Rep. McCarthy opposes an ignorant AP reporter but doesn’t go far enough

The media have a narrative, and they’re going to stick with it. They segued smoothly from the “Russia collusion” narrative, to the “Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation” narrative, to the “honest election” narrative, and from there to the “January 6 insurrection” narrative. Every video or (digital) print piece that touched upon these topics made sure to imprint the Democrat view onto the audience. The latest narrative is that, with Republicans gearing up to impeach Biden, there’s “no evidence” Biden did anything wrong. To his credit, McCarthy called out an AP “reporter” who made this claim.

Yesterday, a swarm of reporters surrounded House Speaker Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to challenge him over his decision to launch an investigation as the predicate to impeaching Joe Biden over the latter’s services for his son when Joe was Veep (and, probably, senator) and his son was raking in money from foreign entities (and governments) in what were clearly pay-for-play schemes. A young female AP reporter—that is, a hardcore leftist—challenged McCarthy by posing a loaded question: Others have said there is no “impeachable offense at this point,” and does McCarthy agree or disagree?

Rather unusually, not only did McCarthy disagree, but he forced the reporter to acknowledge that there’s a significant amount of evidence justifying this investigation as a predicate to impeachment:

It’s nice to see a Republican pushing back, so kudos to McCarthy for that. He’s still got a major black mark hanging over his head for (so far) breaking his promise to release the January 6 footage, but this is a start.

However, what I want to highlight is something ignorant that came from that AP reporter. It’s not just ignorant (we expect that from the leftist media), though. It’s also important because it goes to a fundamental point about the nature of impeachment.

After McCarthy spells out just some of the already-revealed facts indicating that Biden was profiting from selling out U.S. interests, the reporter asks, “But is that an impeachable, is lying an impeachable offense?” Her implication is clear: She believes that a president needs to have committed a criminal act to be impeached. She’s wrong.

Impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one. We know that because Article I, Sec. 3 tells us so:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

If impeachment were a criminal act, being “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” would be double jeopardy. Congress is not a branch of the criminal justice system. It is, instead, one of the three branches of government and the one with the sole power, as the people’s direct representative, to ensure that members of all three branches have not engaged in corrupt or dangerous practices that fall outside the purview of the criminal justice system.

That’s not just me saying so. Justice Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court from 1812 to 1845, made the same point in his magisterial Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

The offences, to which the power of impeachment has been, and is ordinarily applied, as a remedy, are of a political character. Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power, (for, as we shall presently see, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours are expressly within it;) but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed, political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office.

One could argue that Biden committed outright treason when he allowed foreign entities to purchase his loyalty (thereby turning his back on his obligations to the American people). However, that’s not Congress’s responsibility. If we had a clean Justice Department, that would be Merrick Garland’s responsibility. However, Biden’s conduct most certainly showed a “habitual disregard of the public interests in the discharge of the duties of political office” that brings his behavior completely within the purview of an impeachment.

Image: X screen grab.

If you experience technical problems, please write to