The Role of Censure

The editors of the Wall Street Journal intone:

After Democrats impeached President Trump over his phone call with Ukraine’s President in 2019, we wrote that “the House has defined impeachment down to a standard that will now make more impeachments likely.” Well, here we are, as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday that Republicans will open an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

Unless concrete evidence of some quid for the quo can be found, I do not believe that President Biden should be impeached and certainly not removed if impeached. However, I do think that members of the president’s family if not the president himself have been engaging in influence peddling, that influence peddling is a corrupt practice, and that such corruption is as undemocratic as disorderly conduct and occupying official offices and meeting places.

I think that the available evidence leaves little doubt of that and that the best you can say about the web of shell companies that have been created and receiving emails under multiple pseudonyms is that they look bad, guilty.

If the evidence for President Biden’s knowledge of the influence-peddling is sufficient, I think there is a case for censuring him whether he is guilty of breaking the law or not.

1 comment… add one
  • steve Link

    The WSJ appears to have forgotten Clinton, impeached for lying about sex. The GOP set the bar about as low as it can go. Trump OTOH tried to obtain political favors to help his election in return for arms and tried to impede the peaceful turn over of power. Still, if the GOP actually found something about Joe Biden instead of his family we should look at it, but we know they dont have anything. It’s just going to be another “investigation and hearings” until the election. Kind of amazing that anyone falls for this anymore.


Leave a Comment