it's an effort to undermine our democracy, to diminish donald trump's own two impeachments, his first impeachment for trying to illegally bribe a foreign government to help him with his campaign, and the second for a deadly insurrection in the halls of this capitol after he asked his followers to tear through the halls of congress which they did with zip ties looking to execute the former vice president. and we know donald trump has called for this impeachment inquiry, because we have the direct evidence from his own social. you can see it right here. he says impeach the bum. and we also know that he's been directly coordinating with members of this committee as reported by the "new york times" right here, a member of this committee has been briefing donald trump on this inquiry. we also know that if donald trump doesn't get his way, he wants his loyalists to shut down the government. how do we know that? because he posted it right here on his social media and his loyalists in this committee who are doing his bidding for him today retweeted it. and in fact, it actually says right here that the reason why they want to defund the government and impeach is because this is the last chance to defund these political prosecutions against me. so folks, this is not a serious inquiry, this is not a serious hearing. in fact, the witnesses here don't even believe there's enough evidence to impeach. their own members don't even believe there's enough evidence to impeach. in fact, they refuse to hold a vote on the floor of the house of representatives because they didn't have enough republican members who would vote for it. that's why we are here today. it's outrageous. so, what is this hearing actually about? it's a campaign strategy. it's a misuse of official resources. it is this committee and loyalists of donald trump doing his bidding to bolster his chances of winning back the white house and securing their majority in the next election. and in the process to diminish the name of impeachment, which is enshrined in the u.s. constitution we take an oath to uphold, and to make donald trump's crimes, including his two impeachments, and his 91 criminal indictment counts, look like they are not serious crimes. when you think about it, it's chilling. it's truly chilling. it's another attack on our democracy and our institutions. it's another attack on fair and free elections, and the use of this committee to try to carry it out. so i just want to say, i think it's obvious who the grand puppet master is here. he tweeted about it on his own social, and we see the long arm, little hands, of mr. donald trump whose fingerprints are all over this hearing and this sham impeachment. but we know that the american people are smart, that they are not going to be fooled by what's happening here today, and especially as they shut the government down in two days with catastrophic impacts for our communities. and with that, i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. higgins from louisiana for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair, and mr. turley, retract from absurdity of twitter, back to civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. and high crimes and misdemeanors is not and never has been limited to indictable criminality. mr. turley, professor, please tell us briefly, sir, what was actual meaning in 1787 of high crimes and misdemeanors. >> well, this has been a matter of obviously robust debate for many decades. what we do know is that there were various terms that were offered and were rejected. the most famous being mal administration, and james madison was uncomfortable with that. but also uncomfortable with limiting it to treason and bribery. >> exactly, never designed to be limited by writ of statute. was it, professor. would madison argue that "betrayal of trust to foreign powers" is impeachable offense? >> there are references that type of betrayal of trust but also take a look at past impeachments. they have gone to the violation of public trust, including the use of office to perpetuate false accounts or obstruct this body. >> agreed. so impeachment is a mechanism of our congressional authority, it's not a criminal proceeding, is it, professor. >> it's not. what i have said previously is that i happen to believe you should start with the criminal code and look at things that would be crimes for others because those resonate the most. >> and those -- those criminal code violations would be revealed through the investigative effort of the congressional endeavor to inquire into impeachable offenses, like this hearing, would you agree? >> that's right. >> moving quickly, there is -- one of the gentlemen said no credibility to this evidence. let me say as an investigator, perhaps no category of evidence that's more credible than bank records and bank records is what we are working with, the house oversight committee, judiciary committee, ways and means committee, investigating highly suspicious money transactions from foreign powers through shell companies to biden family members. there's nothing more credible in an investigative effort, good sir, than bank records. i'm going to read from an email from assistant united states attorney wolf released by the house committee on ways and means yesterday identified as exhibit 202 of the irs whistleblower investigation. they mail shows miss wolf prohibiting the investigation team from looking into political figure one, let me clarify. that during that investigation political figure one was a pseudonym agreed upon by the investigative team, the fbi, doj, and irs investigative. political figure one is not a pseudonym created by republicans or democrats, political figure one is president biden. joe biden. leslie wolf, as a priority, someone needs to redraft attachment b. there should be nothing about political figure one in here. this is a response to an email delivered by joshua wilson, fbi agent, saying please see attached draft for blue star search warrant. blue star strategies is a long time democrat lobbying firm that hunter biden used to put pressure on u.s. government officials to end the investigation and protect burisma. the department of justice was investigating blue star when these activities and allowed to retroactively register as a foreign agent. today no one has been held accountable at blue star. that happened during 2020, just months before your presidential election, america. you should be very concerned about this. mr. turley, based upon the constitutional parameters of the house of representatives, do you agree that oversight committee, judiciary committee and ways and means committee should be judiciously investigating reasonable suspicion of impeachable actions by president joe biden. >> i do. i think it is your duty to get answers to these questions and to see if the president was involved in what i think is a confirmed corrupt influence peddling effort. