+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read Sen. Cruz's: "Unwoke."
+++
I understand Kim's concern about the abuse of the impeachment clause. However, in the case of Biden he should be impeached for violating his oath of office pledge to protect and defend our country.
+++
The Path to Biden Impeachment
A formal inquiry is under way. Whether it’s well-advised remains to be seen.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Give the House this: It may not be able to balance the books, pass legislation or even hang on to a speaker. But it’s getting good at impeaching presidents.
A fractious GOP majority on Wednesday managed something rare: It came together without dissent, to open a formal impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. Technically, it’s a first step—a procedural vote to empower House investigators probing Biden family finances. Speaker Mike Johnson stressed that Republicans won’t “prejudge” whether Mr. Biden should ultimately be impeached. Not prejudging may prove difficult.
Republicans get credit for making it official. Impeachment—a claim of presidential “high crimes or misdemeanors”—ought to be a big deal, and merits at minimum a recorded tally showing that a majority favors an inquiry. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi lowered the bar in 2019 when she unilaterally declared an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, and followed up with a House vote on impeachment rules only under pressure. Her successor, Kevin McCarthy, in September followed her lead and unilaterally declared a probe into Mr. Biden, and it was unclear if the GOP would bother with an official vote. Names are now on the record, and that provides all-important accountability.
The Biden White House arguably also left them no choice. The question of Hunter Biden’s unsavory business deals—and his father’s knowledge or involvement—might have been adjudicated by the public in 2020, had not a leftist cabal of journalists, social-media companies and former officials censored the Hunter laptop story. The House investigation has since unraveled a shocking tale of brazen Hunter influence-peddling and evidence that Joe, at the very least, helped his son sell the Biden “brand”—and was untruthful with the public about his knowledge of the family business.
The White House is stonewalling House GOP demands for documents that might shed light on Joe’s interactions with his son. Government lawyers have accompanied witnesses to interviews and limited their responses. Hunter Biden on Wednesday defiantly refused to comply with duly issued subpoenas from two House committees. Republicans will now have to go to court to obtain cooperation, and formal impeachment authority gives them muscle in that fight.
Yet impeachment, once rolling, takes on momentum like the boulder in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” The more evidence Republicans collect, the greater the pressure will be to impeach Mr. Biden. But is it warranted, and is it worth it?
House investigators are mulling a couple of legal points on the “high crimes” front—none of which would necessarily require evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from Hunter’s deals. One is the federal bribery statute, which bars officials from using their influence to enable payments to family or friends. Another is the closely related illegal gratuity statute. There are also more nebulous claims of “corruption,” which prosecutors routinely pursue under a wide range of statutes.
But the Supreme Court made clear in McDonnell v. U.S. (2016) that convictions related to these charges hinge on clear evidence of an “official act” to benefit the defendant or others, and the decision also significantly raised the bar for what counts as an official act. Add in the legal debate over whether a president can be impeached for conduct that predates his presidency.
Some of this is academic, because—as Democrats proved with the first Trump impeachment—the House can define a high crime any way it wants. And most of it will depend on what investigators find, as there’s still a long way to go in this probe.
Absent a smoking gun, however, there is a risk that the solemn tool of impeachment gets watered down so that it amounts to a partisan House censure of the presidents. Wednesday’s House vote marked the third official impeachment inquiry into a president in four years. Democrats kicked this off with their 2019 impeachment of Mr. Trump over his Ukraine dealings, and it’s eye-rolling to hear them whine that Republicans are “weaponizing” and “abusing” impeachment.
Impeachment might also pose a political risk to the GOP. Mr. Biden is unpopular, thanks to his own poor governance. Would Americans—especially those in swing districts—appreciate a formal impeachment? Or might there be a backlash from voters who feel lawmakers don’t trust them to make their own decision about Joe’s fitness at the ballot box, informed by the full details of Hunter’s escapades but absent an impeachment drama?
