These are the facts about Biden's impeachment that Democrats can't deny

The biggest political scandal in U.S. history, Watergate, didn't happen overnight.

It all began on June 18, 1972. The Washington Post reported that five men, one of whom was an employee of the CIA, had been arrested while attempting to break into the offices of the Democratic National Committee in Washington to spy on Senator George McGovern's campaign. This happened just weeks before the general election.

No one imagined that this news story would lead to President Richard Nixon's resignation. He had initially denied any connection to "The Plumbers" who tried to wiretap the DNC offices but later became fully involved in the most famous espionage plot in American history.

But before Nixon's resignation, which came once the crimes were fully exposed, the government took a logical first step: congressional committees intensified investigations to determine whether the then-Republican president deserved to be impeached for abusing his power.

This is what Republicans are currently doing in the House of Representatives. They are investigating all of President Joe Biden's potential connections with the controversial business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, to determine if a crime took place that justifies an impeachment.

However, the Democrats, practically in unison, are speaking out against this potential impeachment, calling it a "witch hunt" against Biden. They are even openly pressuring the media to "ramp up" scrutiny against Republicans for promoting impeachment proceedings "based on lies."

But the facts, according to judicial experts, are a far cry from the picture Democrats are trying to paint.

The facts Democrats can't deny

The White House and Biden himself have contradicted each other multiple times when explaining the president's involvement in his son's foreign businesses. They first argued that the president had no idea about his son's business deals. However, as more reports from Republicans and the press were released, they backtracked and insisted that Joe Biden had never been directly involved in his son's business dealings. The remarkable change in discourse is remarkable and can be explained.

Over the last few months, House Republicans, led by Congressman James Comer, chairman of the Oversight Committee, have released evidence showing that the Biden family received $20,000,000 from Hunter Biden's foreign associates from countries such as Russia, China, Romania, Ukraine and others through multiple bank accounts.

According to James Comer, the reason these foreign sources sent money to the Bidens, through different hard-to-trace bank accounts, is because Hunter sold his father's "brand," who was then serving as Obama's vice president.

"During Joe Biden’s vice presidency, Hunter Biden sold him as ‘the brand’ to reap millions from oligarchs in Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. It appears no real services were provided other than access to the Biden network, including Joe Biden himself," Comer said in a press release in August.

Likewise, Devon Archer, former business partner and best friend of Hunter Biden, confirmed with his testimony to Congress that Joe Biden's son sold his father's brand to his associates abroad.

Archer revealed that Hunter put his father on speakerphone in several calls with his foreign business associates. He also claimed that Biden knew what his son did.

At this point, there is one fact that Democrats cannot deny: Joe Biden knew about his son's business dealings and was meeting and conversing with his associates.

But the evidence doesn't stop there. Republicans revealed the existence of a form FD-1023, issued by a "highly credible" FBI source, where Hunter and Joe Biden are accused of having received $5,000,000 each from a Ukrainian associate in exchange for political favors.

According to the form, the person who allegedly admitted to this bribe was Mykola Zlochevsky, president and founder of the energy company Burisma, a company that paid Hunter Biden more than $80,000 a month to be a member of its board of directors.

The complaint of this FBI source raised red flags because Burisma was being investigated for corruption at that time by the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin. This took place when he was serving as vice president. He threatened to withhold humanitarian aid from Ukraine if Shokin was not removed from office.

According to a longtime and credible FBI source, Joe Biden may have used his political influence to protect his son's overseas businesses and, in return, receive money.

According to jurists and legal experts such as Professor Jonathan Turley, who participated in the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, there is more than enough evidence for congressional committees to intensify the impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden.

Five aspects that should be investigated

In fact, according to Turley, there are as many as five facts that compel Congress to investigate Biden's impeachment:

Turley believes, similarly to Nixon's case in 1973, that Republicans have sufficient reasons to initiate an impeachment inquiry. The attitudes of Democrats and White House officials are even more alarming.

"The White House is reportedly involved in marshaling the media to swat down any further investigation ... It is a dangerous erosion of separation between the White House and the president’s personal legal team," Turley wrote in a recent op-ed for The Messenger.

The professor explained that, despite the media's favorable coverage of the White House around Hunter Biden's business, the public does not believe the official version and most think that Joe Biden was involved in his son's business dealings abroad. Turley also said that those who argue that there is insufficient evidence to initiate an impeachment inquiry suffer from "willful blindness."

"The American public should not harbor such doubts over corruption at the highest levels of our government. Thus, the House impeachment inquiry will allow Congress to use the very apex of its powers to force disclosures of key evidence and resolve some of these troubling questions," Turley said. "It may not result in an impeachment, but it will result in greater clarity. Indeed, it is that very clarity that many in Washington may fear the most from this inquiry."