Even so, there has been very little press coverage of the inquiry as major media outlets that have been bought and paid for by Democrats pretend as though the whole thing is a big yawner.
"First Impeachment Hearing Yields No New Information on Biden," reads one false headline from The New York Times, the story of which further claimed deceptively that "even their [Republicans'] witnesses said the case for impeachment hadn't been made."
"Which, of course the case hasn't been made yet," commented The Federalist's John Daniel Davidson about the Times' claim. "That's why you launch an inquiry, of which Thursday was day one."
"But if the media had actually covered it, the American public might have heard more about the mounds of damning evidence now piling up by the day, including the release on Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee of reams of text messages and emails between Hunter Biden, his uncle James Biden, and a colorful array of foreign oligarchs, business associates, and bagmen."
(Related: Check out our earlier coverage about the Biden impeachment for more.)
House Republicans presented more than 24 pieces of evidence linking Joe to Hunter's international bribery scheme
On the first day of the impeachment inquiry, House Republicans put forth more than two dozen pieces of evidence showing that "the big guy" does, in fact, have direct ties to Hunter's overseas malfeasances, which makes him a criminal.
Everything presented thus far by House Republicans suggests that the Biden family "business" is nothing more than "an influence-peddling scheme on a scale never before seen in American history," to quote Davidson.
Even with Washington, D.C., being as corrupt as it is, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who testified at the hearing, commented that he has never seen "anything of this size and complexity." Turley continued by stating that Congress absolutely has a "duty to determine if the president is involved in what is a known form of corruption."
For Joe to claim that he knew nothing of Hunter's international bribery dealings while serving as vice president under Obama is simply ludicrous based on the evidence, which includes damning text messages.
One correspondence between Hunter and his uncle from back in June 2017 contains a direct reference to Joe, whom Hunter called his "family's brand" and "only asset." This clearly points to the influence peddling of the Biden family business only being possible because of Joe's then-status as vice president.
Hunter's former business partner Devon Archer testified much the same back in July to the House Oversight Committee when he revealed that the reason Hunter was even added to the board of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma in the first place was to enhance "the brand," this being another direct reference to then-Vice President Biden.
It was also revealed by Tony Bobulinski, another of Hunter's business partners, that from 2015-16, Hunter and his uncle James engaged in a shady business scheme with CEFC, a Chinese company with direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Because Joe was still vice president at the time, Hunter and James had to wait to get paid for that deal because "there was a concern it would be improper."
"They believed the CEFC owed them money for the benefits that accrued to CEFC through its use of the Biden family name to advance their business dealings," Bobulinski testified.
After Joe left office, Hunter and James received more than $1 million as "back-pay," to quote Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who stated that "now we know why" it all happened the way it did.
The latest news about Biden's impeachment inquiry can be found at Corruption.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