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. i yield. >> recognize miss garcia of california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, begin by recapping what we have seen so far today. democratic colleagues have done a great job showing there is absolutely 0 evidence linking president joe biden to any wrongdoing, 0, none. the hearing is a complete waste of time, two days before a maga government shutdown and we also know hunter biden never held any sort of public office and there is no evidence that he ever influenced any kind of policy in the white house. there's no evidence that he and his father's finances were ever linked and we have spoken to many witnesses, and none of the witnesses here actually have any direct evidence there is any sort of wrongdoing repeated here by these witnesses. so instead, we are back to falling on maga conspiracy theories rudy giuliani parrotted over and over again. this farce is about house republicans trying to re-elect their beloved leader, donald trump and what i want to know, why we are not investigating real family corruption. they want to attack president biden's family who actually never worked in the white house, incredibly hypocritical. we have not talked about these guys that actually worked in the white house. and in fact, i want to talk about jared kushner, right over here. we know jared kushner, donald trump's son-in-law, given enormous power in the white house. when jared joined the white house, he was so unfit and unqualified and was so many conflicts of interests, he couldn't even get a security clearance. his father-in-law, donald trump had to intervene overriding national security officials. and just months after jared left the white house, the saudi royal family give him $2 billion with a b into the kushner hedge fund and pocketing additional $25 million a year in fees. he was put at the head of middle east policy in the white house. we know he personally intervened to give the saudis a $110 billion arms deal that was opposed by actually folks all across the government. he supported the saudis for the brutal war in yemen even after they murdered a journalist who was an american resident. and saudi crown prince bragged that kushner was in his pocket. even trump's first secretary of state complained it was inappropriate. jared delivered for the saudis over and over again and was rewarded. advisors for the crown prince decided against the $2 billion hedge fund yet he went forward anyway. jared kushner, senior white house aide and donald trump son-in-law was doing favors for a foreign government. this is actually enormous family scandal this committee should be investigating. and i think chris christie put it well when he said the grift from this family, the trump crime family, in my opinion, is breathtaking. you also need to take my word for it, but this is what our committee chairman said about the kushners. >> i'm just quoting our chairman. i have been vocal that i think what kushner did crossed the line of ethics. now, mr. chairman, i completely agree that the kushners crossed the line of ethics and i want to know what we are going to do about it and when that hearing is going to be in front of us. if we are not too busy maybe next week during the republican maga shut down we can have a hearing with jared kushner, clearly in a very corrupt arms deal here, deal around his investment firm and the chairman can also be involved, he thinks there are problems. we do know we are not here because of any wrongdoing of president biden, but because all part of donald trump's campaign. and his most extreme allies, including some members of this committee are retaliating. in fact, some members have been trying to impeach the president since day one. this is a tweet here, says two years ago i introduced articles to impeach joe biden on his first full day in office. we will impeach biden, bolded with exclamation point and see the resolution here. so, we have the receipts to prove it. there really is no reason why, they don't care where they want to impeach the president but trying to do it now for years. here you have a member of the oversight committee posting about introducing articles of impeachment on president biden's very first day in office. and now the speaker of the house is empowering these people, attempt to keep his job. the person pulling the strings is donald trump, a dangerous man facing federal and state indictments out for revenge, and doing it his whole career. and a second tweet by a member of the committee. they are trying to expunge donald trump's impeachment, also unconstitutional. expunge the wrongful trump impeachments. impeach criminal biden. political stunts to appeal to a political base and seize control of the conference. the impeachment is a farce with no evidence and with that i yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes -- >> i would add that jared kushner was a key player in the historic abraham accord. >> excuse me, point of order. >> chair recognizes mr. sessions from texas for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. gerhardt, you had been asked a question earlier that i heard a quick reply to and the answer to the question was about the timing of a government shutdown and an impeachment. you quickly responded never. you want to revise or extend that remark about the timing of a government shutdown and an impeachment occurring at about the same time, and you said never. >> i understand