There hasn't been a stronger case for impeaching and removing a president in american history, certainly in terms of Biden's personal corruption. First up, though, is the development that we have long sought, which is the official blessing of an impeachment inquiry by the full House of Representatives. It was a largely partisan vote. I don't think any Democrats voted against it. So I think it was a completely partisan voted. 

No Democrat voted for it. I mean, and so the inquiry had been launched by Speaker McCarthy, then Speaker McCarthy a few months ago on his own authority, and now it's been ratified by the full House. So there are three committees who are investigating or inquiring about whether an impeachment of President Biden is warranted. The House Oversight Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Wades and Means Committee, which oversees the IRS and would be investigating the financial side of the ledger there. 

And is it a significant development in terms of getting Biden impeached more quickly? Probably not. I think it was more symbolic than anything else. They tell us they needed it to be ratified by the House to give them stronger legal standing if they had to fight for documents in the courts. I don't necessarily buy that, but that's what they say. But it's good that all Republicans and Democrats had a chance to say one way or another whether they supported this. 

Now the left media and the pro Biden, I call it the Biden regime media, and obviously the Biden people in White House are saying there's no basis for impeachment. There's no crime that they're investigating Biden for. What's the crime? Well, the easiest answer to that is the crime is bribery. That's what the evidence suggests happened. And then obviously, you had conspiracy and to obstruct justice and cover up that scandal as well. 

And, of course, you've also had President Biden himself lying repeatedly about his personal involvement in this. So impeachment is warranted. My view is that they should accelerate the impeachment, expand it to include the border crimes as well. The Biden administration and Joe Biden's aiding and abetting and refusing to abide by his oath of office to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed in terms of this Biden border invasion, which has just awful consequences for our nation. 

Millions of people are coming into the country with the assistance of this man, and impeachment is warranted there. And there's more than enough evidence. And I think the evidence against Obama, excuse me, fraudy and slip. The evidence against Biden is overwhelming. In terms of the need for impeachment, there hasn't been a stronger case for impeaching and removing a president in american history. Certainly in terms of Biden's personal corruption. 

He's lied time and time again about his family's racketeering operation, and as I call it, that scheme to raise money from abroad, using him in his office. Biden's office, with his full participation, has a benefit of sending in money to the family. And he, it looks like, in various circumstances, did things through his official office, both as vice president and, I would argue, as president, to advance this racketeering operation. 

The other objection is that we can't impeach a president for acts he committed prior to his becoming president or things that he did when he was previously in office for crimes he committed during an office which he no longer holds. Well, I've got two words. Donald Trump. That's exactly what they did to Donald Trump. You can impeach someone for any reason. Now, if it's persuasive or unpersuasive reasons, that's up to the House to figure out and the Senate ultimately to figure out during trial. 

Does it mean that Biden is going to be removed from the presidency? Unlikely. I mean, the Senate is comprised of a majority Democrats. They need, I think, two thirds at least, to convict him and remove him from office. So that's unlikely to happen. But this is the process of accountability, and he has to go through it. And I don't think the House had any choice, and I almost to put like an exclamation point on it, on the day they're considering impeaching or officially blessing it. 

Through this inquiry motion that passed on the floor, Hunter Biden was scheduled to appear and required to appear under subpoena in the House of Representatives. And instead, he showed up and did a press conference in conspiracy with Eric Swalwell, the compromised and unethical and dishonest member of Congress from California, who was thrown off the intelligence committee, as I recall, and pretended that he would testify in person through an open hearing as opposed through a deposition, which is a more serious inquiry where lawyers and members of Congress involved in the committee can question you at length under oath before video camera. 

And then obviously, that transcript and video, in theory, would be releasable to the public, which is exactly the way, for instance, the January 6 committee and most other serious congressional inquiries have operated. So right now, Hunter Biden is thwarting and obstructing Congress and can easily be pounded in contempt of Congress. If there was a vote to be held. Of course, there isn't a vote to be held because the House of Representatives is almost always more focused on vacation than doing the work they're supposed to do. 

So this is what happened in the House. They voted on the impeachment inquiry. Then about 170 Republicans or so voted with all Democrats to pass a defense funding bill that funded transgender surgeries, mutilation of our troops and family members, killing unborn babies illegally with defense dollars. They're going to allow that to continue to happen and propagandizing our troops and trying to alienate them from America by force, feeding them racist left wing propaganda that wants to destroy America by dividing it by race and know through CRT and such. 

All of that was not attached to the defense authorization bill. So Biden won again, with the help of many Republicans on the Hill and every Democrat in the House, practically speaking. So that's what Congress House did. And now they're away. I haven't checked to see when they're coming back, how long their Christmas break is. My guess is it's significantly longer than you would be able to take if you wanted to take a long break during Christmas. 

But what they could do with Hunter, by the way. So they obviously would have to. I think a referral would require a full vote by the House, a referral for a criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. But of course, it's controlled by Joe Biden's people. So are they going to go after Hunter? I suspect not. But who knows? Maybe they'll enforce the law even handedly, like they are against Bannon and Peter Navarro, who are two former members of the Trump administration who were found in contempt of Congress. 

