Could McCarthy Really Pull Off Impeaching Biden?

It’s stupid politics, but it might just work.

By
149
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy addresses reporters after a House Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol on September 19, 2023, in Washington, D.C.(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s decision to move ahead with impeachment proceedings—and the Democrats’ response—reminded me of one of something Egyptian President Gamal Nasser reportedly once said, “The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing.” Nasser was talking about foreign policy, but cleverly stupid politics doesn’t end at the water’s edge. 

Let’s start with McCarthy. He unilaterally announced an impeachment inquiry—without putting it up for a vote—into what some call “the Biden crime family,” but no new committee will be created. Rep. Jim Jordan’s Judiciary and James Comer’s Oversight committees will keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing.  

That’s not the point, Republicans say. This is necessary to get the expanded subpoena power that impeachments provide. 

Or not. During Donald Trump’s first impeachment, McCarthy insisted that a similar unilateral move by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi was illegitimate. Of course, hypocrisy is no hurdle for McCarthy. The real problem is that Trump’s Justice Department penned a memo arguing that the White House didn’t have to comply with subpoenas from an improperly formed impeachment inquiry. Biden’s lawyers can invoke not just the memo, but also a 54-page ruling affirming it from a Trump-appointed judge.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
149
By
Comments (149)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Rdpulfer

    This is ridiculous hypothetical, but it's been bugging me. Could Democrats use impeachment as a means of dumping Biden altogether? It feels like Democrats, much like Republicans, are stuck with their presumptive candidates whether they want them or not. In the event of an actual impeachment, could Democrats potentially vote against Biden to entertain the notion of someone, anyone else, if that if that someone is Kamala Harris? Again, it's a totally ridiculous idea, I can think of at least reasons not to do it, but . . . if we're on the subject of bad ideas . . .

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    What the Clinton and Trump impeachments have shown is that they are a meaningless exercise in showmanship. Could Biden be impeached. Sure. Does it matter. No.

    30 years from now, the trivia question will be which 22nd century presidents were not impeached. Its clearly the new SOP.


    PS. Texan, Ken Paxton was not convicted in his impeachment trial. Demonstrating my point as well.

    Collapse
    1. Deodand

      No, in the 22nd century, it will be HOW MANY impeachments you had. Mr Trump started a race to the top; but his record will soon be surpassed by Pres Bieber, with 14!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        Maybe they could simply hold them monthly like part of regular order. 😅🤣😂

        Collapse
  3. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  4. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    Jonah I am gratified I get the same stupid response you get. The same partisans pretending there is nothing there there. You don’t funnel $20 million thru shell companies unless you are a movie production or real estate developer. Somebody should ask Hunter what exactly was he providing for his services? Who was he talking about when he referred to the “Big Guy”, or that implying his father takes half of the money he makes.

    Joe Biden himself should want the investigation if he is truly innocent. This is a political exercise..not a court of law. I know, I know, in Law, the State has to prove your guilt. You are not obligated to prove your innocence...but the practicality of that is nonexistent. A defense has to be made....Joe was right at that one press conference when he said “where’s the money”.
    If they can follow the money, we’ll soon know.

    Collapse
    1. Deodand

      I think I would generally be in agreement with your sentiments, Earl.

      One point I don’t like though, if taken too far, is that “if you’re innocent you won’t mind the investigation.” I don’t think I would be too fond of that argument being used to start an investigation against me, even if I were innocent.

      Pres Biden has probably been naughty enough to justify committee hearings, but I think people reasonably resist being investigated and don’t like that argument.:)

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        I am always failing to be precise. However I think investigating the allegation of influence peddling or profiting while in government office should always be “investigated”. In this case Hunter obviously engaged in something. We now know Joe lied about “knowing” anything.
        I would know what to call it Looking in to involved investigating. My preference would have been for the DOJ thru the Hunter tax fraud investigation to do it. However the DOJ has become partisan like everything else in our politics.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Party-san

          We should investigate every child of every representative and senator, irrespective of party, in depth and in detail. We should impeach every member of congress whose kids profit from the connections of their parents.

          I guarantee that the only remaining members would the ones without kids. And that would be good, because the whole lot of them should be fired and replaced by competent people. That last "competent" part is the trouble with this plan, of course...

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Earl King

            Where money and politics come together there will be corruption. Political corruption has been around for thousands of years. Attempts are made at bribery or profit off of there positions. Harry Reid became a multi millionaire inexplicably by holding only government jobs his entire career. How do politicians become millionaire? Umm. In this case it is entirely proper to see if Joe Biden personally profited off of the oligarchs and Chi Coms that gave him money. Did Justice Thomas commit any Federal Laws? I have no problem investigating him. Feel free to investigate Jared and Ivanka.