the question, and if you are talking about 2019. >> i am. >> there was not a shut down. >> there was not there, is not now. >> i understand. but -- >> there is not now. so the people on this side are simply taking advantage of your answer. in fact, the indictment, the impeachment of donald trump was december 18th, 2019, and then the president signed the funding of the government december 21, 2019, 3 days later. so the question that you were asked, perhaps you responded to correctly, never, but in fact, there is a nexus that suggests that people on this side are taking it the wrong way. mr. chairman, i also find that some of our members are talking about baseless accusations of a government shutdown. all you have to do is go to google ohio to apply it for wick, which was the supposition brought up, can be gathered in all 88 ohio counties. it is run by the state of ohio, not the federal government. i think that we need to be careful when we make accusations here. thank you very much. ms. o'connor, you have a history of understanding tax implications and inside the department of justice. these are serious matters and when they -- >> yield to the gentlewoman from ohio. >> i will not. the implications of this endeavor that we are attempting to understand is decision-making inside the department of justice. and that inside the decision-making we have already heard back a number of times how the department of justice did not move forward in compliance i believe to their job to make a determination whether the facts would or should be taken further. and with president clinton, the fbi went and actually interviewed the president and the vice president about these matters and other people in the white house and president clinton lost his law license over that, and it ended up that there was an impeachment from the house side. can you please talk about what should be done from normal and regular department of justice officials to see whether this has occurred and whether we are entitled to ask questions about that investigation from the federal bureau of investigation and the doj? >> thank you, mr. sessions. i think you are more than entitled. i think that you are obligated to look into the allegations that the whistleblowers have brought. the whistleblowers were very detailed in the investigative steps that they took and those that they wanted to take but were prevented from taking but would have taken in any other investigation. we don't have a window into where the roadblock was thrown. we don't know who threw it. we -- >> would you think it would be proper for this committee to bring those individuals and to properly vet them about that or is that the duty of the department of justice through the federal bureau of investigation to get that done? >> i think -- i think it's your obligation. we know that the whistleblowers tried to remedy the obstruction from within the internal revenue service and got no back-up at all. they were left out to dry. >> does that include asking for meta data that might have supported any other investigation like this? >> absolutely. for example, the whatsapp message where hunter biden says he's sitting next to his father, and is in the process of shaking down a chinese businessman. the agents wanted to find out whether that was a true statement and they could have found out but were denied the authority to pursue that. >> by what authority? >> we don't know exactly. they would request search warrants. >> mr. chairman, let the record reflect it's an inquiry to make a determination. >> without objection. >> and the articles i had previously provided to this committee in testimony. >> i would like to offer a press release from the same southern district of new york that you introduced, devon archer sentenced to a year and a day in prison for the fraudulent issuance and sale of more than $60 million of bonds. >> devon archer, hunter biden's business partner and best friend. >> that's correct. >> your star witness. >> chair recognizes mr. gomez from california for five minutes. >> all right, thank you so much, mr. chairman. so, one of the things i want to kind of stress is that from the very beginning of this congress, the republicans had one thing in mind. let's get joe biden, right. let's get joe biden and let's take, you know, find the evidence that showed he did something wrong. but when the evidence didn't exist, they would make up facts or they would exaggerate to an extent that it was like honestly mind boggling. and i know, i want to focus on one part first. the republicans keep pointing out 20 shell companies of the biden family. these are actually 20 shell companies of hunter biden. so any time they say the biden family, they are really saying hunter biden. because there hasn't been a connection between joe biden and these companies. to an extent, do we have the slides up? first slide is, that's not the slide, but i'll show it. so there's an article from "washington post" august 17, 2023, says how republicans overhype the findings of the hunter biden probe. and it specifically when it comes to these 20 shell companies as they call them. they were actually -- they were overhyped and they gave them three pinocchios. mr. chairman, i would like unanimous consent to enter this into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> great. next, so they keep focusing on these 20 companies and the ways and means committee reveals 700 pages yesterday, it was really dramatic, right, they use section 6103 to get these returns and say hey, we are going to show that they did something wrong. the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. adrian smith, who also serves on this committee or sits on this committee, presented -- asked a simple question, they pointed out that this actually came, the whatsapp message of hunter biden allegedly was sent in 2017 when joe biden wasn't even president. when joe biden wasn't even running for president. so unanimous consent to enter another article by yahoo news, nbc reporter destroys gop lawmakers' evidence against joe biden without even trying. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you so much. so, let's dig into these 20 businesses. oh, 20, 20 companies, that's a lot of companies for an average american like myself, you know, i have a w-two, you know, i filed my income taxes, my wife and i have simple returns. but when it came to president trump, how many companies did he have? anybody want to take a guess? miss o'connor, how many companies did mr. trump have? >> i have no idea the number but -- they built things, they sold things, they provided services. >> i reclaim my time. see, you can't even answer a simple question. over 500 -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. he had over 500 company, over 500 companies. i looked at the tax returns, i was on the ways and means committee and dug into it, over 500 companies, between 517 to 543 companies. and republicans had no concern about that when it was -- structured in a way almost like a set of russian nesting dolls. each one hiding the existence and who controlled the others. but did republicans bring it up, no. did they have any concerns, no. but what happened last week or this week? let's take a guess. a judge said president trump committed fraud, business fraud for inflating the value of his net worth and his companies. but when it comes to the republicans they have no problem with that, no problem, they don't want to dig into that. when trump controlled these 517 companies. when it came to hunter biden controlling 20, oh, we see, we see a direct line to joe biden. so that's what the problem is, is that they are cherry picking facts to connect it to joe biden and when they don't have facts, they make it up as they did earlier today when they put up tweets or text messages that were not connected. so, the point is, everything they are doing is to muddy the waters. and i think it's disgraceful because when it comes to a president that committed fraud, a president that caused an insurrection, a president that was also sold our government's national interest to the highest bidder, silence. with that, i yield back my time. >> would the gentlemen yield a quick question about the 20 companies. >> mr. biggs from arizona for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. going to put up on the board in just a second, but this is the -- this is the entire transcript of the devon archer testimony. i submit it to the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you very much. so in this particular colloquy going on highlighted up there, you'll see that mr. archer says -- let's start at the beginning, go somewhere else. he says the question is, did he talk about -- did hunter talk about how bringing his dad, joe biden, either to ukraine or using his dad as vice president would add value in the eyes of burisma officials, answer, yes. how did it come up, well, we were business partners, we were business partners, ok. what kind of leverage was hunter trying to get by using his dad. answer by devon, i think it's more defensive. defensive leverage that the value is there in his work. also in this same document, i asked him, i said the brand, what is it, you keep talking about the biden brand. is it dr. jill? brother jim? no, he says, looks at me like i'm an idiot. of course it's joe biden. of course it's joe biden. you get -- then you go back and see tony, what does he say, the biden family aggressively leveraged the biden family name to make millions from foreign entities, and who is the biden family asset. dr. jill? no, brother jim? no, and the grandkids got money from foreign companies, nope, none of those folks, none of those folks. and then the stuff released from ways and means yesterday, hunter biden saying to his brother -- his uncle jim, b.s., jim, all around b.s. explain to me one thing, tony brings to my table that i so desperately need i'm willing to sign over my family's brand. what's the brand? joe biden, and pretty much the rest of my business life. why? because that's only product i got. joe biden, the vice president at that time. it's plain english. i'm cleaning it up a little bit, a lot of swear words in there. why would i give this marginal bully the keys to my family's only asset. ok, we are told there is nothing linking him. so i have to ask this question, mr. turley, i'm going to ask you a question. if the brand and what you are selling is joe biden, the then vice president, and if joe biden or his family is receiving some kind of benefit by the sale of access or, you know, i'll leave it there, selling of access or even the illusion of access to joe biden, what does that lead you to conclude? >> well, if you look at actual cases i've cited in my testimony, benefits to family members can be viewed as a benefit of the principal. so not much debate about that. the issue of the inquiry is whether -- there has been -- stop and say there has been progress in the last few weeks that many people after the archer testimony said yeah, i get it, it's influence peddling. someone said it's the illusion of access. >> the new defense, is that -- >> i think calling it by its correct name is important and it is a form of corruption. the benefits to the family members can be attributed to the principal even under the higher standard of criminal cases. what remains is the question is did the president know that, direct that, participate in that. >> well, we know he made 20 calls to business associates, having dinners with the associates, the follow-up question critical here, because these guys are looking for the gold bars, the cash stuffed in the menendez coat, that doesn't happen very often, in my experience having tried a lot of cases, so my question for you is tell us about when you have circumstantial evidence, vis-a-vis direct evidence, what's its value. can you wrest a conviction on circumstantial evidence. >> you can. supreme court has narrowed some of the elements on things like bribery, denial of surfaces, those elements are now narrower than they were. but it is notable in the menendez indictment, they believe these gifts can be based on a conspiracy theory. but you are clearly correct. if the allegations against senator menendez are true, old school bribery, not since jefferson and his freezer have we seen that type of raw evidence. today it's a lot more sophisticated. i think everyone