Opinion | Where Is the Evidence, Speaker McCarthy?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.nytimes.com/2023/09/12/opinion/biden-impeachment-mccarthy.html
Opinion | Where Is the Evidence, Speaker McCarthy?
David French
Sept. 12, 2023,6:01 p.m. ET
Credit...Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning.
There is a certain pattern to modern impeachment inquiries. They typically begin after the discovery of blatantly incriminating evidence. In 1998 the House of Representatives began its impeachment inquiry only after DNA tests on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress exposed that Bill Clinton had lied under oath about their affair.
In 2019 the House opened its impeachment inquiryonly afterit receivedreportsthat Donald Trump had attempted to coerce President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine into investigating Trump’s chief domestic political opponent. The day after Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry, the White House released arough transcriptof Trump’s call with Zelensky, and Americans could see that Trump did indeed press Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, as a “favor” in response to Ukraine’s request for Javelin anti-tank missiles.
And we all know what happened after Jan. 6, 2021. The House initiated the second impeachment of Trump only after his weekslong festival of lies about election fraud culminated in a violent attack on the Capitol.
On Monday, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy ordered the House Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees tostart an impeachment inquiryinto Biden without anything approaching comparable evidence. Indeed, the absence of such evidence was used as a perverse justification for the impeachment inquiry. The pretext is the purported need to grant greater investigatory authority to House committees examining whether Biden lied about his business dealings with his son Hunter and whether the president granted Hunter “special treatment” in the ongoing criminal investigation of Hunter’s potential tax and gun crimes.
But at the risk of sounding crass, where is the blue dress? Where is the phone call? Where is the riot? There’s little question that Bidenfamily members— especially Hunter but alsoJoe Biden’s brother James and daughter-in-law Hallie— have profited enormously over the course of Joe Biden’s political career. But evidence that the president was himself involved in Hunter’s schemes or shared in any of the profits is thus far lacking, as is any evidence that the president violated the law.
Ironically enough, McCarthy’s announcement came months after the initial Republican investigationsfailed to find any criminal activityby the president. There is no evidence remotely comparable to the evidence that spurred inquiries against Clinton or Trump.
To these facts, Republicans might respond, “Where there is smoke, there is fire.” They would point to statements such as Hunter’sapparent assertionin a text message to his daughter that half his money goes to his father. They’d note that Joe Bidenfalsely deniedthat Hunter had business dealings in China. They’d point to federal whistle-blowers whoclaimthat they faced obstacles in their investigation of Hunter. Some Republicans arepointingall the way back to the long-debunked claim that Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in part because the Ukrainian energy company Burisma was paying Hunter a lavish monthly consulting fee. (In reality, firing Shokin was a priority for both the Obama administration and its Western allies, and they wanted him terminated because he was ineffective at combating corruption, not because he was diligently pursuing Burisma.)
It’s also worth mentioning here the sheer extent of Republican hypocrisy. The deep concern that Joe Biden might have profited from his position sounds almost comical after the G.O.P. has spent years trying to divert Americans’ attention from the blatant way that theTrump administrationsteered federal dollarsintoTrump propertiesduring his presidency. And if we’re talking about the sleaziness of presidential family members profiting from their access to power, then Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump — who, unlike Hunter, worked in the administration — have benefited to exponentially greater degrees fromSaudi ArabianandChineselargess.
And what to make of the idea that the House can’t properly investigate the president’s finances in the absence of an impeachment inquiry? “That’s what the inquiry is for,” Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina,toldCNN’s Kaitlin Collins in an interview before McCarthy’s announcement, “to get more evidence.”
But while an impeachment inquiry arguably expands the House’s subpoena power, the House still possesses broad investigatory authority even in the absence of such an inquiry.Late last year, for example, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s effort to prevent the House from obtaining his tax returns. The House was seeking Trump’s financial information as part of its legislative oversight role.
There is a colloquial legal term for McCarthy’s approach: It’s a fishing expedition. He’s unilaterally opening a rare inquiry into a sitting president not because of the evidence that does exist but rather because of the evidence Republicans believe might exist. This is a remarkable expansion of the House’s conception of its role in impeachment, one that potentially places every future president in jeopardy whenever the House is controlled by the opposing party.
