The Biden Impeachment Is Benghazi All Over Again
By: Paul Spella (The Atlantic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Both inquiries are based far more on vibes and political machinations than they are on hard evidence.
Once upon a time, presidential impeachment was a rare event. But with four of the five inquiries in U.S. history coming in the past 25 years, people seeking to understand and explain the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, launched Tuesday, have looked to the 2019 impeachment of President Donald Trump as an analogy. Both center on allegations of using elected office for personal gain, and both have been divided sharply along partisan lines.
The comparison is understandable, especially because some Republicans have explicitly framed their inquiry as a response to Trump's impeachment, as Jonathan Chait writes. But the more useful comparison is to the House investigation into Benghazi from 2014 to 2016. Both inquiries are based far more on vibes and political machinations than they are on hard evidence. Kevin McCarthy's longstanding ambition to be speaker of the House sit at the center of both. And the fate of the Benghazi investigation offers some indications about how this one could turn out.
Like the current impeachment inquiry, the Benghazi story began with U.S. involvement in a foreign country—in this case, Libya, where the Obama administration was reluctantly drawn into the toppling of Muammar Qaddafi. On September 11, 2012, Islamist attacks on two U.S. facilities in the city of Benghazi killed the U.S. ambassador, a Foreign Service officer, and two CIA contractors. Republicans blamed Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, for failing to prevent or respond quickly to the attack. Then-Speaker John Boehner initially resisted calls for a special committee to investigate the attack but eventually agreed.
The point of the Benghazi committee was to hurt Clinton's chances at winning the presidency in 2016. We know this because Republicans were not subtle. As McCarthy, then the House majority leader, said in a September 2015 TV interview: "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."
That frank confession that a congressional inquiry had been used as a tool of partisan warfare helped cost McCarthy the speakership. The same month, Boehner announced his retirement. McCarthy had been the clear favorite, but amid fallout from the interview, he suddenly dropped out, saying he couldn't unite the caucus. He eventually got the gavel in January of this year, but now his speakership is once again on the line. As my colleague Russell Berman wrote Tuesday, McCarthy is a hostage of the far-right flank of his party, which forced him into announcing the impeachment inquiry. McCarthy's ability to manage the process will in part determine whether he keeps his job.
The basis for the first Trump impeachment was clear from the start. A whistleblower alleged that Trump had tried to extort an investigation into (wait for it) Hunter and Joe Biden over dealings in Ukraine, using funds appropriated by Congress as leverage. The White House released a transcript of the call the same day that Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry. The rest of the inquiry turned up lots of new information about Trump's attempt to use Ukraine as a pawn in his reelection campaign, but the basic allegation was clear from the start, and the question was not whether Trump had done it but whether it was a "perfect" call, as he insisted, or a serious breach of his oath of office.
In both Benghazi and the Biden impeachment, by contrast, it isn't entirely clear what precisely the misconduct is. In the Benghazi investigation, everyone agreed that something bad had happened—Americans died. But Republicans had no clear theory of why that was Clinton's fault. In the Biden case, a consensus has emerged that Hunter Biden engaged in brazenly unethical behavior (separate from his legal woes in the United States), but that doesn't amount to wrongdoing on his father's part. McCarthy's stated rationales for the impeachment inquiry are flimsy, unproven, and incorrect, as the journalists Philip Bump and Luke Broadwater have explained.
Nonetheless, Republicans seem absolutely certain that Biden is wildly corrupt, and they would prove it if only they could get all the pieces of the investigation to come together, and if only they could find their witnesses, and if only those witnesses weren't facing federal charges, and so on. This is a view propounded not just by the far right in Congress, but also by prominent voices in the supposedly sober and serious conservative press. Well, perhaps: Evidence of serious misconduct by Joe Biden might still turn up, but for the time being, the exercise looks like a transparent attempt to hurt Biden's chances at reelection.
Much like Benghazi. For a time, the Benghazi committee looked like nothing more than a big fishing expedition. Despite more than two years of work, the committee did not find any wrongdoing by Clinton. Her own testimony before the committee, an 11-hour slog, was widely viewed as a victory for her, because she was in command of the facts and Republican committee members didn't land any real blows on her. By the time the election rolled around, "Benghazi" was more of a punch line—against Republicans—than a live campaign issue. The whole thing was an embarrassment for the GOP, or so it seemed.
