Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, appeared to have a short memory Thursday when he argued Republicans should have a full floor vote before beginning an impeachment inquiry.
The Oversight Committee began its first impeachment inquiry hearing into President Joe Biden’s alleged public corruption and bribery concerning payments from overseas interests.
“We’ve had to slide awkwardly into a House impeachment process without the benefit of the floor vote that Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy insisted was absolutely imperative and necessary when Donald Trump was impeached,” Raskin said in his opening remarks.
“That’s exactly what has not happened here, because they don’t have the votes, because dozens of Republicans recognize what a futile and absurd process this is,” he added.
Raskin argued that Republicans have been looking for months and, “They’ve got nothing on Joe Biden.”
He also pointed out that in 2019, the then-Democrat-controlled House held a floor vote regarding going forward with an impeachment inquiry against Trump.
[embedded content]
What Raskin left out is that vote took place on October 31, 2019 (appropriately Halloween), but then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi authorized a formal impeachment inquiry more than a month before, on Sept. 24.
Politico reported in mid-October 2019, Pelosi lacked support within her caucus to bring the matter to the floor for a vote, and that is why she proceeded without one.
Should impeachment inquiries require a vote in the House?
Yes: 33% (202 Votes)
No: 67% (407 Votes)
“The move came amid opposition from key chairmen and members of leadership, as well as a number of centrist Democrats facing tough re-election bids,” the news outlet said.
“There’s no requirement that we have a vote, and at this time, we will not have a vote,” Pelosi told reporters.
Raskin, a former constitutional law professor at American University, backed up Pelosi.
“There’s no formal constitutional or statutory [requirement] or even House rule for how an impeachment inquiry is to begin, and so it means different things to different people,” he told reporters in September 2019.
“A lot of people believe we’ve been in an impeachment inquiry ever since we started looking into potential high crimes and misdemeanors and the misconduct of the executive branch,” the congressman continued.
“I would say we are in an impeachment investigation and as to the results of the investigation, it could lead to articles of impeachment or it could lead to something else,” Raskin said.
Raskin told PBS in May 2019 that the Democrats had launched an impeachment inquiry into Trump. So it had been ongoing for months before Pelosi’s September pronouncement and October vote.
Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the GOP conference chairwoman, posted on social media Thursday, “Jamie Raskin should listen to Jamie Raskin,” regarding whether a full floor vote must proceed an investigation.
Jamie Raskin should listen to Jamie Raskin. https://t.co/JoD36vI2vz
— Rep. Elise Stefanik (@RepStefanik) September 28, 2023
George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley testified Thursday that, after reviewing the evidence, the Oversight Committee does have the evidence it needs to justify moving forward with an investigation.
“This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment. In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is something that an inquiry has to establish,” he explained.
“But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden,” Turley said.
BREAKING – BIDEN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: Respected legal scholar Professor @JonathanTurley affirms that the threshold for impeachment inquiry into Biden has been met. WATCH pic.twitter.com/pGif4k1N0p
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) September 28, 2023
Turley listed three reasons. First, Biden has spoken falsely about his knowledge of his son’s business dealings. Second, Biden was allegedly at the center of a multimillion-dollar influence-peddling scheme involving his son Hunter Biden and his brother Jim Biden. And finally, Biden himself may have personally benefitted from these payments.
The law professor noted during the hearing with regard to alleged bribery against the president that the standard under criminal law is not limited to showing that Biden received payments directly in the scheme.
Turley told the committee that courts have ruled that money going to family members is a benefit that can be found to be a crime.
“This idea that you can have millions going to a politician’s family, and that’s not a benefit, I think, is pretty fallacious,” he said.
In July, the Oversight Committee confirmed the existence of an FBI FD-1023 file containing allegations Joe and Hunter Biden each received a $5 million bribe from the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
🚨BREAKING🚨
The FD-1023 form alleging then-Vice President JOE BIDEN was involved in a $5,000,000 bribery scheme with a Burisma executive has been released by @ChuckGrassley.
Read 👇 pic.twitter.com/Mc6dVIwdsG
— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) July 20, 2023
Earlier this month, the Oversight Committee released a document showing 22 instances of Joe Biden’s direct engagement with Hunter Biden’s business associates, after the president claimed multiple times to have no knowledge of his son’s business deals.
Raskin needs to cool his jets and go back and look at his own words in 2019. The Republicans have every right to launch an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.
If the president is compromised by the money he or his family received from communist Chinese or other overseas interests, this must be known, and if so, he must be impeached.
For now, the investigation should continue.
