WATCH: AOC Claims RICO Is Not A Crime During Explosive Interaction With Tony Bobulinski

During Tony Bobulinski's bombshell testimony for the Congressional impeachment inquiry on Wednesday, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez (D-NY) claimed that Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) related charges do not constitute a crime in themselves. Instead, they constitute a category of crimes -- a distinction without a difference when it comes to holding Joe Biden and his Crime Family accountable.

After Ocassio-Cortez asked Bobulinski, Hunter Biden's former business partner, if he had ever witnessed Joe Biden personally committing a crime, Bobulinski replied, "How much time do I have to go through it? Corruption statutes, RICO and conspiracy, FARA [violations]." The New York representative then pressed him further, saying, "Excuse me, sir, RICO is not a crime; it is a category. What is the crime?" To this, Bobulinski replied, "It is funny, in this committee room, everyone is not here; there are over 18 lawyers who went to law school. I will leave it up to you guys to define the statute of RICO." 

To this, the House Oversight Committee promptly replied, as previously reported by Fox News Digital, "Rep. AOC asks Tony Bobulinski to list the crimes he witnessed Joe Biden commit. Tony Bobulinski lists the crimes: corruption statutes, RICO, conspiracy, FARA. AOC then says RICO is not a crime. (HINT: RICO is a federal law codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68)"

Ocassio-Cortez then argued that the Republicans were not accusing Joe Biden of any high crime or misdemeanor, and as such, she implied the House Republicans had no ultimate basis for launching an impeachment inquiry. Of course, this charge is without foundation. Impeachment inquiries are different from impeachments, and the job of the inquiry is to have more jurisdiction over fact-finding and other matters. As such, the Republicans were clearly justified in launching an impeachment inquiry, and there is absolutely no substantive argument against such an inquiry. 

As Jonathan Turley argued in his testimony to the House Oversight Committee, there is a clear difference between fact-finding and having a basis for skepticism surrounding the current president's actions and ultimately impeaching him. Turley argued that the following three facts justified the launch of a Republican impeachment inquiry, "First, influence peddling is a form of corruption. Second, influence peddling is often accompanied by criminal or impeachable acts of concealment. Third, the alleged corrupt conduct of President Biden could amount to impeachable offenses, and the House has an obligation to establish if such conduct occurred."

Of course, Republicans would need to establish the fact of influence peddling, but it seems clear that, once established, there is legitimate basis to hold Joe Biden accountable -- and the evidence against Biden grows by the day.