Impeach Joe Biden
If the Democrats in the House were concerned about executive branch officials leveraging their offices for personal gain out of Ukraine, they would impeach Joe Biden.
The story of Joe Biden and the windfalls of his son Hunter are far beyond anything that President Trump is even accused of doing. But consistency doesn’t matter. The Democrats rule the House, so like Veruca Salt, they will get their way.
And yes, the House can still impeach Joe Biden. Obviously he cannot be removed from an office he doesn’t hold. But he can be barred from serving in any office in the future under the Constitution.
If Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were the principals behind what Joe and Hunter Biden did, it would fill at least two solid years of CNN programming.
So let's meet our cast.
Hunter Biden is the vice-president’s son. He is so responsible, that after he was sworn in as a naval officer by his father in a White House ceremony, he tested positive for cocaine and was summarily booted from the Navy. Hunter founded an international private equity firm called Rosemont Seneca Partners. Hunter has no experience in international private equity.
Joe Biden is Hunter’s father and vice-president of the United States.
Devon Archer is Hunter’s party pal and business partner. He was vice-chair of John Kerry’s presidential campaign.
Volodymyr Zelensky is the president of Ukraine who spoke with President Trump on the infamous phone call. It was widely known that his campaign was funded by corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. As chance would have it, those same oligarchs were paying Hunter Biden, as we shall see.
Mykola Zlochevsky is the president of Burisma Holdings, a holding company for a group of energy companies. Zlochevsky was the energy ministry under the pro-Russian government from 2010 to 2012. His assets have been frozen in the United Kingdom as part of a corruption investigation.
Ihor Kolomoisky is another Ukrainian oligarch. He specialized in the hostile takeover of companies using gangs armed with baseball bats and weapons.
Don't let the tongue-twister names discourage you, it gets good.
Let’s set the scene.
Soon after Joe Biden was appointed to be the “point person” for the administration in China, Hunter Biden obtained a position on the board of directors of a Chinese company that was making military investments around the world. Hunter’s Chinese company – yes, reread those three words a few times — secured a number of deals to extract molybdenum from the Congo. These included buying the world’s largest producer of molybdenum. Molybdenum is essential in military-grade steel production, such as armor, tanks, gun barrels, and other weaponry.
But Hunter was just getting started. What happens next has everything to do with why President Trump said what he said in that phone call to newly elected Ukraine President Zelensky.
In February 2014, Joe Biden is appointed as the point person for United States policy toward Ukraine. All policy will go through Joe Biden. Coincidentally, or not, in March 2014, the Russians invade the Crimea.
Also that month, Devon Archer has a one-on-one meeting with Joe Biden that lasts more than four hours.
Think on that. Hunter Biden’s business partner gets a four-hour meeting with the vice-president of the United States. If that doesn’t strike you as queer, consider what happens next.
Burisma, the Ukraine energy company run by corrupt oligarchs, quickly announces that two Americans will be joining the company's board of directors. Guess who?
Hunter Biden and Devon Archer will join the Burisma board of directors.
In March 2014, Hunter Biden begins receiving monthly payments of $83,333 from Burisma. That's monthly.
Devon Archer also received $83,333 monthly from Burisma.
Archer would soon fade from the scene because he was charged by the Justice Department for defrauding an Indian tribe.
In sum, Hunter Biden received more than $3,000,0000 from the company run by corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.
For what? We don’t know. Hunter has remained mostly silent about what expertise he brought to the energy exploration company apart from his name.
Naturally, all of this had been “debunked” if you read Wikipedia, except it hasn’t. Peter Schweizer’s book Secret Empires meticulously documents and footnotes our tale.
Three days before Biden left office, he was in Ukraine meeting officials and speaking about anti-corruption.
Here’s where it gets really interesting and where it intersects the current impeachment drama.
United States law has anti-corruption provisions that allow the president to condition foreign aid to Ukraine on anti-corruption efforts. The president can delay foreign aid if the Ukrainian government isn’t taking steps to weed out corruption.
If this is starting to sound familiar it should.
President Trump knew about Hunter Biden’s deals in China. He knew about his $83,333 monthly payments from Ukraine. He also knew when he was talking on the phone with President Zelensky that Zelensky's campaign was bankrolled by the same gangsters that were bankrolling Hunter Biden.
The previous administration – particularly Attorney General Eric Holder — made a great deal about American efforts to combat corruption in foreign countries. These efforts rarely targeted left-of-center governments, and certainly never touched Ukraine.
It is hard to imagine a more target-rich environment to find corruption than Ukraine. Yet the Obama administration didn’t act.
It seems entirely legitimate for President Trump to ask this particular Ukrainian president, given his connection to Hunter's pals, what was going to be done to look at the long pedigree of corruption there — corruption that may have extended to a vice-president’s son getting millions of dollars for seemingly doing nothing.
Trump had the power to delay foreign aid to Ukraine. Trump, as the head of the executive branch, had the power to condition foreign aid on Zelensky’s unwillingness to look into what appears to be rank corruption involving Hunter Biden.
That’s the part Democrats in the House will never understand, and that’s why Joe Biden should be impeached, not the president who was onto him.