House Democrats could have probably waited another three weeks to break the glass on impeachment, because we’re still at least that long away from figuring out what exactly is going on with Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

The sleepy story about President Trump and his midsummer call with the head of Ukraine has so far only interested reporters because it brings back fond memories of Russia and collusion. The part of the story dealing with whether Biden, as vice president, did anything to help his son’s business dealings in Ukraine is mostly being treated as an afterthought.

For example, reporters for the New York Times on Monday showed their enthusiasm for Biden and his son’s role in the controversy not by answering questions about it, or even trying to answer questions about it, but by simply declaring that there are, in fact, questions.

One line in the Times' report said that Biden “and his advisers have long feared that Hunter Biden would become a target for political opponents, according to people familiar with their thinking, and now the scrutiny of Mr. Biden’s son is bound to intensify.”

Why had that been “long feared,” you might ask? The Times doesn’t offer any hints.

The report later said that “allies of Mr. Biden acknowledge privately that the campaign has been girding for months for criticism of Hunter Biden” due to his “winding career as a bank executive, lobbyist and financier,” which often meant “operating in parts of the private sector that overlapped with his father’s footprint in government.”

“Girding for months,” you say? Anticipating “criticism” of Hunter Biden’s “winding career,” you say? Tell me more!

Unfortunately, the Times report didn’t have much to add there, either.

The paper did, however, note in two different places that it had asked Biden’s “allies” and even his spokesman whether Hunter Biden had been “vetted” for any potential liabilities his background might bring to the campaign.

No answers were provided, sadly. Gosh, if only there were a respected institution with vast resources that could do the vetting on behalf of the public instead. Maybe one that’s even protected by the Constitution.

Oh, well!