in the room has to acknowledge influence peddling is the favorite form of corruption in washington. i think that's unassailable, and much more sophisticated than handing over gold bars or whatever is alleged in the menendez case. >> mr. chairman, i have a document i would like to get in, appreciate that my colleague trusts the american people and cnn poll that says a majority of americans believe vice president biden was involved with his son's business dealings. >> introduce an order from the supreme court of the state of new york from tuesday where the trump organization was found liable for fraud and specifically on page 28 where there is a paragraph entitled "the trump brand premium" that was increased the value of trump assets by 15 or 30%, according to the trump organization. >> without objection, so ordered. chair recognize mr. frost from florida for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. impeachment inquiry is a grave under taking that is supposed to be in response to evidence of a crime. mr. chairman, you have questions, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this hearing have questions, but questions are not the basis for an impeachment, evidence is. mr. turley, on september 1st, speaker kevin mccarthy said that he would not launch a fake impeachment inquiry, a sham impeachment inquiry. then on september 12, '12 days later completely changed his mind. my question is why. in those 12 days, did hard evidence appear that clearly and directly links the president of the united states, joe biden, to a crime? >> i can't answer as to what was it that pushed the speaker to make the decision. the courts have said you don't have to have that vote on the floor. i think it is a best practice. but -- >> i'm very interested in those 12 days and we know you are not a fact witness and you are talking about things already public. but is there anything that came up in those 12 days that link the president of the united states to a crime yes or no. >> i don't have any recollection of those 12 days. >> i can tell you it's nothing. let's be clear, this inquiry has been going on since the day we got here, since the day i was sworn in at 2:00 a.m. on a saturday night, this impeachment inquiry started. let's pull back the curtain on what's really going on. there's no evidence of crime, only desperation and political pressure. this is what's going on. the far right called for the sham impeachment hearing with no evidence at the beginning of this year when we first got started. this impeachment inquiry has been going on, this is not the first hearing we have had in relation to this. on september 1st, the speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy, says no. we are not going to do that. we don't have the evidence, we don't have the votes for it to pass on the house floor, we are not going to do it. a good decision in my opinion. but then just 12 days later, 12 precious days later something happens, i'm not sure what, something happens, then the speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy, comes out and says yes, we will do an impeachment inquiry. so what happened between the 12 days? it's very simple. three threats from members of his own caucus at the direction of former president donald trump changed his mind. number one, the threat to force a vote on impeachment which would lose on the house floor and be another embarrassment in the long list of embarrassments for the speaker of the house. number two, they would threat to shut down the government, something that will happen in just two days. and number three, this is the one that really got to him, they said you are about to lose your job and they say we will remove you as speaker from the house and that scared him so much that kevin mccarthy, the speaker of the house, of the united states of representatives, third in line to the presidency, completely caved due to the threats of people within his own caucus. this fake impeachment is based on desperate political calculation, not any evidence. and mr. chairman, you say this hearing is to establish the basis for this fake sham impeachment hearing but these witnesses are not giving us basis or any evidence. >> that's not true, mr. turley has testified several times. i have to stop, that -- >> i reclaim my time. reclaim my time. >> these witnesses are not giving answers, they are just asking more questions. we have one witness who has a lot of questions, miss o'connor, one with it who knows something about accounting, but no real involvement what's going on and mr. turley stopping here on his way to his next fox news hit. this -- this is not a serious inquiry. and -- impeachment is very serious and we have to ensure we focus on the wants and needs of the american people. this is all for nothing. half the crowd has left, no line outside. the goal here to distract from the government shutdown is not gonna work and to the speaker, i have to say you are being played by these extremists and donald trump, it's costing us our economy, and this entire fake impeachment inquiry is not about the united states, it's about hunter biden. and the only thing the president is -- can be guilty of here is being a father. i yield back to the ranking member. >> chair recognize mr. turner -- >> i'm sorry, yield to the vice ranking member. >> from florida yields back. >> i yielded to the vice ranking member. >> thank you, i'll claim some extra time back as well. much of the republican case in evidence has relied on words from hunter biden. hunter biden said this, hunter biden said that, therefore case closed, there is something here. professor gerhardt, we know, i believe it's wide knowledge with the public that hunter biden sadly was dealing with substance misuse, he's under indictment, correct? >> correct. >> is this a reliable witness you would deem? >> probably not. >> the time has ex -- chair recognizes mr. armstrong. >> unanimous consent motions. one is a hearing notice from december -- hold on. sorry. june 10, 2019, with impeachment hearing, not a fact witnesses, barbara mcquaid, and 70 story time with john dean. and hearing notice in judiciary with two witnesses here just a week before we voted on