Into the Briar Patch

Will Biden benefit from the GOP’s impeachment inquiry?

By
197
GOP Rep. James Comer speaks during a news conference alongside GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik and House Speaker Mike Johnson at the U.S. Capitol on November 29, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

There are two hazards of writing a daily newsletter. One is that you’re forever desperate for new inspiration. The other, very much related, is that you’re forever at risk of repeating yourself.

This morning I brought my editors good news. I had found some inspiration in the unlikely figure of Vivek Ramaswamy, whose latest conspiracy theory gave me both an idea and some light brain damage when I stumbled upon it last night.

There’s a reason the national media is suddenly chattering about impeaching Joe Biden, of course, and it has nothing to do with “moving their puppet aside.”

“How about a piece on the politics of the impeachment inquiry, specifically whether it might backfire on Republicans?” I asked my editors. “Great idea,” they replied. It was settled—until a dim memory was jogged that I had written that same column a few months ago.

“How about an updated piece on the politics of the impeachment inquiry?” I sweatily proposed. They sweatily agreed, and here we are.

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
197
By
Comments (197)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Mary Stine

    Smoke and mirrors. The MAGA rabid and the RNC know they can't make all Trump's REAL criminal cases go away, so the answer is to paint Joe Biden and all his relatives as "the Biden crime family". This is hilarious coming from the party that has spent so many decades defending leniency and deep tax cuts for the wealthiest families. The Bidens are not the Mafia, nor are they the Purdues. I doubt any of them are saints, either, but
    constantly referring to ALL of them as criminals is wrong, dishonest and slanderous.
    The right wing media want to hang all of Hunter's missteps around his father's and aunts' and uncles' necks.
    That dawg don't hunt, and it may well lead the mob bent on revenge way off course. The reality here that most Americans can identify with is this: a father's very real agony over an adult child struggling with addiction and'crimes committed during that addiction; a father's great sorrow over the loss of a two (!) other children;
    the inability of the father to change his son's life (the son has to do that himself). There are far more voters that can relate to that than voters who can relate to a wealthy man who flaunts his ability to skate around the law.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      “There are far more voters that can relate to that than voters who can relate to a wealthy man who flaunts his ability to skate around the law.”

      Like Hunter Biden? Look I agree Trump’s stuff is far worse. I guess I’m just not convinced that voters are going to give Biden or his son a pass. To be honest, I think a lot of voters will say it isn’t fair that Hunter got special treatment they wouldn’t have in his circumstances.

      Collapse
      1. Mary Stine

        True. If I were a poorly informed MAGA voter in rural America I might see Hunter Biden as getting "special" treatment. Or I might just see another manipulative personality able to sweet talk his way out of lots of stuff...those personalities are not unknown anywhere. The best thing Joe Biden could do right now would be to hold a press conference and state that his son would face the consequences of his actions, just like anyone else and that justice would be served. He could also state that he, Joe Biden, like many other parents had been unwittingly enabling, but that was over. He could end by asking for the nation's prayers for his son and family and for support in funding addiction treatment.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          I agree with that

          Collapse
    2. BPhillips

      I wish I shared your optimism, but I don't see the typical MAGA voter having that kind of empathy.

      Collapse
  2. Dougrhon

    The one thing I take from this is that impeachment has gone from being a potential crisis for the republic such that it only happened once (and almost twice) between 1788 and 1996 to something that HELPS the president being impeached. This pretty much sums it up.

    Collapse
  3. Gry.Solingen

    “We also have a smaller majority in the House than we had before.”

    “We”?

    Collapse
  4. John

    In every way from what I’ve seen, grandpa Joe is a very sensitive and caring person. The exact opposite of Trump. There are reasons to feel for Joe and the pain and concern he has gone through in his life. Trump conversely has no shame and cares only about one person, himself. I recall a comment by trump overlooking a graveyard of American troops in France. ‘ why would they do that’ he said. Then he called them “losers” No concept of sacrifice for by those who gave their lives for America when he was president of the United States.
    He doesn’t understand the concept of sacrifice for anything. It’s all bout him

    Collapse
  5. John

    It’s asking a bit much to expect grandpa Joe to tell his 40 something year old son what to do. Even if he was familiar with the details of what was going on. That’s not the way it works. The father can advise if he sees a reason, but cannot tell his son to do anything at that age. That’s all a father can do

    Collapse
    1. AJLiberty

      A politician has an obligation to avoid even the appearance of corruption. Hunter was using his father's name and position to coerce deals. It's difficult to know precisely what Joe knew and whether there was any benefit. There likely wasn't, but the appearance is there. As a senator, VP, and aspiring Presidential candidate, you're obligated to know what is going on and to build a credible wall of deniability if he is unable or unwilling to stop his son's behavior.

