1. I think it's interesting you bring this line of argument up consistently, for reasons I'll address in my second point below.
But, let's address what you wrote above. I'll quickly address it to say it's clearly a question of bribery on some level (if not in name) which is directly addressed in Article II, section 4 for what specifically POTUS and the VP can be impeached for:
"...
removed from office if impeached and convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
But, I also think that at some level you're demanding an answer that's both obvious and not required, at this point. The House would have to decide & vote on what the grounds for impeachment are. Having Comer or Jordan tie the hands of any potential House vote by naming a specific "crime" would be counterproductive and not required. So, let's do a deep dive:
A. First, impeachments are not criminal proceedings. Second, we don't have many examples, historically. Of the two most recent, the second one is not a good example to compare here, for reasons that are largely neutral. So, let's focus on Trump's first impeachment and what arguments were then. But first, some background:
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65: “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
In the modern era, Congress has continued to interpret the Constitution in this way. One of the articles of impeachment drafted for Nixon was for “abuse of power.” And
a Congressional Research Service report on impeachment and removal prepared in October 2015 says
“Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3)
misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.”
From the Cornell School of Law
HERE, discussing Trump's first Impeachment:
"The House, consistent with past impeachment practice, asserted that for purposes of Article II “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” “need not be indictable criminal offenses.”
Per
TIME that impeachment "...revealed an important development in how members of Congress, particularly House Democrats, are beginning to define a key constitutional power afforded to them: deciding what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors...they are operating under the principle that an impeachable offense need not be an actual crime."
So, on December 3, 2019, as part of the impeachment inquiry, the House Intelligence Committee published a report detailing that Trump "...personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection."
So, a committee report (similar to the just-released Biden report) never accused Trump of breaking any specific law. But, does lay out what the 'problem' was.
Now, let's look at the language used for the recent 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,”
----> That language seems just as specific (if not moreso) as Trump's, above. Again, neither are required to name a specific crime.
You keep demanding to know 'what high crime and misdemeanor' Biden is accused of? The report summary I provided above reads very clearly to me. Were you demanding the same during Trump's impeachment? It's funny that the line of argument you're using was explicitly ignored when the argument was to impeach Trump:
Asha Rangappa (lawyer/FBI agent/CNN, BBC, NPR & MSBC contributor)
argued that asking if a President broke the law or not isn’t necessarily the right question when assessing if something is an impeachable offense. “Either you have laws that don’t cover the specific kind of behavior that he is engaged in, because it only becomes problematic if it’s the President engaging in it, or you’re dealing with things that are just much bigger in the sense of abuse of power, or violations of oath of office or bigger constitutional principles that are being violated, even if they don’t necessarily violate a specific aspect of the U.S. code.”
In other words, Rangappa believes setting criminality as the test for impeachment may lead people to miss the forest for the trees in terms of overall presidential conduct and potential abuse of power. That an act or behavior doesn’t have to cross the bar of criminality and that’s okay: that’s not the bar.
Even Adam Schiff said in relation to Trump's impeachment: “There is no quid pro quo necessary to betray your country or your oath of office,” which is doubly ironic, because even quid pro quo isn't illegal...it's the very foundation of diplomacy.
Bottom line: I think you're using your demand to "identify the specific crimes Biden is guilty of" as a shield to avoid discussion of Biden's issues, here. Specificity that wasn't provided or even required at the same point in Trump's impeachment.
As for evidence...I think the lengthy proof of $27M, how it got to where it went, who it came from, and Hunter's own words via testimony, emails, and other unrefuted sources is enough "evidence". It's certainly far-more than both of Trump's impeachments, combined, imo. But, it's largely irrelevant at this point.
--------------------------------------------------
2. Not looking to re-debate the "Hush Money" trial....and it's obviously a different "thing" altogether: But, I see tremendous cognitive dissonance in the demand to know exactly "what" crime Biden committed, prior to any actual discussion or vote in the House. However, Trump can be
convicted of crime that only exists if it covers up another crime. Yet, nobody has yet identified exactly what the "another crime" is. I don't recall you ever voicing your concern over this issue in Trump's NY Trial.
