Last week, our country passed the tipping point: The evidence of President Joe Biden’s corruption during his time as vice president is now so overwhelming and the implications so serious, the disparate investigations underway in the House and Senate can no longer suffice. Nor can the Department of Justice and the FBI — even under the auspices of a special counsel — be trusted to oversee the investigation given the overwhelming evidence that they obstructed the probe into the Biden family.
There is only one option left that can deliver truth and transparency to the American public, and that is an impeachment inquiry that investigates not just President Joe Biden, but Attorney General Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney David Weiss, and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
That is not to suggest articles of impeachment will necessarily result for any of the individuals; rather, the investigation may reveal no misconduct or at least none meriting impeachment. But following last week’s revelations — and more explosive details revealed over the last few days — the evidence now is just too weighty to stay on the current investigative path. Evidence is spattering out from different House committees and the offices of various members of Congress, while the DOJ and FBI withhold evidence and issue vague and misleading statements.
A belated appointment of a special counsel is untenable because, beyond interfering with congressional oversight and delaying a transparent accounting to the American people, the necessary investigation includes both the DOJ and FBI, the heads of both agencies, and, at minimum, one U.S. attorney. Thus the attorney general’s control over any special counsel appointment creates an untenable conflict of interest.
Overwhelming Evidence
Over the last week, our country has learned not only that a “highly credible” confidential human source (CHS) had reported that then-Vice President Biden was involved in a $10 million bribery scheme to protect Burisma, but that portions of the CHS’s reporting had been corroborated, including by the CHS’s handler. The FD-1023 summary of the CHS’s reporting, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, last Wednesday, also confirms that Burisma’s founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, expressly referenced the firing of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in his discussions of the bribe paid to Joe Biden. That detail is huge because Biden had previously bragged that he prompted Ukraine to fire Shokin by threatening to withhold U.S. aid.
Then just yesterday, news broke that Hunter Biden’s former business partner and fellow Burisma board member, Devon Archer, was prepared to testify before the House that Hunter Biden put his father on the phone with business associates at least two dozen times while Joe Biden was vice president.
Especially telling was the timing of one of those reported telephone calls — the evening of Dec. 4, 2015, “when Vadym Pozharskyi, a senior Burisma executive, phoned to ask where they were because Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, needed to speak to Hunter urgently.” That telephone call coincides with an email exchange involving Hunter Biden, Archer, Pozharskyi, and others, reportedly pulled from Hunter Biden’s laptop, that discussed questions posed by The New York Times regarding corruption investigations related to Burisma, as well as Hunter’s connection to the Ukrainian energy company.
When added to the already overwhelming evidence implicating the Biden family in a massive pay-to-play scandal — namely the banking records confirming millions in laundered money payments to various members of the Biden family, the details contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the corroboration by former Hunter Biden’s business partner Tony Bobulinski — these new facts crushed the camel’s back.
Compromised DOJ and FBI
The entirety of the facts simultaneously establish the DOJ and FBI cannot lead the investigation into the Biden family’s corruption.
Last week, the two IRS whistleblowers revealed that not only did the DOJ and FBI prevent them from learning about the FD-1023, but portions of the material on Hunter Biden’s laptop were kept from the whistleblowers. One whistleblower further suggested the details summarized in the FD-1023 corroborated other evidence the IRS special agents had gathered during their investigation.
Americans also learned that the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office and FBI headquarters prevented the IRS agents from following any investigative leads that might implicate Joe Biden. The agents were also barred from interviewing relevant witnesses, executing relevant search warrants, and asking any questions about Joe Biden, or even inquiring on “Dad” or the “Big Guy.” Further, a different whistleblower has claimed FBI headquarters falsely branded incriminating evidence about the Biden family as “disinformation” and otherwise interfered in the investigation.
Evidence also indicates Garland lied to Congress when he testified that U.S. Attorney Weiss had the authority to bring charges against Hunter Biden in districts outside of Delaware, and Weiss has misled Congress about the authority he had and whether he was prevented from pursuing felony charges against Hunter Biden.
Separately, last week the House revealed that after the New York Post broke the story about Biden family corruption evidence recovered from Hunter’s abandoned laptop, an FBI agent confirmed to Twitter that the laptop was real. However, when Facebook later asked the FBI whether the laptop was real or misinformation, the FBI inexplicably replied, “No comment.” These facts further implicate the FBI in efforts to protect Joe Biden.
The overwhelming evidence now makes it impossible to trust the DOJ and FBI to handle any investigation into the Biden family or government officials involved in protecting the Biden family. Only a broad impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden, the DOJ, the FBI, and top officials will suffice.
Ducks in a Row
An impeachment inquiry will also allow Congress to undertake a cohesive and coordinated investigation, coalescing evidence and resources from the House Judiciary Committee, Weaponization Subcommittee, Oversight Committee, and Ways and Means Committee. The House Ways and Means Committee should further authorize those handling the impeachment inquiry to receive confidential taxpayer information so the whistleblowers can discuss freely with investigators what they discovered — or were prevented from discovering.
Republican senators will need to cooperate in the impeachment investigation too, by providing evidence and witnesses accumulated over the last several years to the House, except for the whistleblowers’ identity and any evidence for which they have demanded confidentiality.
Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., have uncovered many important details, but to the extent that information came with a promise to the whistleblowers, those promises must be honored. Hopefully, though, Grassley’s whistleblowers will agree to go public, just as Joseph Ziegler has, forgoing his privacy and making himself a target for retaliation.
Another benefit of an impeachment inquiry is it will provide Biden and others an opportunity to present a defense. Let those conducting the impeachment inquiry hear from Lev Parnas, the former Ukrainian businessman who wrote a letter to the House Oversight Committee last year arguing it should end its probe into the Biden family, saying there is “no evidence” Joe or Hunter Biden interfered in Ukrainian politics. Parnas, who had reportedly worked to help Rudy Giuliani gather derogatory evidence on Joe Biden in the run-up to the 2020 election, may have exculpatory evidence — or he may not. Either way, the House should consider Parnas’ evidence.
But what the House should not do is continue to drag out this investigation. The evidence is too damning for our president and the DOJ and FBI. It’s time to start an impeachment inquiry.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
Comments are closed.