Can the Media Meet the Challenge of the GOP’s Bogus Impeachment?

By David Corn  September 16, 2023

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy talks to reporters at the Capitol on September 14, 2023, about launching an impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden. J. Scott Applewhite/AP

“Sentence first—verdict afterwards.” So declared the Queen of Hearts during the trial of the Knave of Hearts (for allegedly stealing tarts) in Alice in Wonderland. This approach, which Lewis Carroll meant to symbolize the height of absurdism, seems an apt description of how the House Republicans are proceeding with an impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden.

As of now, there is no evidence that Biden did anything to warrant the political equivalent of a death sentence. Yet rather than merely continue pursuing their multi-committee investigation of Hunter Biden’s admittedly questionable business dealings to determine if President Biden ought to be subjected to an impeachment inquiry, the Republicans have rushed to the presumed sentence before even coming close to reaching a verdict. This is absurd.

In previous impeachments, the basic facts of the alleged wrongdoing were known. The Watergate break-in and Richard Nixon’s efforts to impede the investigation of the burglary and subsequent cover-up were matters of public record when the House of Representatives on October 30, 1973, launched an impeachment inquiry. Previously, the Senate had created a special investigative committee and held the nationally broadcasted Watergate hearings, and federal prosecutors had long been on the case and sending Nixon’s minions to the hoosegow.

In the cases of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, the basics of their wrongdoing were confirmed prior to the House kick-starting impeachment. The infamous Starr report, which detailed Clinton’s affair with an intern and his subsequent lies about it, was submitted to Congress in early September 1998. The House GOP voted to launch the impeachment process a few weeks later. With Trump, there was no question that he had leaned on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to produce dirt on Joe Biden. A quasi-transcript of the phone call had been released. And Trump’s incitement of the insurrectionist assault on the Capitol on January 6 was done in full public view.

Whether these impeachments were justified or not, they were predicated on established misdeeds.

Not so now. What is this impeachment about? It’s about Republican speculation that Joe Biden was somehow involved in illicit activity with Hunter. Yet there is no confirmed evidence of that or that Hunter’s business ventures—which do appear to have been sleazy attempts to score big money by trading on the family name—were illegal.

The House Oversight Committee has released a compilation of what it calls “evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s influence peddling schemes.” But this list mainly offers testimony and documents showing that Hunter Biden vigorously name-dropped his pop to grease business deals and that on a few occasions Biden met or chatted with his son and his son’s overseas business associates. There’s no information indicating Biden took official actions to help Hunter or his colleagues. This “evidence” could lead someone to think that something improper might have occurred; it provides leads that ought to be investigated. But it is not the basis for considering political execution.

House Republicans have repeatedly been forced to acknowledge that evidence linking Biden to corruption has not yet been unearthed. On CNN this week, Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) was pressed on whether the Republicans had found direct evidence of Biden malfeasance. He replied, “The point of the [impeachment] inquiry is to give us greater standing to get the full evidence.”

Moreover, Rep. Jim Comer (R-Ky.), the leader of the GOP impeachment inquiry, has distorted and exaggerated the investigation’s findings, repeatedly hurling false allegations about President Biden.

This is sentence first—investigation afterwards. We’re going to have an impeachment inquiry to see if we can find evidence to justify an impeachment inquiry. (I’d certainly welcome any investigation of wheeling-and-dealing conducted by relatives of elected officials, including, say, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.) As you would expect, numerous Republicans have conceded this impeachment effort is about weakening Biden for the 2024 election and seeking revenge for Trump.

Bottom line: This is a bogus and trumped-up impeachment crusade.

We now turn to an important question: How does the media cover and contextualize a sham impeachment? The aim of the Republicans—if they cannot produce true evidence of Biden corruption—is to tarnish the president by linking his name to “impeachment” in as many headlines and news accounts as possible. Can the media report on these shenanigans without being an accomplice, without bolstering a bad-faith effort driven by far-right extremists and conspiracy-mongers, such Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz? Even though news accounts sometimes note that the Republicans have yet to produce evidence to justify impeachment, the overall coverage ends up boosting the Biden-is-corrupt innuendo being slung by the Republicans.