One can easily imagine the Biden impeachment following that path. James Comer, the House Oversight Committee chair, who has been leading investigations into Hunter Biden, has appeared bumbling and ineffective. So far, no evidence suggests offenses that reach the historical threshold for impeachment. Moderate House Republicans show little appetite for impeachment, and getting a full House vote—much less a successful impeachment—looks very challenging for McCarthy. Should that work, there's essentially no chance that the Democratic Senate would convict Biden.
But the Benghazi experience points to another possibility, too. Although the Benghazi committee couldn't nail Clinton, one byproduct of the investigation was the revelation of Clinton's private email server, which turned out to be a defining issue in the 2016 presidential election, and arguably cost her the presidency. Just because an investigation fails in its putative goal doesn't mean it will fail in its actual goal.
*Lead image: Illustration by Paul Spella. Sources: Alex Wong / Getty; Bashar Shglila / Getty; Bastiaan Slabbers / NurPhoto / Getty; Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times / Getty.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
Benghazi ! Laptop! Benghazi ! Laptop! Benghazi ! Laptop !Benghazi ! Laptop! Benghazi ! Laptop!
Don't forget .... birth certificate.
It's amazing that Democrats still think Benghazi was some sort of victory for them.
But sure you can also celebrate Republicans demonstrating that Biden lied to the American people to cover up his, in his case, likely criminal misdeeds.
Hillary's failure was, of course, being grossly negligent and then trying to cover up a terrorist assault with lies about it being spontaneous demonstration over a movie. Not sure how Biden's misdeeds can be mere gross negligence.
You are using the fact that an attack on the US mission in Benghazi occurred as evidence of Hillary's negligence. 9-11 happened. Is that evidence of negligence by someone in the Bush administration?
If Al-Queda had spent the few weeks prior flying airplanes into buildings, causing all other countries to stop airflights, and someone in the Bush admin said "Can't happen here, let's not change anything" then yes.
Well that settles it than. We believe this guy, but not the family members who blame Cllinton.
The person in that interview was Ambassador Stevens sister.
So what? Why is she an unimpeachable authority and other family members not?
Maybe let the facts speak for themselves.
Some people on the right are morons. I dont think you are a moron but you regularly offer debunked "arguments", I guess to try and win.
There is no evidence that Joe Biden "had" the prosecutor fired in order to protect his son's position in Burisma.
Jim Jordan said on the video yesterday that there are four facts that compel the impeachment inquiry. The first three are not impeachable offenses. The fourth one might be, if it happened as Jordan alleges. But it didnt.
Jordan is the one who put all his eggs in this one basket. And the basket has a hole in it.
Right wingers think they can just keep saying something and if they say it enough times it will be true. Blaming Hillary Clinton for the Benghazi attack is one of those things, done to damage her presidential hopes, and so is this impeachment inquiry today, being done for the same reason.
Trump demanded an impeachment inquiry of Biden, to try to drag him DOWN to his own low level.
There's tons of evidence that Joe Biden wanted him fired. There's tons of evidence Burisma wanted him fired and asked hunter to help accomplish that. There's evidence that Hunter had to pay a portion of his salary to his father. Guess what that means?
That Joe Biden is corrupt has been proven. The only question is whether he can be proven a criminal.
There is evidence that western Europe wanted him fired. There is evidence that the Obama administration and the State Dept. wanted him fired. Your argument is that because Biden wanted him fired and his son worked for Burisma therefore Biden "had" him fired to end a (non existent) investigation into Burisma.
Things are not true simply because somebody keeps repeating them.
That might be the most irrelevant argument you can make.,
d. There is evidence that the Obama administration and the State Dept. wanted him fired
Who was the admin's point man on Ukraine? who bragged about threatening to withhold aid unless Shoykin was fired?
iden wanted him fired and his son worked for Burisma therefore Biden "had" him fired t
No, Burisma wanted him fired. Burisma paid money to Hunter Biden to have that happen. Those are facts that you can't dispute.
His job was to threaten the withholding of aid unless Shokin was fired.
Do you think its okay for government officials to take bribes even if they would do the same thing without the bribe?
of course it was, Burisma paid the family millions to get that job done.
