Released in May. NOT evidence just more allegation
Post# of 123723
(Total Views: 119)
Posted On: 09/16/2023 5:59:36 PM
Released in May. NOT evidence just more allegations.
7 skeptical Republicans to watch on impeaching Biden
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/...ing-biden/
For the third time in four years, the House has moved forward with impeachment proceedings against an American president. But the inquiry into President Biden is not like Donald Trump’s two.
One reason is the distinct lack of evidence linking Biden to actual wrongdoing, with the unproven allegations generally focusing on whether Biden benefited from his son Hunter’s business dealings.
Another is that public support for the inquiry just isn’t where it was for either of Trump’s impeachments. Yet another is that we’ve seen significant early pushback from inside the impeachment-pushing party — which was not the case with the Trump impeachments.
Some House Republicans say that they worry in general about another impeachment but also that the evidence isn’t there even for an inquiry. Several Senate Republicans have given the effort the cold shoulder.
That resistance matters.
Not only does it cast bipartisan doubt on House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s decision, but it raises the prospect that this whole effort could ultimately fall apart in a closely divided House — one in which McCarthy (R-Calif.) has only around five GOP votes to spare.
The biggest rebuke would be if McCarthy can’t ultimately get a majority of the House to vote to impeach Biden. Even short of that, impeaching Biden while losing a handful of Republican votes — and possibly seeing further Republican departures in a Senate trial — would be a significant setback.
The way these things generally work is that enough members of a party ultimately fall in line, for fear of embarrassing their leadership and party. But members like the 18 House Republicans in districts Biden won in 2020 have their own careers to think about. And it’s not clear McCarthy even had the votes for an inquiry; he promised less than two weeks ago that the House would vote on one, but then flip-flopped on Tuesday and launched it unilaterally.
Both that flip-flop and the political pressure McCarthy is getting from the right would seem to suggest this exercise is not particularly well conceived.
But here we are. And there is, in all likelihood, no turning back on ultimately voting on impeaching Biden. So which House Republicans are worth watching?
Below we list some of those who have been the most publicly skeptical — breaking down how firm their skepticism appears to be — in rough order of who is most interesting.
1. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.)
The Colorado congressman has become an unlikely critic of his party’s exploits in recent months. The tea party conservative and Freedom Caucus member has expressed deep skepticism not just about impeaching Biden, but also his party’s claims of the “weaponization” of the government.
“The time for impeachment is the time when there’s evidence linking President Biden — if there’s evidence linking President Biden — to a high crime or misdemeanor,” Buck said as recently as Sunday. “That doesn’t exist right now.”
Last week he said: “Right now, I’m not convinced that that evidence exists. And I’m not supporting an impeachment inquiry.”
That certainly leaves open the possibility that the evidence could ultimately be there. But Buck is one of the few who have said explicitly that the current evidence doesn’t even rise to the level of an inquiry. And Buck, a former prosecutor, appears particularly emboldened of late to take principled stands against his party’s drift toward extreme measures.
Also: An aide reportedly told the Messenger on Tuesday that Buck believed the inquiry was a “waste of time.”
2. Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio)
Joyce has likewise criticized both his party’s impeachment push and its “weaponization” efforts. And also like Buck, he criticized the impeachment push even in recent days.
He told Forbes in an interview published Monday that he is “not seeing facts or evidence at this point” that would warrant an impeachment inquiry, calling it “premature.” He also told The Washington Post in July that the House should instead focus on things like appropriations bills.
As with Buck, that doesn’t preclude his ultimately coming around. But the House GOP investigative efforts have proved more adept at producing smoke than anything substantial. And again, he’s saying not even an inquiry — a seemingly low political bar to clear — is warranted.
3. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.)
Bacon has joined Buck and Joyce in saying that evidence that Biden did anything criminal simply isn’t there for an inquiry.
