top of page

Why Michael Gerhardt, law professor at UNC, was a witness today, I'll never understand.


During the first impeachment inquiry hearing of President Joe Biden on Thursday, held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, voiced allegations against Biden.


Comer claimed that Biden "abused" his public office for his "family's financial gain" and accused him of lying about not discussing foreign business dealings with his family. Notably, the committee uncovered wires suggesting a Chinese national paid $250,000 to Biden's son, Hunter.


Comer further implicated that Biden's family members have received millions from Chinese companies. Addressing the beneficiary address listed on a payment record from Chinese nationals to Hunter in 2019, Comer pointed to Joe Biden's home address in Delaware.


In response to Comer's statements, White House spokesman Ian Sams took to X to argue against the beneficiary address, drawing a comparison to someone staying at their parents' house during the pandemic and using it as their permanent address for work. Fortunately, we all have an IQ higher than 5 and realize that in 2019, the pandemic hadn't even started yet.


Witnesses at the hearing included United States Department of Justice Tax Division Eileen O'Connor, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, and former Assistant Attorney General and forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky and for some unknown reason, Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, who clearly was in the tank for Biden and the Dems. Not surprisingly, Gerhardt was the only witness that the Democrats would speak to


House Speaker Kevin McCarthy previously stated that President Biden lied about his knowledge of his family's foreign business dealings and eyewitnesses testified that the president was involved in multiple phone calls and interactions, with dinners resulting in financial contributions to his sons and their business partners.


Prior to the hearing, Comer emphasized that the investigation yielded extensive evidence such as financial records, emails, texts, testimony from credible IRS whistleblowers, and a transcribed interview with a Biden family business associate, Devon Archer.


This evidence revealed that Joe Biden allowed his family to capitalize on his position as 'the brand' worldwide, enriching the Biden family. Furthermore, Comer claimed that Joe Biden made frequent appearances to signal access, influence, and power to those who paid the Bidens.


During the hearing, Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin, who had a government shutdown clock on display, called for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and businessman Lev Parnas to testify before Congress. Raskin emphasized the importance of hearing from those who have insider knowledge about the origins of the alleged lie that serves as the foundation for the ongoing impeachment proceedings.


However, the motion put forth by Republicans was ultimately tabled. Notably, legal scholar Turley testified that while he believes an impeachment inquiry is warranted, the evidence presented does not currently meet the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor necessary for an article of impeachment.


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) raised concerns about former Vice President Joe Biden's alleged mishandling of classified documents during his time in office. Specifically, Turner highlighted that Biden's son, Hunter, received payments from foreign countries such as Romania, Russia, Ukraine, and China. Special Counsel Robert Hur is currently investigating this matter.


During the hearing, Turner asked Turley about the relevance of any documents related to the Ukrainian prosecutor, Burisma, or individuals and parties involved in payments to Hunter Biden. Turley acknowledged that "pre-office conduct" could be considered as part of the impeachment inquiry.


Responding to Democratic arguments about the lack of evidence implicating Biden in his son's foreign business dealings, Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) emphasized the duty of Congress to determine whether Biden was an unknowing participant or knowingly complicit in any scheme. Timmons stressed the need to uncover the truth behind Biden's alleged financial compensation for his role.

68 views1 comment

1 commentaire


A congressman just told John Solomon that Biden guilty if all moneys gotten by any family member. I believe he sited amendment

J'aime
bottom of page