      Collapse
      1. John

        True. But it’s impossible to know. I’m a dad and a grandpa and children approaching 40. Fortunately no one Is a drug addict.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Citizen60

    Grassley (R) led a Senate investigation into Joe Biden as soon as Joe became a candidate, and concluded it by publicly admitting finding nothing about Joe. Hunter was and is a walking disaster as a human being—2nd sons often feel the need to go in the opposite direction of the 1st.
    But MTG showing nude pictures of Hunter at an open hearing, and the entire Trump offspring using their last name to gain—and now Comer also having she’ll companies with off-shore accounts give some disgusting push-back to the Democrats.

    And Hunter showing up for the subpoena at the right address and on time, offering to answer all questions was masterful. Keep up the good work!

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mick.Staton

    If they actually get to the point of an impeachment vote the Republicans will be forced to reveal three things:

    1. The only payments of money that can be traced to Joe Biden occur when he is not holding elected office, so anything he did at that time is 100% legal.

    2. They cannot produce a single "quid pro quo" official action on the part of Joe Biden that can be traced to any payments from any foreign clients of Hunter Biden. The key factor in criminal influence peddling is that you actually have to DO SOMETHING in return for the money. Joe never did anything for anyone.

    3. (I list this one third, but I really feel it is the most important point) All of the activity the Republicans are trying to impeach Joe Biden on happened BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT!!

    Impeachment was designed as a tool to remove corrupt official from office because they are using their office to do corrupt things. It was never designed to remove someone you don't like or because they may have done something in the past. When that point sinks in, combined with the fact that they can't produce any evidence Joe Biden did anything, the whole thing blows up in their face.

    Nick makes a point about Joe's support for Israel and making deals on immigration reform to get Ukraine aid and says these are hurting him. On the contrary, I think they are helping him immensely where it really counts... the moderate independents.

    Joe Biden is having multiple "Sister Souljah" moments that work to his benefit. Next year he can go to the voters and make the case that he is the more centrist candidate by far. Unlike the Republican party that is so enslaved to the extreme right flank of its base, Joe Biden has stood up to the extremists on the left and shown a more moderate path. That alone can help shore up the independent vote he needs to get re-elected. As for the youth vote and the extreme left, do you seriously think they will stay home and let Trump become President again? They did that in 2016. They will never do that again.

    I think Biden is in a far better position than anyone gives him credit for, AND the economy is turning around at just the right time. Trump does not stand a chance in 2024.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Your points are all well-taken. At the same time I can't help but have doubts about voters in general reaching the level of your analysis.

      I have the time and interest to follow all these issues and their nuances, but I've noticed that many people I know are not well-informed at all, for various reasons. I recall a co-worker repeating to me in 2016 some nonsense that right wing media was trying to spread, saying, "Well, Hillary has Parkinson's, right?" as a serious reason she shouldn't be President.

      Even now I find people are totally at sea when it comes to matters that are analyzed and discussed in the Dispatch and in the Comments. My local daily paper has articles on the same issues all the time so it's not like this is all arcane knowledge.

      In regard to what Nick has presented today in his latest flow-chart style article, I think all bets are off. It's impossible to know how people will interpret the small bit of information they seem capable of taking in.

      Collapse
  8. Ken Motamed

    Nick writes: “That doesn’t make sense,” you might think. “Unproven allegations of corruption against Biden don’t ‘balance’ the threat of authoritarianism from a man who tried to stage a coup once before and may yet go to prison for it.”

    Actually, the threat of authoritarianism if Trump is reelected is just as hard to prove as Biden's corruption. Was J6 an attempted coup? If it was, it was incredibly disorganized, which explains its quick failure. The U.S. government is too big and our guardrails too strong to allow any president become a tyrant. And let's not forget Biden's ignoring court rulings and demagoging on vaccines and vote suppression.

    Collapse
    1. Peter T

      Interesting argument.

      One can't *prove* 100% that eating rat poison will kill you, so, go ahead and eat it.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Lots of articles out there about how Trump's more savvy helpers have already designed the ways he can overcome the supposed "guardrails."

      It was a feature of his one term that he violated norms with no consequences, much to some people's shock, because there was no way to enforce those norms.

      I don't know which guardrail you are thinking of, but I see none.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Citizen60

      Hitler’s first coup attempt was a disastrous failure, too.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      HappyCow

      You must work for National Review. The editors there were just this week thawing out this argument for their eventual justification that voting for Trump over Biden is justifiable.

      Incompetent authoritarianism is still authoritarianism.

      Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Addicus

      Except Trump is telling us exactly what he will do. Only voters don't believe him, or think it's just talk, or *somebody* will stop him.

