Impeachement report lays out President Biden’s alleged offenses

“The Biden family, with the help and knowledge of the president, used the Biden family name around the world to rake in nearly $30 million from overseas entities in Ukraine, China, Romania and elsewhere in secretive influence deals.”

President Joe Biden committed impeachable offenses in his role in his family’s alleged overseas business dealings, a newly released report from the U.S. House Ways and Committee alleges.

“As described in this report, the Committees have accumulated evidence demonstrating that President Biden has engaged in impeachable conduct,” the report said.

The 291-page report lays out in detail what have at times been murky allegations against the president.

House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., helped spearhead the investigation, uncovering and laying out evidence. He and Republicans on the impeachment committee argue that the Biden family, with the help and knowledge of the president, used the Biden family name around the world to rake in nearly $30 million from overseas entities in Ukraine, China, Romania and elsewhere in secretive influence deals.

“In order to obscure the source of these funds, the Biden family and their associates set up shell companies to conceal these payments from scrutiny,” the report said. “The Biden family used proceeds from these business activities to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Joe Biden—including thousands of dollars that are directly traceable to China.”

Biden has brushed off questions about his involvement in a scheme being highlighted in the Republicans’ report. The administration has yet to release a formal response in reaction to the report.

A key question in the investigation has been, even if Hunter Biden and others monetized the “Biden brand,” how much did the president really know or participate?

“Witnesses acknowledged that Hunter Biden involved Vice President Biden in many of his business dealings with Russian, Romanian, Chinese, Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian individuals and companies,” the report said. “Then-Vice President Biden met or spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign business associates, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia, and Kazakhstan. As a result, the Biden family has received millions of dollars from these foreign entities.”

The president has repeatedly brushed off these allegations, and so far Republicans have not gotten the needed votes to make impeachment a serious threat.

From the report:

First and foremost, overwhelming evidence demonstrates that President Biden participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family. Among other aspects of this conspiracy, the Biden family and their business associates received tens of millions of dollars from foreign interests by leading those interests to believe that such payments would provide them access to and influence with President Biden. As Vice President, President Biden actively participated in this conspiracy by, among other things, attending dinners with his family’s foreign business partners and speaking to them by phone, often when being placed on speakerphone by Hunter Biden. For example, in 2014, Vice President Biden attended a dinner for Hunter Biden with Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina.4 Following the dinner, Baturina wired $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a firm associated with Hunter Biden. Then, months later, as Hunter Biden and his business associates continued to solicit more money from Baturina, Vice President Biden participated in a phone call with Baturina and Hunter Biden where Vice President Biden told Baturina, “you be good to my boy.” Moreover, President Biden knowingly participated in this conspiracy. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is inconceivable that President Biden did not understand that he was taking part in an effort to enrich his family by abusing his office of public trust.

“The Biden-Harris Administration has lied to the American people time and again to cover up and obstruct the investigation into tax crimes committed by a Biden family business enterprise that capitalized on political power,” Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement. “The American people have been shocked to learn the magnitude of the scheme going back to the President’s time as Vice President, when Biden family members were allowed to use Air Force Two as their own private business jet.

“None of this would have come to light had it not been for the two IRS whistleblowers who were tired of watching their investigation into the President’s son become obstructed, delayed, and denied the ability to move forward as the pursuit of truth demanded,” he added.

The whistleblowers in question are Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley and Criminal Investigator Joseph Ziegler, two IRS employees with nearly three decades of combined federal experience.

Those whistleblowers came forward and testified before Congress about Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes, saying that this case was unlike any other. One whistleblower testified that the Biden administration interfered in the investigation to protect Hunter and prevent a raid at the president’s Delaware home.

Earlier this year, Hunter, who still faces tax charges Biden was found guilty on federal gun charges.

President Biden has said he will not pardon his son.

Whether Biden falling out of favor with his own party in the presidential election will change that trajectory remains to be seen.

“Americans now know Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ the Bidens sold around the world to enrich the Biden family, and Joe Biden knew of, benefitted from, and participated in his family’s influence peddling schemes,” Comer said in a statement. “The entire Biden influence peddling model relied on Joe Biden’s presence—at meetings, on the phone, or at dinners—to demonstrate his family members’ influence over him, and he repeatedly provided it.”

Casey Harper

D.C. Bureau Reporter

Related Topics:#CaseyHarper #TheCenterSquare JoeBidenImpeachmentReport

Up Next

Federal government’s capital gains tax hike is worse than you think

Don't Miss

RFK Jr’s powerful speech to America explaining his dramatic political journey

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

Energy / 4 hours ago

Carney bets on LNG, Alberta doubles down on oil

Daily Caller

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Alan M. Dershowitz

If I were still teaching a course on constitutional law, I would use President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops into cities as a classic example of an issue whose resolution is unpredictable. There are arguments on both sides, many of which are fact-specific and depend on constantly changing circumstances.

