For sure, most Americans aren’t watching the impeachment hearings. People have jobs, responsibilities, and lives that generally preclude them from being able to spend the time to watch the hearings live. Instead, they rely on the media to tell them what happened, and, as expected, the media is selling the public a whole load of hogwash.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, was a witness for the Republicans on Thursday, and the media has been pumping out article after article taking a particular quote of his out of context.
“A star witness for Republicans at the first impeachment hearing Thursday said the current evidence uncovered by Republicans would not be enough to support an ouster of President Joe Biden,” reported The Messenger.
“Republicans’ long-shot attempt to impeach President Joe Biden got off to a rocky start Thursday, with their star witness, legal expert Jonathan Turley, outright saying he doesn’t see any evidence to support impeachment,” reported The Daily Beast.
The Hill ran an article with the headline “GOP witness says ‘current evidence’ doesn’t support Biden impeachment.”
These articles, and others like them, completely distort what Turley testified to Thursday. These articles with their misleading headlines quote Turley as saying, “I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment.”
But that’s not exactly what he said. Reports have almost universally omitted critical context.
Here’s what Turley actually said in his written statement, with the oft-quoted snipped in bold:
It is important to emphasize what this hearing is not. It is not a hearing on articles of impeachment. The House has launched an impeachment inquiry, and I am appearing to discuss the history and purpose of such inquiries. I have previously stated that, while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment. The purpose of my testimony today is to discuss how past inquiries pursued evidence of potentially impeachable conduct.
My testimony also reflects the fact that I do believe that, after months of investigation, the House has passed the threshold for an inquiry into whether President Joe Biden was directly involved or benefited from the corrupt practices of his son, Hunter, and others. Since my testimony focuses on the historical and legal aspects of this inquiry, I will leave much of the discussion of the evidence to my fellow witnesses and to the Committee members themselves. However, I believe that the record has developed to the point that the House needs to answer troubling questions surrounding the President. As discussed below, polls indicate that most of the country shares those concerns while expressing doubts over the Biden Administration investigating potential criminal conduct.
You can watch Turley speak here:
"The House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden."
Attorney @JonathanTurley lays out the allegations against President Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/iuLs98CQiK
— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) September 28, 2023
Turley makes it quite clear that, contrary to what both the Democrats and the media have claimed, an impeachment inquiry is very much warranted — a detail that the media is glossing over to give the impression that Republicans are on a wild goose chase, impeaching Biden without any evidence to support doing so. But an impeachment inquiry is, by definition, an investigation, not the actual impeachment.
Make no mistake about it; the House Oversight Committee has sworn testimony, bank records, emails, phone calls, videos and photos, text messages, and even White House visitor logs. An impeachment inquiry will now give the House expanded investigative powers to dig even deeper. In fact, at the end of Thursday’s hearing, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ohio) announced his intention to subpoena bank records for not only Hunter Biden but also for Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden, as the next step of the investigation and that subpoenaing Joe Biden’s personal bank records may be next.
🚨BREAKING🚨
@RepJamesComer ends first impeachment inquiry hearing by announcing he is issuing subpoenas for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records. pic.twitter.com/EKtYKiCNOM— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) September 28, 2023
Democrats and the media have been pretending that there’s “no evidence” to support an impeachment inquiry, but even the man they’re quoting left and right said that the threshold for an inquiry has been met.