To understand why this is all happening, it’s necessary to understand the almost mystical importance that Hunter Biden has assumed for parts of the right. He is the focus of obsessive coverage in right-wing media. In this world, the tech companies’ temporary suppression of the contents of his laptopcost Trump the election. The Biden family, in their minds, is avirtual criminal syndicate, guilty of far more than the sadly standard, sleazy profiteering that we’ve seen from other political families and hangers-on.
Moreover, McCarthy clings to power in part because his narrow majority depends on the support of far-right firebrands such as Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, who continuallythreaten his speakershipunless he complies with their demands. Impeaching Biden is such a core element of right-wing activism that two prominent House Republicans, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, recently got into apublic spatafter Greene accused Boebert of copying her proposed articles of impeachment against Biden.
Finally, it’s difficult to exaggerate the degree to which claims of Democratic corruption justify continued Republican support for Trump. This is how people who otherwise claim to value integrity reduce themselves to Trump sycophants. If everyone does it — if Joe Biden is as corrupt as or worse than Trump and is a Democrat in the bargain — then why not back the man they feel at least fights the right enemies and advances the right causes?
I do not write this piece to vouch for Joe Biden’s integrity or to defend any aspect of Hunter Biden’s conduct or career. If solid evidence of profound misconduct did exist — equivalent to proof of Clinton’s false statements under oath, Trump’s quid pro quo phone call with Zelensky or Trump’s riot — then opening impeachment proceedings would be an entirely proper response. But an impeachment inquiry in the absence of such evidence is an abuse of the House’s power, one that represents yet another dangerous escalation of American political combat.
David French is an Opinion columnist. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator. His most recent book is “Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.”@DavidAFrench
Tags
Who is online
141 visitors
This figures to backfire on the Republicans once the witch hunt element of this fiasco becomes evident to all.
Where was all the evidence in Trump's failed impeachments? Those witch hunt fiascos both failed miserably for lack of evidence.
I think there was evidence. The facts were generally not in dispute in either case. The issue was if that evidence constituted high crimes or misdemeanors worthy of removal from office.
While I'm not convinced that an impeachment inquiry is the correct approach, at least this will allow them to force the stonewalling and slow-walking agencies to hand over the evidence they have asked for. Making this a formal impeachment inquiry gives the House Committees some teeth behind the asks.
And you can say there's no evidence, but they have banking records to family members. They have some emails, they have SAR's from the IRS. I do believe that this should be investigated thoroughly. While there has been nothing released that directly ties this to Joe Biden, I really believe that those who ignore this issue are purposely keeping their eyes shut.
McCarthy said they have uncovered some allegations. Who needs facts and evidence when you have allegations?
Do you mean like the Steele dossier?.. perhaps we should dig a little deeper....
Some right wingers think facts are fiction and fiction is fact. Where do you come down on that?
I would agree, I could also state that some left wingers think facts are fiction and fiction is fact. Where do you stand on that?..
Careful or some idiot will come along and bleat something ignorant about Helsinki or Putin.
Good, let's get some clarity. Take it to the next level and let's see where the evidence leads us.
You are actually in favor of this nonsense?
I am in favor of 'put up or shut up'.
In other words, show persuasive evidence to justify impeachment or drop it.
If there is a there there then they need to find it and proceed. Democrats need to demonstrate that we are the party of law and order and will not abide a corrupt POTUS
Seems to be a very concise timeline of events.
What took so long? Is the value of whining about it starting to fade?
What I mean by that is for the last several years, one of the main drivers of Republican political enthusiasm has been this idea of a deep state that rigs elections and skews justice in favor of Democrats. So ever since Biden was elected, Republicans have been whining - not only about the alleged corruption of Biden, but also their alleged inability to get any of it investigated. This, in spite of the fact that they have had the means to investigate him for a long time.
So just as I said with Trump, I say with Biden: Get on with it. Stop whining like pussies about corruption or conspiracies, and get on with proving it. If you can prove it, then let’s take appropriate action. And if you can’t prove it, you should do the country a favor and shut the fuck up. There’s a lot of very important work you could be doing.
I'm still laughing at Large Marge accusing Bobert of copying her homework