Not to pick on the New York Times—but why not, since everyone does. When House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced on Tuesday that he was initiating an impeachment inquiry of Biden without a House vote, the Times covered his declaration on the front-page. The headline blared, “McCarthy Opens Inquiry of Biden, Appeasing Right.” In the opening paragraphs, the article focused on the internal GOP politics, reporting that McCarthy was doing this to appease far-right lawmakers and “quell a brewing rebellion among ultraconservative critics.”

The paper had a line in the third paragraph stating that after months of digging Republicans have found “no proof” of Biden corruption. But then it reported in detail McCarthy’s charge that Biden had lied about his knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings and that the Biden administration had given the president’s son “special treatment” in a criminal investigation. It quoted McCarthy declaring that the House Republicans have “uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct” and that “these allegations paint a picture of a culture of corruption.” (Note that McCarthy said “allegations,” not “evidence.”) A greater amount of ink was granted to McCarthy’s accusations than the absence of evidence.

It was not until the middle of the piece that the newspaper reported that some Republicans have not supported impeachment because GOP investigators have yet to produce evidence tying Biden to his son’s business dealings. Mainly, the Times handled the evidence question in the usual he said/she said approach, quoting Democrats insisting that no evidence of corruption has been turned up.

It’s all politics, charge and countercharge. Rs and Ds operating on the same level. Certainly, this adheres to journalistic convention. But it affords impeachment scammers an advantage, amplifying their insinuation that Biden is corrupt. And it allows them to—wait for it!—weaponize impeachment. That is, to use this dramatic course of action, justified or not, to spread the unproven notion that Joe Biden is a criminal dirtbag.

A story that appeared in the Times the next day similarly focused on McCarthy’s political dilemma, as well as his flip-flop on the issue of proceeding with impeachment absent a House vote. (He had previously said there must be such a vote.) But on the question of evidence—or the lack thereof—the newspaper again gave its readers thin gruel, with a half-sentence reporting that some Republicans were uncomfortable about “moving forward in the absence of solid evidence.”

All this downplays a central component of the story: the Republicans are proceeding with an impeachment absent hard-and-fast evidence. That helps the GOP.

How can the media avoid providing platforms to scoundrels whose goal is to spread disinformation and poison the national discourse? There was another example in the Times this week of empowering a liar. In an article about House Republicans who oppose military aid to Ukraine—even though firms in their districts manufacture weaponry being sent to Ukraine—the paper quoted Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) saying, “our constituents have great concerns about seemingly unlimited taxpayer money being used to fund the war in Ukraine, especially when Americans are struggling at home with rising inflation and places like East Palestine and Maui continue to be ignored by the Biden administration.”

The Biden administration didn’t ignore the train derailment disaster in East Palestine or the wildfires in Hawaii. It deployed multiple agencies to help the Ohioans, and Biden traveled to Maui. Why would the paper of record print an outright lie from Jordan and help him advance a deceitful agenda?

It may sound hyperbolic to say this, but there is a war going on in the United States over the future of American democracy. Disinformation is perhaps the most potent weapon in that war. And impeachment is now another front in that war.

So how does the media cover a (so far) baseless impeachment day by day without aiding and abetting the weaponizers? This circus cannot be ignored. But with each twist and turn, must reporters again and again lead with the fact that there is no solid predicate for this impeachment? Perhaps, even if that could get boring for reporters and their viewers and readers. Without context, unconfirmed accusations hurled by unprincipled accusers can influence the political debate. Remember how the Republicans spent years bleating “Benghazi” over and over to tarnish Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election? McCarthy boasted then that the GOP’s multiple Benghazi probes—which never proved any of the wild conspiracy theories—caused her poll numbers to drop. The Biden impeachment is the same strategy—on steroids.

McCarthy and his House colleagues are exploiting impeachment to generate headlines and soundbites that create the impression that Biden is a crook—to give Fox and its wannabe competitors plenty of grist for their propaganda-churning mills and to help Trump return to the White House with an authoritarian agenda. That is the crux of the story here. Whether the rest of the media plays it that way will determine if the extremists—those who tried to overturn the last election, who downplayed or excused a violent attack on the Capitol, and who now support a demagogic presidential candidate who subverted the constitutional order—succeed.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Why Mitt Romney Should Read the New Paperback Edition of American Psychosis

Dumbass Comment of the Week

We just can’t seem to escape the usual suspects. Both Mike Pence and Tucker Carlson were contenders last week, with the fallen-from-Fox host nabbing the prize for a second week in a row—which might have been an unprecedented streak in DCotW history. This week, he made a bid for a three-peat with an ignorant observation.

