by Ted Noel, American Thinker:
“There comes a time in the life of every man when he must take the bull squarely by the tail and face the situation.” —W.C. Fields
Our elected representatives in D.C. are faced with just such a circumstance. To impeach Joe Biden or not to impeach Joe Biden. This is almost always presented in an either/or metaphor: Scylla and Charybdis, a rock and a hard place, and so on. The essence of these arguments is that impeachment/no impeachment offers no good option. I submit that this is a form of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The basic case in favor of impeachment is simply that he should be impeached because the President has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been a central conspirator in a bribery scheme between government actors. At this point, the lawyers should sit down, and politicians ought to stand up.
Bribery is listed in the Constitution as a cause for impeachment, so there can be no argument that this satisfies the first criterion. But now Democrats will object that there must be evidence of present bribery because Joe wasn’t President when he got paid, and there’s no evidence that he’s getting paid right now. But they leave out a key element of bribery. The person being bribed promises some action in favor of the person bribing. These actions offer occur after the bribe is paid. In the interregnum known as 45, Joe got lots of payola in anticipation of being able to do favors from the White House later. Since those favors are arguably continuing, the bribery continues.
Image: Joe Biden. YouTube screen grab.
We don’t need to rely on that most famous case where Joe bragged on camera about getting rid of Victor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma. That happened while Biden was VP. In the language of the law, it shows a pattern of bribery and impeaches any testimony in his defense. And there’s lots of evidence that his pattern of “favors for fins” is ongoing, particularly with China. And, as the Bard says, “Aye, there’s the rub.” What do we do about it? The Constitution seems to provide for impeachment as the only check on a corrupt President. It’s political act, and legal action can only come after removal from office.
The argument against impeaching Biden is rather simple. We won’t get a two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate since Democrats are in the majority, and they won’t convict their guy. So why bother? We’d be wasting time. On the flip side of this are the two Trump impeachments. The Dems knew they wouldn’t ever convict him, but they wanted to throw enough mud at him to make him look dirty in the election. They’ve continued this pattern in New York, Georgia, Mar-a-Lago, and J6. Do I sense a pattern here?
The mantra against impeachment is, “It’s political!” Of course it is. It’s the only constitutional avenue available. But Democrats want that to sound bad, as in, “The only reason you’re pursuing impeachment is that you don’t like Joe.” And lots of low-information voters will hear only that. So, the invertebrates in the “R” caucus will wilt like snowflakes and oppose the inquiry. But let us consider what will result if two things happen.
Read More @ AmericanThinker.com