The details of the Biden family business already stink, and this investigation may put to rest any doubts about the future impeachment course. What’s already beyond doubt is that it’s the past and current actions of this White House and the president’s son that have led the country to this new moment of political and constitutional upheaval.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some Surprising Truths About Israeli Politics
The country is united, Netanyahu is down but not out, and peace still has a chance—eventually
By Kimberley Strassel
Travel is educational, and a week in Israel taught me two things. First, the conventional Beltway wisdom about Israeli politics is deeply flawed. Second, the gap between the Biden administration and Israel on the Palestinian question may be more manageable than most observers understand.
In Washington, almost every conversation about Israeli politics starts with two big ideas: that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a dead man walking, and that his fall from power will bring someone more amenable to two-state negotiations with the Palestinians.
Israelis scoff at both notions. Even Mr. Netanyahu’s harshest domestic critics aren’t sure that his career is over. The Oct. 7 attacks wounded him badly, but he’s pulled enough rabbits out of enough hats over the years that few are ready to write him off. The common view seems to be that Mr. Netanyahu, like Westley in “The Princess Bride,” is only “mostly dead,” and that his government has at least six to 12 months to run.
As to the policies of his potential successors, there is no pro-“peace process” movement in Israeli politics today. With the Oct. 7 attacks still reverberating, no serious Israeli politician would dream of running on a platform of facilitating the emergence of a Palestinian state.
That said, the Beltway chatter about “the day after” in Gaza and the future of the Palestinians overstates the difference between the Israeli and American positions. There is a narrow path for progress here.
There is consensus in Israel not only that Hamas lacks the will (and the human decency) to be an interlocutor for a future Palestinian state, but also that the terminally corrupt and exhausted Fatah movement now in power in the West Bank is too ineffective and unpopular to survive the hard compromises that peace would require. The Fatah leadership would be too vulnerable to being overthrown by more-radical Palestinian movements for Israelis to trust it as a security partner. The chance of Israelis seriously engaging with an unreformed Palestinian movement on the old Oslo peace agenda is zero. On this point, Mr. Netanyahu and his rivals agree.
But what if there was a deep reform in Palestinian governance? What if, with significant financial and political support from the Gulf Arabs, a new generation of pragmatic Palestinian leaders bent on stability and economic development replaced the tired old guard and rejected the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in favor of more-effective institutions, stopped financial payments to the families of terrorists in Israeli prisons, and introduced real educational reforms to stop radicalizing young Palestinians?
Neither Saudi Arabia nor the United Arab Emirates has experience with or interest in building democracy. But both have been successful at addressing extremism and improving governance. There are pragmatic Palestinians all over the world who have turned their backs on the hollow radicalism and stale rhetoric of official Palestinian politics and become successful in business and other fields. Bringing these parties together with like-minded Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza could start a new era of better Palestinian governance and pragmatism toward Israel.
If that happened, over time Israelis could come to trust Palestinians again. Peace with a weak and unstable entity like the Palestinian Authority in its current form is impossible. Peace with a time-tested, stable and competent Palestinian Authority backed by the Gulf Arabs would be another proposition.
The Gulf Arabs badly want new and better Palestinian leadership to emerge. That is partially because they want regional stability and partially because they genuinely want a better future for the Palestinians. The Biden administration could launch a process of political reconstruction among Palestinians by helping the Gulf Arabs, the Israelis and a mix of new and old Palestinian leaders develop an interim program for the rehabilitation of Gaza, serious change on the West Bank, and a growing role for a reformed Palestinian Authority.
The negotiations wouldn’t be easy, and like many other hopeful initiatives in the history of this tragic conflict, this attempt could fail. But the opportunity is real. Israel needs American support and would like to deepen its relations with Arab neighbors. Team Biden wants stability and a foreign-policy success. Palestinian politics have reached a dead end both in the West Bank and Gaza. The Gulf Arabs want détente in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to block Iran’s effort to legitimate its regional ambitions by appearing as the chief supporter of the Palestinian movement.
The old Oslo peace process is dead, but President Biden has a chance to initiate a new kind of peace process that could at long last lay the foundation of a peaceful future for both peoples.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I knew it would eventually occur because Biden is a wimpy politician and re-election takes precedence and if he thinks Hillary is going to help him get elected he is dumber than a rock.
+++
No comments:
Post a Comment