In a speech, Carlson denounced the long sentences handed out to the Proud Boys for sedition related to the January 6 insurrectionist riot and huffed that “the idea of people being organized, of coming together with a common purpose is terrifying.” He further blathered:

The Left, I will say, to their great credit, are masters of organizing. They are dutiful. They show up. They are disciplined. And they are willing to put aside their differences for the sake of achieving a common goal. They don't argue with each other in public. They just all say the same thing. They all vote for the same person. Because they know there's strength in numbers… It is very hard to get a conservative person to repeat some talking point he doesn’t actually believe at all. They won’t just sit around and wait for whatever the new lie of the day is and just repeat it with dead eyes on television.

A unified left? No internal argument? Putting its differences aside? All voting as a bloc? (Uh, remember Bernie Sanders?) Has Carlson ever met the left?

As for Pence, the former Trump toady, during a recent town hall, he was asked whether he could potentially choose a woman to be his running-mate (in the highly unlikely event he becomes the GOP 2024 nominee), given that he has promised his wife (aka “Mother”) that he would never dine alone with another woman. After all, presidents and veeps often have private meals and meetings to discuss vital matters, as he did with Trump. “Well, that’s a very clever question,” Pence replied. He then babbled for a minute and a half…without answering the question.

Pence nearly took the prize with this rambling filibuster.

War criminal Vladimir Putin won the chutzpah award this week with his criticism of Trump’s latest indictment: “What’s happening with Trump is a persecution of a political rival for political motives. This shows the whole rottenness of the American political system, which cannot claim to teach others about democracy”

Of course, Trump endorsed Putin’s remarks with a social media post: “It’s all happening, even worse than anyone projected. President Vladimir Putin of Russia is using Crooked Joe Biden’s illegal Banana Republic style treatment of his Political Opponent, who is beating him badly in the Polls, to condemn America and all of the good things it once stood for.” Trump added this incoherent thought: “The whole World is watching as the USA is being torn apart by dreams of Election Interference!” It’s a mutual authoritarian society.

Most weeks, endorsing a tyrannical dictator’s denouncement of law and order in the United States could win Trump the trophy. But this week, the judges are honoring a less prominent jerk: Tim Gurner, the CEO of an Australian property development company. Speaking at a business conference, he observed:

I think the problem that we’ve had is that we’ve—people have decided that they really didn’t want to work so much anymore through Covid and that has had a massive issue on productivity… They had been paid a lot to do not too much the last few years, and we need to see that change. We need to see unemployment rise. Unemployment has to jump 40, 50 percent in my view. We need to see pain in the economy. We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around...We’ve got to kill that attitude, and that has to come through hurting the economy.

After Gurner’s remarks prompted a backlash around the world, he apologized for having been “deeply insensitive to employees, [construction workers] and families across Australia who are affected by these cost-of-living pressures and job losses.” But one rule held dear by the DCotW judges is this: no backsies. For going beyond the sentiment of Mitt Romney’s 47-percent comment and showing us how 1-percenters think of working people, Gurner is the champ. 

The Mailbag

It was not hard to predict that the issue that focused on whether Donald Trump could be barred from the 2024 ballot would send many readers to their keyboards—especially since I questioned whether using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to boot Trump out of the race was the best course of action.

A reader supposedly named Sewer Pipe Dave was positive: “You have, as usual, summarized our dilemma eloquently and accurately.” And so was Ellen Jackson: “I've read all the pros and cons on this issue. Yours is the best and most nuanced analysis I've seen so far.”

Other readers saw it differently. Sam Urdank wrote:

To say that disqualification of Trump, or anyone for that matter by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is antidemocratic and removes the choice of the electorate at the ballot box is a wrong-headed way of thinking and looking at this Don’t get me wrong, I know this is not what you are saying. I’m speaking to the devil’s advocate who is suggesting we pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we follow and when. Which is ludicrous.