impeachment in 2019 with michael gerhardt and jonathan turley, appreciate you both being here very much but you were not fact witnesses at that point in time and the webster's definition of hypocrisy. >> so ordered. >> mr. chairman, i request -- >> i request unanimous consent to enter in article into the record dated january 6, 2019, a member of this own committee the day after she was sworn in came into congress and this article says dem split response to her words "impeachment the mother f-er" the day after she was sworn in. some might say these comments, not only hypocritical by the left but embarrassment to the time and people of this country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. chairman, afraid the gentlelady engaged in personalities against a fellow member of the committee. >> what she entered in the record, i believe miss tlaib. >> article from january 6, '20 -- impeach the mother f-er comment by a member of the committee. >> it was the commentary. >> she said it, she actually said it. >> she said impeach the mother f-er. >> the commentary of what she is presenting. the commentary. >> let's -- let's get on with it. the government is about to shut down. >> order, chair recognizes kansas for five minutes. >> the miss characterization of what the hearing is about is astounding. the white house has attempted to claim the president did not talk to hunter about his business dealings. joe biden even said during the 2020 presidential debate that no members of his family received money from china. he said, and i quote, my son has not made money in terms of this thing about china. nobody else has made money from china. the white house strategy has been deny deny deny, lie, and then counter attack, but the evidence and the facts have forced the white house to change its story time and time again. the white house handlers continue to shift the goal posts and president biden continues to lie. how can president biden continue to maintain that hunter's private business was simply that, private. when it's clear from bank records, emails and testimony that joe biden was intimately involved in hunter's pay to play schemes and crooked foreign business dealings. this image shows an email between hunter biden and his business associates stating the set-up of equity in a chinese-owned energy venture. this particular business deal was with cefc, a chinese-owned energy conglomerate. lays out the payment structure for equity in the company, which was known to be tied to the chinese communist party through its owner chairman ming. the investigation into the biden family, including evidence turned over through various document productions has shown these men were all in business with hunter biden at one time or another. james gillier, and rob walker, on separate occasions, along with other hunter business partners have confirmed what the email said, they were all getting a cut. who else was getting a cut. >> what is the date of the email, sir. >> this is my time, this is my time. >> i'm asking the date. mr. chairman, i asked my time be restored. >> please restore the time. >> who else was getting a cut? 10% was going to the big guy. what i'm sure my colleagues on the other side are asking themselves, who's the big guy? well, let me tell you. we learned in the fbi fd1023, called joe biden the big guy, and tony corroborated joe biden is the big guy, a whistleblower that joe biden is the big guy and the justice department obstructed investigators in delaware who wanted to look into, you guessed it, the big guy. listen folks, it is obvious. joe biden is the big guy and so what do we have here? the president saying he had nothing to do with it, that hunter biden and no one in the family profited from china and we have evidence here that the big guy was getting 10%. let me read you a definition of a trendy word here lately. gaslighting. it's a form of psychological manipulation in which an abuser attempts to gain power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition. i would say to the american people look at the evidence before you and make a judgment and do not allow the white house or our colleagues on the other side of the aisle try to convince you that what you are seeing is not the truth, trying to convince you that you are crazy. mr. dubinski, you have extensive experience as an expert witness and consultant in the areas of white collar crime, financial fraud and corruption. is it characteristic of these types of crimes that actors hide behind nicknames or other pseudonyms to mask their identity? >> very common. >> what about you have investigated or provided expert testimony on in the past? >> typically you'll see code names used and money is being paid to somebody under that code name and that's how the processes work. >> let me ask you something. you are very experienced. when conducting an investigation, if your boss prevented you from taking investigative steps, how would you react? how would it affect your findings? >> first, it would be extremely troubling if i was told not to continue to investigate something and if i was put in that position i would probably withdraw from the investigation. >> has the department of justice ever restricted any of your investigative steps? >> no, they have not. >> it's amazing. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes miss lee from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. three hours and 45 or so minutes into this, the republican's own witnesses have confirmed they have seen no evidence of any evidence. i think that if my republican colleagues had so-called smoking gun, they would have presented it by now and would have talked about it. >> can the gentlelady read a bank statement, email. >> are you asking her to yield? >> reclaiming my time. instead, no fact witnesses and no -- the sham, inability to fill the basic duty to fund and run our government. republicans know the american people don't want their shutdown. so instead, the republicans on this committee are attempting to divert and distract the american people attention by spending taxpayer dollars on this sham impeachment hearing two days before they shut the government down in hopes that the media and i don't just mean fox news, will fall for their scheme and give more air time to the lies told on this committee today than the real life impact their shutdown will have on their constituents' lives. in chairman comer's district, republicans shut down will cost 8,937 of his constituents their paychecks. jim jordan's district, republican shut down, cost 3,939 of his constituents their paychecks. and marjorie taylor greene, 6,306 of her constituents. >> democrats are the party of shutdowns. you love shutdowns. >> lauren boebert's district, 9,016 of her constituents their paycheck. and arizona district republicans shut down will cost 12,349 of his constituents their paycheck. and byron donalds, andy biggs, 8,433, and lisa mcclain, 7,286, and scott perry pennsylvania district and the capital of my commonwealth, republican shutdown, cost 5,445 of his constituents who will lose their paycheck, indeed when you add up -- add it all up, republicans shut down will cost 217,583 of their constituents on this committee's paychecks, their income for who knows how long. let that sink in for a second. those are our mothers, our fathers, caretakers, brothers, sisters, mom, dad, grandpa, grandmas, friends, beloved community members, veterans, won't know how their food or medicine will be paid for where the rent money is coming from. many of them vote republican but i bet not one of them cares more about hunter biden's laptop or helping kevin mccarthy keep his gig as leader or speaker of his dysfunctional caucus than they care about receiving their paycheck and making their ends meet. so the republicans on this committee are betting we'll spend this hearing engaging in partisan bickering over their favorite buzz words rather than talking about how the maga shutdown will crush all of our constituents. to be honest, i don't quite care about a private citizen hunter whom the proper authorities are dealing with or the cable news culture war distractions. i care about the 7 million babies, children, mothers across this country who after sunday will lose access to food and formula, over 10,000 in my district alone. care about 300,000 families, 20,000 veterans after sunday could face eviction. diseases and cancer patients whose experimental trials delayed for months and senior, unable to get help with social and medicare, and attacks are targeted, who will be hurt most. the most marginalized, black folks, brown folks, trans folks, disabled, poor folks. two hearings on the infant formula shortage, yet with the 320,000 babies, women and babies in her state of michigan about to go hungry, seems the republican colleagues only care about an issue when they can point the finger, much like this embarrassment of a hearing today. mr. gerhardt, you said a good test for assessing the constitutional action, switch the names of the political parties and the actors involved. if it's the same, it's a good sign of neutrality. if it's not the same, a chance that partisanship is the driving force. i think we can say this inquiry will fail that neutrality test and i think b we can say we are here, america, in this sham hearing, prioritizing the political needs of the republican party. pushing a lie for donald trump as you go hungry and you lose your homes. shameful. i yield back. >> at the request of the witnesses, we are going to take a ten-minute recess. >> john: all right, and another hour there or so of testimony in this house impeachment inquiry hearing. the very first one of the oversight committee and clearly, sandra, the democrats are making the case as often as they possibly can that there is no legitimate reason for this, while the republicans are saying we need to get to the bottom of what connection there might have been between hunter biden and international business dealings and the now president of the united states. >> sandra: james comer, the chairman of the committee kicking off what is expected to be several impeachment inquiry hearings. this is the first of them, john. obviously a lot of emotions running high in that room, so this is the first official break. they will get back to it. they stepped away to vote a short time ago and we know there is another vote, 4:00 p.m. today, but i'm sure they will resume shortly and we'll get jonathan turley eventually, a witness there in the room, and lawmakers have been able to sound off, both sides of the aisle on this issue, john. >> john: and most of what we have been hearing, particularly from the democratic side, is whether or not there is any reason to be holding the inquiry. democrats say no evidence of evidence, james comer firing back can you read a bank statement. they believe they have plenty of evidence if not of a smoking gun, at least smoke that something is amiss. the big question is whether or not hunter biden's business dealings, which democrats are trying to say was giving the appearance of influence peddling, actually was influence peddling and whether or not any of the money that he received from overseas entities might have flowed directly to joe biden, either as vice president or as a private citizen and now that he's president of the united states. >> sandra: just getting this in right now, senator menendez name came up in the room and menendez has just left the democrat's weekly closed lunch. chuck schumer made no comment, but menendez ducked out the back way where reporters could not follow. every democrat was refusing to comment, but our reporter, aishah hasnie has put out manchin said menendez said he would not resign. just want to make sure i got that news in there, john. >> john: bring in andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney and fox news contributor what we have seen so far in the hearing, a short, i imagine a bathroom break, last five minutes or so. jonathan turley laid out the importance of having this inquiry, andy, at the beginning of this in the opening statement. play that and your reaction on the other side. we don't have it apparently. let's ask you about the importance of this impeachment inquiry, one that the democrats are trying at every turn to try to discredit. >> yeah, i think john, jonathan laid it out eloquently as we heard it, which