      Collapse
  9. AJLiberty

    Appearances matter: Hunter Biden was out monetizing on his father's position and reputation and Joe Biden didn't shut it down. Now you might say, "he didn't know" or "he didn't know the extent". But Joe was a Senator, Vice President, and then a Presidential contender....Joe's team has GOT to know....and they should have shut it down.

    Joe is likely guilty of not wanting to know...and hoping for the best. It's more of the Biden judgment that's always kept me shaking my head. Joe is a placeholder President. More of his famous judgment was picking Harris for the ticket. Yes it honored his lame identity politics promise, but in addition to not grooming a clear successor, it has more independents questioning what would be worse, Trump or Harris post Biden.

    Joe should have announced his withdrawal at the end of the summer. Yes we might have had a chaotic Democrat field with no clear favorite and the usual far-left performance artists dragging the party leftward, but there also might have been hope of finding something that doesn't resemble Weekend at Bernie's mixed in with Hunter's shakedowns.

    You might argue, "the tax and gun charges are small potatoes". Yeah but, the FARA appearance is not and Joe's inability to handle it gives team Trump a comparison to beat a drum about. This is just going to linger...The GOP will make sure it festers. The right judgment would have been to drop out....but once again, Joe's gut has this wrong....

    Collapse
    1. John

      Well, Biden didn’t drop out. And Gavin Newsome is sitting on the sidelines. Too bad

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dave Casper

      Hunter was a 40-50 year old adult when the conduct in question was happening.

      How much control did your parents exercise over your career decisions and personal life at that age?

      Moreover, for Joe to put the brakes on Hunter's business activities would have required exactly the level of close involvement that he is (falsely) accused of, and (properly) avoided.

      Joe was right to stay out of the details of Hunter's deals - and that's why the GOP clown-car can't find a shred of credible evidence of any associated wrong-doing.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Retired Prosecutor

      I'm a sucker for irony. All of the liberals/progressives screaming the gun charge is "small potatoes" is a great example. The illegal possession of a firearm by a statutorily prohibited person is a gun control law that even the hated NRA completely supports. This handgun ended up in a dumpster across the street from an elementary school.

      Just wait until the next campaign for gun control starts, and watch many of the same people cry about the scourge of a nation awash with firearms. But the problem mainly isn't about all the people with firearms, it is that in all too many cases the wrong people have them.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Citizen60

      Joe knew Hunter was monetizing the “Biden Brand,” which is exactly the Trump business model.

      Whether Joe participated with strategy meetings on how to maximize the return, provided demonstrable quid pro quos, or took bribes in exchange for unlawful activities is the question.

      Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      "Appearances matter: Hunter Biden was out monetizing on his father's position and reputation and Joe Biden didn't shut it down. Now you might say, "he didn't know" or "he didn't know the extent"."

      I think a lot of people would say that they will be more concerned as soon as Republicans are the tiniest bit concerned that Trump's children – whom he actually installed in the Whitehouse – were blatantly doing this week in week out, as they retained control of the family businesses and ran them from the Whitehouse; and Trump literally held court at his properties every weekend, and continually tried to have state business and events conducted there.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        Find ding. Spare me the hypocrisy and double standards republicans. You no longer have any moral high ground. You’re so far from it I might not even care even if they did find something to actually pin on Biden.

        Collapse
      2. AJLiberty

        I carry no water for Trump, but you unfortunately make my point. If they're both corrupt, many voters will look for the one that has more vim and vigor. That's not good news. Biden should have innoculated himself of this Hunter problem. He didn't. He should have stepped aside. He didn't. He feels that he MUST stay and battle Trump. It looks like he may be the one opponent that might give Trump a chance.

        I applaud Biden for winning in 2020. I applaud that his Ukraine and Israel policies have not been horrible. And though I think his administration could have done more early on about inflation and the clogged supply chains, things are getting better. He should have ridden off into the sunset and been the trusted advisor for the next generation of leader. Well, he pivoted one last time...and now we have to rationalize why what he wants is in fact what is best for the country. I'm not applauding.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kizedek

          “If they are both corrupt”

          But that’s the thing, isn’t it? At the moment, evidence says that Trump definitely is, and Biden could be (IF the accusers had evidence for their accusations in hand, and witnesses showed up).

          No-one is saying Hunter shouldn’t be investigated. So no-one is “carrying water” for Biden in the same way the GOP Congress is totally carrying water for Trump (it doesn’t matter if you as an individual don’t carry water for Trump, GOP Congress is).

          Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Delenda Est

    WHY is the The Dispatch so silent about the right-in-front-of-our faces instrument for ending our Trump national nightmare? It is *obvious* that Trump is disqualified from the presidency by the 14th Amendment; it's equally obvious that our justice system has only too slowly and too fitfully responded to the threat that Trumpist Fascism represents. The courts in America, rooted as they are in the Common Law tradition, are in dialogue with broader civil society, and will take cues from the popular will and popular pressure - including pressure from the intelligentsia, which like it or not Dispatch editors, you belong to. Why should the civic duty of keeping Trump off the ballot be left up to the editors at the Bulwark? From one of their current articles, "Use the Constitution to Protect the Constitution":

    "A judge in Michigan washed his hands of the matter by claiming that this is a “nonjusticiable” political matter—that is, that only a political institution like Congress can determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to Trump. Because Congress these days is such a font of equanimity and wisdom.

    That approach tracks closely with political commentators who argue that Trump can only be defeated at the ballot box. But saying the electorate should settle this dispute flips the Fourteenth Amendment on its head. *The entire point* of the disqualification clause was to remove the choice from the electorate.

    Here, history may not be repeating itself, but it sure does have a strong rhyme. In the wake of the Civil War, the South tried to return to Congress the same representatives who had violated their oaths of office by initiating the war and swearing fealty to the Confederacy. The nation that ratified the amendment considered the matter of oathbreaking insurrectionists far too grave to be left to an electorate that might one day find itself once again in the thrall of unreformed insurrectionists."

    https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/use-constitution-protect-fourteenth-amendment?fbclid=IwAR2pUpyDdoDTeIRH_SxpZeOD1FPTVYcQV5FLDS-zMrFK0nQdZGdhWt14n7c

    Collapse
    1. Laurie

      Regarding the Michigan judge's ruling, it was explained (I think here on Advisory Opinions) that the 14th amendment would only apply in the general election, and not in the primaries where the 2 parties get to make their own rules of candidate selection. So there may be another attempt to keep him off the ballot as November nears, if he is the nominee. I don't speak lawyer, but that was how I understood it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Delenda Est

        The parties can of course adopt their own rules for who they will admit as a candidate, but these are not legal restrictions on eligibility, per se. Someone otherwise eligible who a given party refuses to nominate, can still run for election. What 14A Section 3 refers to, by contrast, is a general disqualification, of the same sort as not being a native citizen or not being 35 is (when it comes to the presidency).

        This whole Strategem of deferring the enforcement of the Section until November, after the parties have gone through the elaborate primary-process for determining their nominee, is just farcical. If the nominee is disqualified by the Constitution, they are no less disqualified today than they would be then; but attempting to disallow the candidate at that time would be 10X more politically explosive. No, most judges around the country are simply failing in their duty to uphold the Constitution here (and often on nothing other than fig-leaf pretexts) - why doesn't The Dispatch write a story about THAT?

        Collapse
        1. Laurie

          The media joins the courts, Congress, and the church in that they are all failing. I'm failing by being silent with my closest friends. But if the Dispatch, Bulwark or even National Review shouted about Trump's legal, moral and intellectual unfitness every day, it wouldn't move the needle with Trump voters; they aren't on these sites anyway. I'm digressing here from your original comment, but I think one of the problems is that in many areas of the country, people don't think they know anyone who voted for Biden. (My own mother told me this to dissuade me from voting for him). In my fantasies, I wonder about a march for democracy on Washington. After Trump won, women mobilized to express their revulsion of him. BLM mobilized during his presidency too. Is it verboten to organize a march when the sitting President is from your own party? This is me offering up a last resort scenario...

          Collapse
    2. Ken Motamed

      You must be one of the few to whom it's obvious that Trump is guilty of insurrection, which is incredibly hard to prove.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kizedek

        It's pretty obvious to Liz Cheney – she just talked about it on a couple of podcasts.

        She also said she feels the Democrats didn't report the findings of the Jan 6 Committee very well. For example, she would have like it to have been stressed that ALL the witnesses were Republicans and Trump's former inner circle. In other words, it wasn't the drunken fishing expedition that the current GOP inquiry is.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Delenda Est

        You're confusing insurrection with incitement to riot. J6 wasn't a mere riot; this was confirmed both in Trump's impeachment for insurrection, as well as by subsequent findings in the courts, that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th.

        The 14th Amendment Section 3 does not require a criminal conviction of engagement in insurrection; instead it requires merely the secular judgment by an entity duly tasked with making that judgment (e.g. members of the House in considering impeachment, or state officers deciding the eligibility of candidates to run for office in their state). If a state officer makes that judgment in bad faith, it will be overturned by the courts. But the only bad-faith HERE is anyone claiming that J6 was *not* an insurrection, *not* an intended coup of the Executive power of the United States.

        I'm pretty sure you're one of those guys who would have NO problem applying 14A Sec. 3 to Hillary Clinton, if she did everything that Trump did in the post-election period.

        Collapse
Load More