This past week, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced that the House would begin an “impeachment inquiry” of President Joe Biden (D). Immediately thereafter the collective head of the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media exploded. The same mainstream media that embraced every false lead dropped by the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the Hillary Clinton (D) directed false narrative accusing former President Donald Trump (R) of colluding with the Russia’s thug president, Vladimir Putin, went collectively berserk claiming there was no evidence of Mr. Biden’s corrupt actions. In doing so they failed to appreciate that an “impeachment inquiry” is, in essence, the means to determining and providing that evidence. In essence, the Democrats and the mainstream media have said that you cannot investigate because you don’t have any evidence. What a bunch of dopes.
But regardless of whether you think there is sufficient evidence, or that the current investigation will lead to more sufficient evidence, there are three very important facts that suggest that the Republicans, at the least for the time being, should decline to pursue an actual impeachment vote in the House or trial in the Senate to remove Mr. Biden. This is an instance in which all of the “red meat Republicans are acting precipitously and, in the end, will look like “red meatheads” and perhaps even secure the re-election of Mr. Biden to another disastrous four year term.
1. Republicans lack the necessary votes in the United State Senate to convict and remove Mr. Biden. In an impeachment trial in the United States Senate, a two-thirds majority is required to convict and remove the President. Currently there are forty-nine Republicans, forty-eight Democrats, and three “independents, all of whom lean to the Democrats (Sens. Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) and Angus King (Independent- ME) both of whom caucus with the Democrats) and Sen. Kirstin Sinema (Independent-AZ), who does not caucus with the Democrats but is considered as a Democrat for committee assignments.) Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is considered a maverick and while he is a Democrat he freely votes against Democrat positions. Conviction and removal of Mr. Biden will require sixty-seven votes. Assuming that Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema support impeachment that still leaves sixteen additional Democrats whose votes Republicans will need to secure.
That is precisely the problem that Democrats faced when trying to convict former President Richard M. Nixon (R). It was only when Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) – often cited as the “conscience of the Senate” – demanded a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Nixon to tell him, that he would no longer oppose conviction and that is when the tide shifted. That opened the floodgate of Republicans supporting conviction and removal. In the end, facing conviction and removal, Mr. Nixon resigned.
It was also the same dilemma that faced Republicans and Democrats alternatively in aborted attempts to impeach President George W. Bush (Rep) and then even though the House voted first to impeach former President Bill Clinton (D) and then Mr. Trump they lacked the two-thirds majority in the Senate. Most importantly because there was no member of the then President’s party of sufficient gravitas to incentivize others to follow suit in voting to oust a president of their own party. (You may wish to point out that Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) voted to impeach Mr. Trump but I said a senator of sufficient gravitas which Mr. Romney lacks within the Republican Party.)
Until Republicans can find one or more senior Democrats – members such as Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Amy Klobacher (D-MN) or Mark Warner (D-VA) – bringing a Bill of Impeachment to either the floor of the House and more importantly to the Senate, is a fools errand. While demonstrably unattainable it poses the real threat of making Mr. Biden appear sympathetic and beleaguered and provides fodder for those who argue that Mr. Biden is simply a victim of partisan revenge.
2. While a Bill of Impeachment and a trial in the Senate must be viewed in the backdrop of civil and criminal litigation, both are political acts as opposed to judicial acts. Thus there is no standard for the “weight of the evidence” – a preponderance vs. clear and convincing vs. beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard will be whatever the majority deems it to be. Other rules of evidence such as hearsay, admissions against interest, and even perjury under oath apply only at the discretion of the majority. And while that may appear to give the Republicans an easy lift to passage of a Bill of Impeachment it also provides fodder for the Democrats to complain bitterly of a “railroad” job leading up to that vote and even more so when there is an actual trial in the Senate – it provides rationale for those Senate Democrats wishing to resist conviction. As it stands currently, there is sufficient evidence of Mr. Biden’s complicity, yet there has not been evidence produced that will actually tie Mr. Biden directly to a payment from a third party, including foreign governments. The bank records begin to establish the chain but they have not concluded the Mr. Biden actually received the benefit.. And that became even more murky when it was disclosed that some payments to Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family were made using diamonds rather than cash.
The status of payments to the Biden family and the fact that Mr. Biden has accumulated wealth far in excess of his earnings as a public servant should serve as evidence but not conclusive evidence. If it did, you would have to remove two-thirds of the members of Congress whose net worth have increased dramatically beyond their compensation as members of Congress. The Republicans need not prove that Mr. Biden received the money or other material of value; they need only prove that Mr. Biden received the benefit from it. In other words if Hunter received money from Burisma and used it to pay Mr. Biden’s expenses, that it sufficient. That level of evidence has not yet been produced – only the innuendo that it has occurred. The case against Mr. Biden is strong but not yet conclusive.
3. Vice-president Kamalata Harris (D). Need I say more. There has never been an official elected to federal office who is less qualified than Ms. Harris. Not only does she not know the issues (or propose any solutions) she steadfastly refuses to do the hard work of learning the issues. Whether her resistance stems from laziness or lack of intelligence is irrelevant. And her failure to learn is demonstrated nearly every time she opens her mouth and engages in yet another mind-boggling word-salad explanation. Nearly thirty four months into her term as vice-president and she is a universal joke.
Even Democrats talk openly about their fears that Ms. Harris would succeed to the presidency in case Mr. Biden is unable to continue – a problem that becomes more likely as we witness his continuing decline both mentally and physically. (I am two years younger than Mr. Biden and I recognize more physical limitations – I can no longer dunk a basketball with both hands – although I doubt that I have lost a step mentally.) Ms. Harris is sufficient reason for me to urge Republicans to refrain from removing Mr. Biden from office and, instead, campaign for his defeat in the next election thus removing both he and Ms. Harris simultaneously.
And that brings me to the final point. The best reason for an impeachment inquiry is that it increases the authority of the House of Representatives to pursue the inquiry of corruption of the Bidens and whether the State Department, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been complicit in either promoting or protecting Mr. Biden’s corruption. Currently Mr. Biden’s White House and at least these three federal agencies have been stone-walling any inquiry into the complicity of Mr. Biden and/or his family in what appears to be a “pay-to-play” racket currently fronted by Hunter Biden. And as that information begins to flow into the Congress, by virtue of the investigation, it should be immediately share with the voters so that if Congress will not do its job to remove Mr. Biden, the voters can.
If the Republicans are insistent on imposing the ultimate penalty on Mr. Biden, there is more than sufficient time between the 2024 election in November and Mr. Biden completing his current term on January 20, 2025 to impeach and convict him and there will be less resistance by the Democrats in the Senate.
Patience has always been a virtue. A rush to impeach Mr. Biden will likely end poorly for the Republicans.