As this article demonstrates , the objection to Shokin existed in the US government and in western Europe , and in the International Monetary Fund, and within Ukraine itself.
There is no evidence that Biden's wanting to protect his son's corruption was the impetus for all this.
Frankly, it sounds ridiculous.
I'd ask you to elaborate, but I'm pretty sure you dont know anything about this story.
I'm pretty sure you have never explained anything on this forum.
Most intelligent people can explain why they believe what they do.
It’s not coincidental at all, a lot of people were trying to get rid of that guy well before Biden got involved or his son had anything to do with burisma. Again, there is no evidence that him being fired had anything at all to do with Hunter Biden. Much as you like to pretend that this all somehow points to some criminal activity, it just doesn’t.
Well, there's certainly precedent for an impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden. Democrats already burned that precedent bridge. And the questions concerning Biden's corruption and misuse of office are sufficiently meritorious that they can't just be dismissed. So, now Democrats must rely on the baloney of a false comparison.
The Benghazi investigation was about Hillary Clinton's competence as a government official. And Clinton's incompetence was later proven by FBI Director James Comey. Clinton's proven incompetence became a defensive political argument to excuse questionable and possibly illegal actions by high level government officials. Comparing the Benghazi investigation to an impeachment inquiry of Biden would require recognizing Biden's incompetence as a defense.
The problem for Democrats is that the impeachment inquiry of Biden concerns corruption rather than competence. Maybe Democrats can remove Biden from the 2024 ballot by arguing Biden is incompetent. But Biden's incompetence won't excuse Biden's corrupt use of authority. Proving Biden is incompetent won't make the problem of Biden's corruption go away.
In the end, Democrats are providing fodder that Biden is both incompetent and corrupt. Normally the unbiased press would pick up on that twisted narrative and inflame public opinion. But even that bit of normalcy isn't possible any longer.
Why is it that no one can provide any evidence of Bidens corruption?
Yesterday, I posted a video of Jim Jordan saying that impeachment is based on Biden getting the prosecutor fired.
Sorry, that is not evidence of Bidens corruption. How many people will have to tell you and people like you that before you will listen?
a thing given in return for something else
Was Biden's quid pro quo incompetent or was it corrupt? Or was it both incompetent and corrupt? Who benefited from Biden forcing the ouster of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin ?
What are you talking about? According to the position of NATO, and the US administration at the time, the country of and the people of Ukraine would benefit from the firing of Shokin. Ukraine was wanting more assistance at that time and the West had the position that further aid would be contingent on the Ukrainians showing progress against the corruption in Ukraine. I think the western nations did not want to throw money into a bottomless pit.
Where is the evidence that Joe Biden unilaterally decided to fire Shokin without approval or input from anyone else?
You just saying that something happened in such and such a way is not evidence that it did.
Somebody had to benefit from the removal of Viktor Shokin. Otherwise there would not have been a need to make threats to force a quid pro quo.
Your argument is that the people of Ukraine benefited from the ouster of Shokin. How? By being gifted $1 billion by the United States? Why is the United States paying the Ukrainian people's political bar tab?
The United States did not benefit from the ouster of Shokin. Hunter Biden might have benefited; we don't know. Some of Joe Biden's European friends might have benefited; we don't know. Joe Biden, himself, may have benefited through some sort of money laundering; we don't know.
Where is the evidence that the US government and/or European governments authorized and ordered Joe Biden to make quid pro quo threats against the Ukrainian government? Joe Biden's story is that he, alone, made that decision. That does raise questions about Biden's incompetence. But that evidence alone doesn't indicate whether or not Biden's incompetence was corrupt.
Even highly visible crimes require an investigation. The 9/11 attacks we recently commemorated still required a full blown investigation even though the crime was obvious and motivations understood.
I find Nancy's first impeachment investigation of Trump and this now McCarthy's to be deeply ironic. They both involve the allegation of quid pro quo over Burisma and Shokin. It was a misuse of our Constitution for political gain in 2019 and it is the same now. Both Parties don't give a damn about the law or really fixing anything. Pick a target and create a pretext for impeachment.
In the meantime, the nonpartisan CBO predicts that we will have a $3T deficit this year and we're facing a government shutdown in two weeks.
On with the show.
You've got to see the show, it's a dynamo