that were based on no evidence.
"Garland, however, has effectively forced their hands," he said.
He explained it's because Garland violated the rules to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, then specifically banned any investigation into that influence peddling that could involve Joe Biden.
"While Garland seems incapable of imagining any crime involving the president, he has made a conclusive — if unintended — case for an impeachment inquiry," Turley wrote. "With the investigative impediments created by the [special counsel David] Weiss appointment and by Garland’s refusal to expressly extend the special counsel’s mandate to the allegations of Biden family influence-peddling, there is little choice but to commence an impeachment inquiry. The authority of the House is at its apex when carrying out its duties under the impeachment clause."
He noted Congress specifically has a "duty to confirm any high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Biden. Indeed, the Democrats themselves established precedent for carrying out retroactive impeachments for prior offices, including any which may have occurred when Biden was vice president."
His conclusion is, "There is no alternative for the House but to launch the impeachment inquiry."
The background is that while Hunter Biden has been under investigation for alleged tax and gun crimes for years, Weiss agreed to a "sweetheart" deal that would have erased a long list of potential felonies in exchange for a couple of misdemeanors and a diversion program.
That failed when a federal judge started asking questions about the details.
"Even before the collapse of a widely condemned 'sweetheart deal' with Hunter, the investigation headed by U.S. Attorney David Weiss was a growing concern for many observers. In prior years, I wrote about Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel despite the obvious conflicts posed by the potential involvement of President Biden in his son’s alleged influence-peddling scandal. I also raised the problem of an investigation that remained ongoing for years as the statute of limitations expired on major potential crimes," Turley noted.
Now it's likely, he said, Weiss will refuse to cooperate with House investigators on the premise that he's continuing his special counsel investigation.
Turley also noted that the special counsel law requires that they not be DOJ employees when appointed, yet Garland chose a DOJ official, and one who "remains under suspicion by many people."
Then there was Garland's refusal "to expressly extend the special counsel’s mandate to include influence-peddling allegations involving President Biden."