A few conclusions are fairly clear:

First, under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president clearly has the authority to send federal law enforcement officials to protect federal buildings or federal officials from danger. Moreover, the president gets to decide, subject to limited judicial review, whether such dangers exist. State and city officials cannot interfere with the proper exercise of such federal authority.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Second, and equally clear, is that if there is no federal interest that requires protection, the president has no authority to intrude on purely local matters, such as street crime. The 10th Amendment and various statutes leave local law enforcement entirely in the hands of the states.

Third, the president has greater authority over Washington, DC, even with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, than he does over other cities.

Fourth, there are limited situations in which the president has authority, even if there is no direct federal interest in protecting a federal building or authorities. One such instance is an “insurrection.”

Yet the law is unclear as to a) the definition of an insurrection; b) who gets to decide whether an insurrection, however defined, is ongoing; and c) what is the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing a presidential decision that an insurrection is occurring.

The same is true of an invasion. This is somewhat easier to define, but there will be close cases, such as a dictator sending hordes of illegal immigrants to destabilize a nation.

How Do We Legally Define What’s Happening Now?

In a democracy, especially one with a system of checks and balances and a division of power such as ours, the question almost always comes down to who gets to decide? Our legal system recognizes the possibility ‒ indeed, the likelihood ‒ that whoever gets to make that decision may get it wrong.

So the issue becomes: Who has the right to be wrong? In most democracies, especially those with unitary parliamentary systems, the right to be wrong belongs to the elected branch of government ‒ namely, the legislature. At the federal level, that’s Congress, under Article 1 of the Constitution.

However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, all legislative decisions are subject to constitutional judicial review. Even a majority of the voters or their legislators are not empowered to violate the Constitution.

And if the Constitution is unclear, ambiguous or even inconsistent? I have a cartoon hanging in my office showing one of the framers saying to the others: “Just for fun, let’s make what is or isn’t constitutional kind of wishy-washy.”

Well, on the issue of presidential power to send troops into cities over the objection of local politicians, the Constitution is kind of “wishy-washy.” To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when he discussed hardcore pornography: “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly (defining it), but I know it when I see it.”

The same may be said of an insurrection. It’s hard to define in advance with any degree of precision except at the extremes, but not so difficult to identify if one sees it.

The Legal Endgame Here Isn’t Clear, Either

The Civil War was an insurrection. Anti-Israel protests on campuses were not. But what about the violence in cities like Portland, where left-wing protesters burned cars and buildings and blocked access in 2024?

Some of these groups would love nothing more than to incite an insurrection, but they lack the power, at least at the moment, to garner sufficient support for anything broader than a violent demonstration or riot.

Does the president have to wait until these quixotic “insurrectionists” have garnered such support? Or can he take preventive steps that include sending in federal law enforcement officials? What about federal troops? Is that different?

These questions will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court, which is likely to try to defer broadly based and categorical answer as long as possible. In the meantime, district judges in cities across the country will rule against the president, except in cases involving protection of federal buildings, federal officials and the nation’s capital.

The president will appeal, and the appellate courts will likely split, depending on the particular circumstances of the cases.

“Wishy-washy” and “we’ll know it when we see it” are the best we are going to get in this complex situation.

Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Get Trump,” “Guilt by Accusation” and “The Price of Principle.” This piece is republished from the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter.

Daily Caller

Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Anthony Iafrate

Democratic Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin posted a video to social media Tuesday morning in which she and five of her congressional colleagues called for the military and the intelligence community to “stand up” to President Donald Trump’s administration.

The half-dozen Democratic lawmakers who took part in the video titled, “Don’t give up the ship,” had all served as military or intelligence officers. In her X post of the video, Slotkin stated the lawmakers seek to “directly” tell service members and intelligence personnel that the “American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.”

“We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now,” Slotkin, a former CIA officer, said in the video she appeared in alongside Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Democratic Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, Democratic New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Democratic Colorado Rep. Jason Crow.

“Americans trust their military,” said Houlahan, a former Air Force officer.

“But that trust is at risk,” added Deluzio, a former officer in the Navy.

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” Kelly, a former Navy officer, said in tandem with Crow, a former Army officer, and Slotkin.

WATCH:

“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly, Slotkin and Deluzio said later in the video.

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” Kelly and Goodlander, a former naval intelligence officer who is married to Biden-era former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, charged military and intelligence personnel.

Deluzio and Crow claimed that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”

The lawmakers added that they know that what they are urging is “hard” and that “it is a difficult time to be a public servant.”

“But whether you are serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back,” they continued, alternating lines. “Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.”

“Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up the ship,” the Democrats concluded.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is also in charge of intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA, by virtue of being head of the Executive Branch of the federal government — a responsibility laid out in Article II, Section 1.

“Don’t give up the ship” is a common phrase that dates back to the War of 1812 and were the last words uttered by Navy Captain James Lawrence before he succumbed to his gunshot wound on the USS Chesapeake.