Dan Stone was more direct:

You minimize one important point and miss on another. 1. Not abiding by our Constitution for pragmatic reasons is self-defeating. (As Churchill said, "An appeaser feeds the crocodile in the hopes of being eaten last.") 2. A disqualification in any state would be adjudicated by SCOTUS in short order, and its decision would apply to all. ("You only have to bribe an honest man once," so all bets are off on the intellectual soundness of the SCOTUS decision, but it will be binding nationally). 

Andrew Rossner wrote:

Why didn't they disqualify Trump prior to his announcing his candidacy. The longer they wait, the worse it will be. Either we have a constitution and laws, or we don't. We can't live in fear of what might happen.

I suppose the question is, who is the “they”? The Constitution doesn’t say. Presumably, it’s the secretary of state in each state, who oversees the election. But it remains to be seen if any of them will take such an unprecedented step.

Mike Eckel raised an interesting point:

In the event a state or states actually do try to disqualify Trump, as you noted, it would be expected these decisions would be litigated (on an expedited basis?) and ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. If this issue does get to the Supreme Court, will any of the justices need to consider recusing themselves? I am first thinking of Justice Clarence Thomas, whose spouse was actively engaged in trying to help Trump’s criminal conspiracy to overthrow the government, communicating with Mark Meadows (indicted in the Georgia RICO case) directly, as well as some of the Arizona officials.

Should any justice who was nominated to the bench by the former president, in this case, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, be allowed to weigh in as to whether Trump should be allowed to be a candidate again, especially in light of the indictments? None of the justices involved in Bush v. Gore had been nominated to serve by either candidate. If those three justices would have to recuse, I expect Trump might then claim any justice nominated by President Biden, the person Trump has claimed is persecuting him—this would be Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—would also be required to recuse herself. So how many justices would be involved in this decision?

This is really getting ahead of ourselves. Justices often rule on issues related to the president who appointed them. I’m guessing the Trump appointees would find plenty of reasons to stay put. As for Thomas, it’s pretty clear he wouldn’t remove himself from this important case—and, as he has readily demonstrated, there are no mechanisms within the SCOTUS system for forcing a recusal.

Dave Crowlie shared a dark observation:

There is no saving America because America and its constitution have been a contradiction from the start. The ecocide engendered by our political and economic system will become a national suicide. This nation has been at the forefront of the war against Mother Nature that takes an ugly new turn with every new technological development.

Whoa. Not saying that Dave is wrong, but, if we have a shot at saving the country (and the planet), we ought to give it a try. Drinks on me!

Jim Citron sent in this slap on the wrist:

In two places in the July 22 Our Land piece, "Pinning a Label on No Labels," you refer to a group as "New Labels." Is that a typo, or are you referring to a different group from No Labels?

Ugh! That was a typo. I’m guessing that was a day when our wonderful copyeditor was out, and I was left to my own devices. One thing that does worry me about the newsletter is that once it is zapped to subscribers, not a word can be changed. (Online posts can easily be corrected and updated.) My apologies to No Labels. Though with all the bad publicity it has received lately, perhaps it might want to consider adopting this new name.

MoxieCam™

“Moxie, that reminds me of the lamb laying down with the lion. It’s in the Bible.”

“Actually, it’s not. That’s a widespread misconception. There’s no biblical verse that says that.”

“Really? Oh, well, who’s your friend?”

“Just a big cat who doesn’t say much.”

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

September 12, 2023: The right-wing authoritarian threat beyond Trump (Project 2025); American Psychosis and C-SPAN; Barbie and the corporate exploitation of exploitation; the Rolling Stones’ stereotypical “Angry”; and more.

September 9, 2023: A story too immense (Rudy Giuliani and Russia)?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Tucker Carlson); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

September 6, 2023: One of the best books I’ve ever read; the Mailbag; Full Circle offers a fascinating neo-noir trip; and more.

September 1, 2023: Can Donald Trump rally be barred from the 2024 ballot?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Tucker Carlson): the Mailbag; Jade Bird and LP belt it out (separately); and more.

August 26, 2023: The bottomless cynicism of Tucker Carlson; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

August 23, 2023: David Brooks’ blind spot; American Psychosis, the paperback; whatever happened to our service economy?; the Mailbag; Citizen Cope takes a “Victory March”; and more.

August 17, 2023: Donald Trump, mob boss (then and now); Dumbass Comment of the Week (Matt Gaetz); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

August 12, 2023: From the Our Land archives: In Ohio, sex sells freedom; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.