My opinion is utterly predictable, though. So what are others saying? I have already laughed at the AP’s “no evidence” claim, and you would expect the Democrats to scream bloody murder. So I turn to two arguments from external sources. One is Jonathan Turley, the centrist lawyer who has been critical of Biden and the Justice Department for some time now, and CNN’s White House reporter Stephen Collinson.

They disagree, and Collinson does so vehemently and in an eminently parodiable fashion.

I do not believe that a case for impeachment has been made, but there is clearly a need for an inquiry into these allegations. While the President deserves a presumption of innocence in this process, the public deserves answers to these questions. https://t.co/1mp4c7LqJ3

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 14, 2023

I personally believe that Biden could easily be legitimately impeached by the House right now; the evidence of corruption and lying is certainly stronger than anything put up to impeach Trump. It would also be pointless and perhaps hurt Republicans in a way the investigations so far have not.

Turley is less convinced than I, at least publicly, that Biden should be impeached. But he also thinks the evidence is compelling enough to formally open impeachment hearings to gather proof of either Biden’s corruption or innocence. Contra the AP, Turley acknowledges the obvious fact that what we know is true about Biden is enough to question his integrity.

No duh. However I am not a legal commentator, so the standard is different for Turley. I give him a pass for using the reasonable doubt standard.

Here is the evidence Turley marshals for why we know that there are serious ethical questions:

First, there appears to be evidence that Joe Biden lied to the public for years in denying knowledge of his son’s business dealings. Hunter Biden’s ex-business associate, Tony Bobulinski, has said repeatedly that he discussed some dealings directly with Joe Biden. Devon Archer, Hunter’s close friend and partner, described the president’s denials of knowledge as “categorically false.”

Moreover, Hunter’s laptop has communications from his father discussing the dealings, including audio messages from the president. The president allegedly spoke with his son on speakerphone during meetings with his associates on at least 20 occasions, according to Archer, attended dinners with some clients, and took photographs with others.

Second, we know that more than $20 million was paid to the Bidens by foreign sources, including figures in China, Ukraine, Russia and Romania. There is no apparent reason for the multilayers of accounts and companies other than to hide these transfers. Some of these foreign figures have allegedly told others they were buying influence with Joe Biden, and Hunter himself repeatedly invoked his father’s name — including a text exchange with a Chinese businessman in which he said his father was sitting next to him as Hunter demanded millions in payment. While some Democrats now admit that Hunter was selling the “illusion” of influence and access to his father, these figures clearly believed they were getting more than an illusion. That includes one Ukrainian businessman who reportedly described Hunter as dumber than his dog.

Third, specific demands were made on Hunter, including dealing with the threat of a Ukrainian prosecutor to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter was given a lucrative board position. Five days later, Joe Biden forced the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor, even though State Department and intelligence reports suggested that progress was being made on corruption. Likewise, despite warnings from State Department officials that Hunter was undermining anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, he continued to receive high-level meetings with then-Secretary of State John Kerry and other State Department officials.

Fourth, Hunter repeatedly stated in emails that he paid his father as much as half of what he earned. There also are references to deals that included free office space and other perks for Joe Biden and his wife; other emails reference how Joe and Hunter Biden would use the same accounts and credit cards. Beyond those alleged direct benefits, Joe Biden clearly benefited from money going to his extended family.

Fifth, there is evidence of alleged criminal conduct by Hunter that could be linked to covering up these payments, from the failure to pay taxes to the failure to register as a foreign lobbyist. What is not established is the assumption by many that Joe Biden was fully aware of both the business dealings and any efforts to conceal them.

Each of these is an established fact. Kevin McCarthy even confronted an Associated Press reporter who was propagating the lie that there is “no evidence” of corruption and she had to admit that the facts themselves are there, if not that impeachment is warranted.

AP reported that McCarthy's impeachment inquiry was launched "without evidence.” Here’s McCarthy forcing an AP reporter to admit that there was lots of evidence to support an impeachment inquiry. pic.twitter.com/lgzU1BNNlE

— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) September 14, 2023

McCarthy is, in my view, far better at dealing with the press than he gets credit for, and moves the ball forward farther as well. His job isn’t to satisfy conservatives always, but to keep his caucus together to move the ball forward as far as possible. Blaming him for not making a touchdown pass every play is ridiculous. Interceptions are a step backward, so throwing Hail Marys every play is just stupid. Often it seems like the MAGA wing of the Party wants nothing but Hail Marys.

McCarthy is “dancing on the head of a pin. And the pin keeps getting smaller.” https://t.co/oyenFqNVPo

— Devashish Mitra (@DevashishMitra_) September 14, 2023

Here’s how Collinson opens his piece:

By opening an impeachment investigation into President Joe Biden, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy unleashed an unpredictable and treacherous new political force into what is already the most abnormal election of modern times.

McCarthy effectively set up partisan counterprogramming to the looming criminal trials of his patron, former President Donald Trump, who’s the front-runner for the GOP nomination to take on Biden.

The key question heading into the third impeachment effort in three and a half years should be whether this attempt to effectively reverse a democratic election by ousting Biden is justified. The GOP failure so far to provide much more than innuendo – that Biden corruptly used his power while vice president to profit from his son Hunter’s business ventures – suggests it is not.

There is a crazed sense of irony and history coming full circle this week in Washington.

Thank God Collinson is ” a senior reporter for CNN Politics covering the White House, and politics across the United States and around the world.” What would we do without such objective journalism?

Treacherous. Reverse a democratic election. Innuendo. Crazed.

This is who CNN chooses to cover the White House. Not a bit of curiosity about all the issues Turley brought up–facts, not innuendo. CNN’s own “fact check” to supposedly debunk McCarthy isn’t quite this shameless. They at least admit that there is a lot of smoke, and their claims are that there is no proof Slow Joe did anything wrong.

Their spin is that the allegations against Joe are unproven. Not that they are “crazed.” McCarthy himself doesn’t go so far as to say that the allegations are proven to be true (they are true) and has not called for impeachment; an impeachment inquiry is about gathering evidence, and Collinson is explicitly arguing that doing so is “crazed” and “treacherous.”

No wonder CNN doesn’t report the compelling evidence. They consider being journalists an act of treachery, apparently.

Remember, he is a “senior reporter covering the White House.” Reporter. Not commentator. Reporter. Against gathering evidence.

An impeachment inquiry is the equivalent of what a prosecutor does when he is pretty sure a crime has been committed and he gathers and arranges evidence to see if he can win a case in court. Think of impeachment as an indictment, and the inquiry as the investigation. The trial happens in the Senate. CNN’s position is don’t investigate. Doing so is treachery.

Pravda.

As a practical matter, I think most commentary on impeachment ignores the basic fact that impeachment is an explicitly political process, and was always intended to be such. The whole “did he break the law” question is beside the point, because “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a standard that includes nearly everything.

The campaign to impeach Trump began the day he assumed office. That is not an exaggeration. That is what the Washington Post said on the day of his inauguration, minutes after he was sworn in.

January 20th, 2017. The day Trump took office. https://t.co/gX5yidnWYb pic.twitter.com/KhH4pC0ZOl

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 14, 2023

So the question is: is it wise to do so? Biden deserves to be impeached, but will the country be better off? Will Republicans be better off?

My own thought is that the country benefits from the investigation, but probably not from conviction. Investigate until the day of the election, and if Biden wins then consider an actual impeachment when all the assertions are irrefutable.