            Your straw man of investigating everyone is just that. We only investigate suspicious activity. It is proper and needs to be done. Clearly the DOJ doesn’t investigate their own tribe. We need a new and independent Federal Office of public corruption. It really is pretty simple. Follow the money. Normal families don’t have 20 shell companies to move cash around, funding relatives. A normal business gets paid for something. What was Hunter selling? It turns out his father. I don’t about you but it is smarmy. Unethical at a minimum. Criminal at its worst. Ignoring it was what Democrats did with what turns out to be a serial asexual assaulter in Bill Clinton. Being tribal and sanctimonious is what gets us in to the situation we now have. Pretending your own tribe never does anything wrong may be the ignorant behavior. Oh geez no Democrat would ever do anything wrong. Or no Republicans never do anything unethical. Please stop sending me this drivel.

            Collapse
  5. Deodand

    I loathe Pres Biden. Ever since he called people like me, who want voter ID, limited mail-in voting, no drop-boxes, etc. on the same side as Jefferson Davis and Bull Connor, he deserves no respect. If he ever apologized (he hasn't) I would forgive him, but I would never forget. I despise him for his first amendment violations and a number of other reasons.

    But impeachment should be reserved for the most gross of violations of law or the public trust. Pres Biden is clearly corrupt in a minor league way; he clearly knew of his son's influence peddling, and willingly participated. There's no evidence of more, but there is already enough reason to add another point on which to despise Pres Biden. But there is not enough reason to impeach.

    This is a distraction.

    In Feb 2020, just before COVID exploded, Democrats were busy impeaching Trump on complete nonsense. That, too, was a distraction. It diverted an already short-attention span administration from grave developments.

    This Biden corruption is a great reason not to vote for him. A fantastic reason, in fact. I hope that continuous dribbles of corrupt Biden actions drive voters to Republicans.

    But we need to get back to impeachment as a means to remove the most grave of violators of the public trust. This Biden-style corruption and influence-peddling is as old as politics. I hope Biden pays for it by this causing Republicans to sweep every election. But a return to normal politics will only occur if Republicans don't exact vengeance for the nonsense Democrat impeachments.

    Collapse
    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

      1. Deodand

        I happened to have reread the transcript from Trump’s Ukraine call a couple of weeks ago. At no point does Trump condition aid on an investigation; there was even less there than I had remembered. You might claim there was something implicit, but I was struggling even to find that. So maybe there's another hypothetical you can use.

        Collapse
        1. Deleted Comment

          This comment has been deleted

          1. Deodand

            You may be referring to Mr Trump delaying aid to Ukraine under one program for 55 days. Mulvaney did admit once that this was political; but at other times he and the rest of the administration gave other reasons as well. OMB found the delay to be a violation of impoundment law. No one has ever shown it had any impact of any sort on anything.

            If this is your standard for the seriousness of actions and the level of proof needed for impeachment, I guess you win. Then we get to impeach everyone for interfering with elections! Clinton for twice coordinating with foreign actors against Trump (let’s do it despite her being a private person now! she might run again!); NY-Bragg for blatantly abusive prosecution; GA-Willis for blatantly abusive overcharging; Biden for unconstitutional actions against the first amendment; every single person who signed the fraudulent Hunter laptop "Russian disinformation" letter (some of whom still work for Biden!) using government resources (which letter had a stronger impact on any election than anything else here); Biden, Garland, and Jack Smith for abusively charging fraud directly in the teeth of Supreme Court precedent--each of the foregoing being both a plausibly illegal act and one plausibly taken to interfere with an election!

            You get an impeachment, and you get an impeachment, and you get an impeachment!

            Or: we could have a policy of just chilling the heck out for all but the most serious violations of the public trust, and let the political process play out.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      This is still a dreamy fantasy about Biden. But you're certainly entitled.

      I loathe Republicans.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Logan Foster

        Congratulations?

        Do you want a cookie?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          DougAz

          Nah you obviously need it this am

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Logan Foster

            🍪😋

            Collapse
      2. Deodand

        (Just for anyone reading, please carefully note for the record that I said precisely above that I loathe Biden, not Democrats. I believe that ugly extremism deserves to be condemned even by those who might favor 10% of the extremist’s goals, and thus I would think it would be honorable for any liberal to chime in here to say that DougAZ’s comment is, at the least, unfortunate and to be regretted.)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          DougAz

          Yawn . It's well known that I hold Republican politicians in contempt. With a few exceptions.

          You must be new.

          Collapse
          1. Deodand

            At least you have tightened it to Republican *politicians*. A bit uncharitable, but I suppose lots of people say they hate all politicians.

            By the way, as a general principle, someone not knowing something bad (eg “being new”), or some bad thing being well known, doesn’t excuse the bad thing.

            Collapse
  6. Pohl

    Jonah, you are insufficiently mocking of this reckless, partisan BS. McCarthy is a fool.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    The House would make America better by investigating Clarence and Ginni Thomas, Leonard Leo and Alito and Crow. Where real evidence is obvious.

    Not the fanciful and wishful thinking of Conservative punditry and Politicians.

    Someday.

