A version of this story appeared in the On Background newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive On Background delivered directly to your inbox each Friday.
Top legal and tax experts told Congress on Thursday that it’s premature to impeach President Biden, though most agreed there were enough questions to continue investigating Hunter Biden’s activities to see where it leads.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Congress needs more evidence if it wants to take the next step and bring impeachment proceedings. But he said there’s at least enough curious behavior to continue probing.
“I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment,” he told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. “But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”
Four witnesses testified, including three called by Republicans and one by Democrats.
None of the four said impeachment is warranted right now.
But Bruce Dubinsky, an accountant who’s assisted in major federal investigations, said the network of shell companies attributed to the Biden family deserves scrutiny.
“While shell companies can be used for legitimate business activities, more often shell companies are associated with fraudulent activities, tax evasion, money laundering, hiding of assets and other illicit practices,” Mr. Dubinsky said.
He added: “The critical question facing the American people today is whether behind the smokescreen clouding the Biden family and associates’ businesses was there or is there a fire? And if there was or is a fire, how big is that fire?”
He cautioned that any investigation needs to be unbiased and untainted by politics.
According to the case laid out by Republicans, Hunter Biden was involved in influence-peddling, selling what he portrayed as access to his family to foreign companies, and raking in millions of dollars. The key question is whether President Biden was involved in that.
Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who was the Democrats’ witness, said he feared Republicans were operating under preconceived assumptions that could be skewing how they see the facts.
He said the allegations raised to date implicate Hunter Biden, but none of them touch closely enough to his father to justify Congress’s probing the sitting president.
“If that’s what exists as the basis for this inquiry, it is not sufficient,” he said.
He compared the facts to a hypothetical where Hunter Biden was speeding in a car owned by his father and police went after his father.
“I don’t think that’s how the law should work. I don’t think that’s how impeachment should work,” Mr. Gerhardt said.
• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.