And now the Biden regime wants the jail. But this is something the House probably doesn't want you to know. The Senate has this power, too. The respective houses of Congress have what is known as inherent contempt authority. That means if they are conducting an investigation and issue a subpoena or request someone's presence, and that person doesn't want to show up, doesn't cite privileges or seek relief in the courts from the subpoena, or otherwise lawfully object, or just show up and assert their Fifth Amendment privilege, which is their God given right as referenced in the Constitution, they can, under this inherent contempt authority, send the respective sergeant of arms. 

In this case, it would be the sergeant of arms for the House. Go get the witness and haul him in and detain him until he's ready to testify. Now, that used to be the way it was done up until, I don't think it's been done since the 30s. So it's really now dormant. Right. That power, it hasn't been exercised. And obviously he can be prosecuted. Right. For, or someone who's in contempt of Congress can be prosecuted under federal law, which may be good, but it's not going to get you the testimony, and it may not vindicate the Congress's desire to get the information as they're able to do under their constitutional powers. 

So, as I said, they don't want you to know this because they would have you think that, oh, well, Hunter didn't show up and there's nothing we can do, especially because of the Biden Justice Department. There is something they can do. I don't know if it requires a rule change, but it's easily done. If the majority wants to, in my view, they can find him in contempt and get the sergeant of arms to haul him in and make him testify. 

Otherwise, he sits in the detention facility in the US Capitol. Do I know there's a detention facility in the US Capitol? No, but I'm sure they can find someplace if there isn't. But I suspect there is. I shouldn't say like this is another tool of Congress that they have to ensure compliance with congressional subpoenas that they just don't want to enforce or use because it gets sticky. They don't want to have to arrest people and detain people. 

Now, you may be concerned that Congress has that authority. Well, if you don't like it, you'll have to change the constitution. And it was used repeatedly in the first part of our nation's history up until, as I said, of the 1930s, it was most recently threatened against the Nixon administration. I think Sam Irvin, one of the Watergate investigators on the Hill, used to threaten it every other day to recastle witnesses in Nixon's orbit. 

So this is another option. And if they want the testimony of Hunter Biden, there are other ways to get it, as opposed to just waiting around for a court either to enforce the subpoena through civil means or for the federal government to prosecute him, which obviously doesn't get you the testimony. Now, what would he say under oath if he was deposed? Hunter? Probably not much, right? I mean, I would suspect, or I would think his lawyers would advise him to take the Fifth Amendment. 

Indeed, at his press conference the other day, he issued yet another in what is a series of ever evolving statements and explanations about the president's involvement in Hunter's and his family's racketeering schemes. Now, he's saying that Joe Biden was not financially involved in his businesses. Well, isn't that an interesting little caveat? Isn't it? Right, financially involved as opposed to Hunter or Joe saying from the get go almost, I had no involvement in his businesses at all, which has been shown to be absolutely false and impeachable over given he said that as president of the United States, so now he had no financial involvement. 

I think that's false, too, given the bank records that have shown payments that raise questions in that regard. I mean, what's next? He didn't sign a contract. No one buys this. The media wants you to pretend that Joe has nothing to do with Hunter. And I talked about some of these options that we're talking about in our analyses a little bit more succinctly because I have less time on Fox Business and then on Newsmax. 

Excuse me. So let's run that Fox business clip. But we have a little bit of that. I'm just picking up on what Senator Schumer had to say there. He regards the republican pressure for impeachment unserious. What would you say to that, Tom? Well, in my view, what's unserious is to ignore really the powerful evidence of a racketeering operation that involved then Vice President Biden and arguably President Biden and bribery. 

There's been nothing like it in american history where president has been so directly implicated in personal and public related criminal activity. And as the moderates, so called moderates in the republican party, admitting in the House is the evidence is overwhelming, they'd be like nothing more than avoid this. But the facts are what they are. And on top of know, you have Hunter showing up and thumbing his nose at the Hill yesterday going into what looks to be contempt of Congress. 

We find out from Politico he talked to his father about, you know, Hunter and Joe are joined at the hip. And in my view, Joe Biden and the White House counsel's office that's been in contact with Hunter's lawyers about, frankly, it looks like how to obstruct and divert these investigations should be subject to questioning through this impeachment inquiry as well. Yeah, that's another interesting side of this. According to Politico, Hunter gave his father heads up about his scheme to obstruct Congress. 

So it raises the question, what did Joe say? Did he encourage him to say to obstruct? Did he say you should show up and testify? What did he say? And we also know separately from earlier reporting that Hunter's lawyers are coordinating in communication with the White House lawyers who work for you on these matters that Hunter is facing from Joe Biden's own Justice Department. So these lawyers should be hauled into Congress immediately and the president should be questioned in this impeachment matter. 

Now, would they be able to enforce a subpoena? I don't know. There's a separation of powers issue there. But maybe, I mean, under the way the courts have been treating Trump has treated Trump as president. And if the rules were applied similarly to Biden, I think he might have to testify. But I don't know how that would know in terms of what the courts might decide one way or another. 

So I'm glad that the Congress is proceeding with impeachment. They need to accelerate it and get to the bottom of this and get serious on it as quickly as possible because times are wasting. Thanks for watching. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button. And like our video down below. .