    Collapse
  8. Gbm311

    Impeachment inquiry -- an emphatic YES. Impeachment process -- an equally emphatic NO. The Senate Democrats provide an obvious barrier to removal from office and Kamala Harris provides an ugly alternative. McCarthy should make it clear that this move is all about giving his House colleagues more ammunition to flesh out the details of the Biden family syndicate as opposed to the unacceptable slow walking of David Weiss and the DOJ. The Dems were nauseating in their abeyance before Merrick Garland today. The Republicans only served to highlight some of Garland's unacceptable failures to respond.

    Collapse
    1. DavidWG

      The column makes it clear that this Impeachment inquiry does not give the House committees any more ammunition, and makes it all but inevitable that the White House will refuse to comply with subpoenas, standing on principles that were laid out by the Trump administration. If fleshing out details is the goal, this isn't the way to go.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    So, McCarthy is using impeachment to address short-term political problems, with the potential upside of actually proving Biden did something illegal. This is a bit like setting your kitchen on fire to avoid getting yelled at by your spouse for not cleaning it, rationalizing that you were probably going to renovate someday anyhow.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Earl King

      Umm chicken or egg...is McCarthy using Impeachment for politics first or is he actually curious as to where the $20 million pushed thru shell companies first. The subject is worthy of investigation. I’d like think Biden was simply a dupe to his sons perfidy. Lack of ethics and morals by selling the “illusion” of influence.

      Either way I don’t care....if Impeachment gives them just a modicum of oomph in getting subpoenas its ok... Since the Senate is partisan there will be no conviction. Just like in the Trump Impeachment.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        George.Skinner

        The impeachment isn’t necessary to the investigation. As David French has noted, previous impeachments have led with a case for wrongdoing, not a fishing expedition.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Earl King

          Yeah I disagree in this case due to its bizarre fact trail. Hunter somehow used his father as a connection to put in the same way the partner did. To sell the appearance of influence. However the fact Joe lied about knowing anything about his sons businesses while flying him around on Air Force II and calling in to business mtgs and playing golf with, dinner with the same people who paid Hunter is just too weird.

          Collapse
      2. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

  10. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    I gotta admit; Biden bragging in a video about demanding a prosecutor be fired (or else US funds will be withheld), when his son is being paid at the same time by one of the prosecutor's targets of investigation, it seems Bidenesque in its optics. As if Obama predicted it when he said "never underestimate Joe's ability to eff things up".

    Wouldn't have made more sense for Biden to have simply said "I like ice cream"?

    It may be nothing more than a coincidence...but it is a bad optic.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      Meh. Ukraine WAS corrupt before Zalenski. Very much. Then the head was a total 100% Putin puppy.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        was? still is.

        Collapse
        1. Deleted Comment

          This comment has been deleted

    2. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      It is a bad optic ...which is why right wing media is careful to show only that, and try to keep its viewers from seeing any of rest of the story or larger picture.

      The kind of details that "everyone else in the world" has seen several years ago and moved on from –– that a number of allies of the US were also demanding the removal of the prosecutor for his corruption and failure to prosecute companies including Burisma; and that this wasn't a special condition that Biden tacked onto funds already approved by Congress, only to be held up by the White House unless Biden's personal, "special condition" was met. Which is what happened with Trump and Ukraine aid. Rather, it was part of the conditions set by the foreign policy of the US. If it wasn't, and it was something more nefarious, why would Biden draw attention to it?

      Most people also know that politicians personally brag about "doing stuff" all the time: like Trump "building a wall" or "creating a vaccine" or "saving the economy".

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        So why did Victoria Nuland just a few months prior praise the prosecutor for the good work he was doing to root out corruption. Why did the US Aid government signal just a few months prior that Ukraine had made sufficient progress on rooting out corruption?

        That's the thing--those items are on record, and they do not suggest the US was unhappy with the progress being made. Something changed in just a few short months. And two events that happened in that interim was the prosecutor filing to seize assets of the Burisma executive, and messages to Hunter from Burisma asking for assistance in dealing with it.

        That's what makes it a bad optic, not the fact that people ignored the praise being given the prosecutor previously.

        As I said, it is not "proof", but it sure looks like Biden did an unnecessary victory dance.

        Collapse
        1. Scianti7

          Except, the British prosecutors had seized assets of the owner of Burisma & the Ukrainian prosecutor in question failed to & then refused to send them the information they asked for to continue the prosection, to the point of the case having to be dropped. At that point the IMF & everyone else said that prosecutor had to go. That prosecutor seemed to be protecting the very person that conservative media is saying Biden was serving by firing tge protecting prosecutor. I read a lot about it back in 2020 & I watched the entire tape at the time.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Kizedek

          Good points. I'd have to look again at some of the specific details you raise. Briefly, I could see two things very easily being true at the same time: The US praises Ukraine specifically for Ukraine taking steps to appoint a prosecutor specifically to look into corruption of that kind, and initiating all kinds of investigations; AND the prosecutor himself turns out to be corrupt, taking advantage of some of the things he uncovered.

          Collapse
Load More