“There should be a direct link to the president in some evidence,” he told the Hill in late August. “We should have some clear evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, not just assuming there may be one. I think we need to have more concrete evidence to go down that path.”
7 skeptical Republicans to watch on impeaching Biden
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/...ing-biden/
For the third time in four years, the House has moved forward with impeachment proceedings against an American president. But the inquiry into President Biden is not like Donald Trump’s two.
One reason is the distinct lack of evidence linking Biden to actual wrongdoing, with the unproven allegations generally focusing on whether Biden benefited from his son Hunter’s business dealings.
Another is that public support for the inquiry just isn’t where it was for either of Trump’s impeachments. Yet another is that we’ve seen significant early pushback from inside the impeachment-pushing party — which was not the case with the Trump impeachments.
Some House Republicans say that they worry in general about another impeachment but also that the evidence isn’t there even for an inquiry. Several Senate Republicans have given the effort the cold shoulder.
That resistance matters.
Not only does it cast bipartisan doubt on House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s decision, but it raises the prospect that this whole effort could ultimately fall apart in a closely divided House — one in which McCarthy (R-Calif.) has only around five GOP votes to spare.
The biggest rebuke would be if McCarthy can’t ultimately get a majority of the House to vote to impeach Biden. Even short of that, impeaching Biden while losing a handful of Republican votes — and possibly seeing further Republican departures in a Senate trial — would be a significant setback.
The way these things generally work is that enough members of a party ultimately fall in line, for fear of embarrassing their leadership and party. But members like the 18 House Republicans in districts Biden won in 2020 have their own careers to think about. And it’s not clear McCarthy even had the votes for an inquiry; he promised less than two weeks ago that the House would vote on one, but then flip-flopped on Tuesday and launched it unilaterally.
Both that flip-flop and the political pressure McCarthy is getting from the right would seem to suggest this exercise is not particularly well conceived.
But here we are. And there is, in all likelihood, no turning back on ultimately voting on impeaching Biden. So which House Republicans are worth watching?
Below we list some of those who have been the most publicly skeptical — breaking down how firm their skepticism appears to be — in rough order of who is most interesting.
1. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.)
The Colorado congressman has become an unlikely critic of his party’s exploits in recent months. The tea party conservative and Freedom Caucus member has expressed deep skepticism not just about impeaching Biden, but also his party’s claims of the “weaponization” of the government.
“The time for impeachment is the time when there’s evidence linking President Biden — if there’s evidence linking President Biden — to a high crime or misdemeanor,” Buck said as recently as Sunday. “That doesn’t exist right now.”
Last week he said: “Right now, I’m not convinced that that evidence exists. And I’m not supporting an impeachment inquiry.”
That certainly leaves open the possibility that the evidence could ultimately be there. But Buck is one of the few who have said explicitly that the current evidence doesn’t even rise to the level of an inquiry. And Buck, a former prosecutor, appears particularly emboldened of late to take principled stands against his party’s drift toward extreme measures.
Also: An aide reportedly told the Messenger on Tuesday that Buck believed the inquiry was a “waste of time.”
2. Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio)
Joyce has likewise criticized both his party’s impeachment push and its “weaponization” efforts. And also like Buck, he criticized the impeachment push even in recent days.
He told Forbes in an interview published Monday that he is “not seeing facts or evidence at this point” that would warrant an impeachment inquiry, calling it “premature.” He also told The Washington Post in July that the House should instead focus on things like appropriations bills.
As with Buck, that doesn’t preclude his ultimately coming around. But the House GOP investigative efforts have proved more adept at producing smoke than anything substantial. And again, he’s saying not even an inquiry — a seemingly low political bar to clear — is warranted.
3. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.)
Bacon has joined Buck and Joyce in saying that evidence that Biden did anything criminal simply isn’t there for an inquiry.
“There should be a direct link to the president in some evidence,” he told the Hill in late August. “We should have some clear evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, not just assuming there may be one. I think we need to have more concrete evidence to go down that path.”
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