is that there's a lot of serious misbehavior. a lot of support for this, that you are not at a point where it would be appropriate to file articles of impeachment, but the behavior that we know, the outlines of to this point, is sufficiently serious that it cries out that it's congress's obligation as the constitutional body that checks executive branch abuse to investigate this. and that's the whole point, that's the point of having this inquiry. i think also it's pretty typical, even though the democrats have acted like this is the first time this has ever happened, it's pretty typical at the beginning of an impeachment inquiry in the early stages of it to have experts come in and explain what the function of the impeachment power in the constitution is, which jonathan and professor gerhardt have both done, and then a broad outline of some of the important parts of the evidence. so you have a forensic accountant there who can talk about the financial records. you have a former justice department official who is very familiar with how the tax division works and that goes to the heart of the question whether there was an obstruction by the biden justice department of the biden influence peddling investigation. so i think this is normal for what you would see at the beginning of the inquiry. >> sandra: andy and john, jonathan turley's opening statement. >> constitutional moments the best of each of us. solemnity and clarity for hems and they are close issues and some issues gravitate in favor of the president. so i would simply say that this is a moment where members and citizens can stand together without prejudging the evidence. >> sandra: i don't know, do you think that's happening, andy? >> he's right that it should, the way the framers designed this is kind of was to try to make sure that this is the way it happens. because we all know even though you can return articles of impeachment in the house, you can vote them by a simple majority. a president can't be impeached, removed and disqualified absent a two-thirds super majority in the senate, and the purpose of that is to try to prevent impeachments that are just like on straight partisan lines or impeachments that are driven by frivolous misconduct. so i think what you have here is clearly not frivolous misconduct. this could be very serious misconduct. what the framers were most concerned about putting impeachment in the constitution was the possibility that the awesome powers of the presidency could be put into service of foreign powers, that's why bribery is one of the -- one of the pieces of conduct that you can impeach over, but you know, there has to be a bipartisan moment if you are ever going to have an impeachment because it can't be done without both parties being satisfied that something so agregious that requires removal from office has happened. >> john: you know, andy, jonathan turley said at this point there is not enough evidence to have an impeachment vote, but says there certainly is enough evidence to hold an impeachment inquiry. the and that was an opinion backed up by bruce dubinsky, talking about all the shell companies hunter biden has and the money flows. >> the term shell as you would note implies the company is like an empty shell, lacking substance or real activity. shell companies typically have no employees, no offices, no real operating businesses. they use p.o. boxes for mailing address. while i note shell companies can be used for legitimate activities, more often than not they are associated with fraudulent activities. >> john: he says there could be some there there, and maybe no smoking gun just yet, andy, but republicans insist there's now smoke here that there's got to be a gun around somewhere, and they are determined to turn over every rock to try to find it an john, you know, i can't think of a single investigation that i ever was involved in, particularly money laundering or tax-type investigations where things like shell companies wb very important, where i left from the premise that oh, there's shell companies to say gee, i have to get right to the grand jury and indict this and then let's have a trial. but a good reason to have an investigation in the first place and that's the major point that dubinsky made and that jonathan made. there is stuff here that cries out to be investigated. but the reason you have an investigation is because you don't go from like 0 to 100 in two seconds. you have to actually methodically go through what you have before you do something as serious as accuse the president of something that's so serious he needs to be removed from office. that should not be something that we run head long into. >> sandra: andy, nancy mace, republican from south carolina, had a moment she used some pretty spicy language to call out democrats on the committee for their dismissal of republican criticism of president biden's conduct related to his family's business dealings. pointed to the 2017 deal with the chinese company cefc, alleging the deal involved making millions off granting access to joe biden, saying hunter even arranged for joe biden to share office space with the ccp-aligned company cefc. did she move the needle, did she convince anybody in that room who may have not been paying attention before with that? >> you know, it made me think i was watching something from the bronx instead of washington, frankly. that stuff doesn't do it for me. i don't think -- if you have really strong evidence i don't think it's ever wise to act like you need shock value. you have to let the evidencing and to throw things in about it in a way that people find startling is not going to make them pay attention unless you've got the goods. and if you have the goods, you don't have to engage in that kind of stuff. so you know, look, i'm like an old guy. i don't think congress -- people in congress ought to talk like that, but what do i know. maybe it grabs people but it does not grab me. >> john: andy, stand by with us. we'll be back into the hearing. in the meantime, bring in virginia governor glenn youngkin, who was scheduled previous to this hearing, but is joining us now. you are my governor, when you are going to get rid