Kamala Harris should be impeached.
There are a bunch of reasons she could theoretically be impeached. For example, the fact that she has not yet invoked the 25th Amendment to get rid of her boss after defenestrating him from his nomination would be a pretty good-sized abdication of her constitutional duty.
The Constitution suggests that the vice president is chiefly responsible for getting rid of the president if the president is no longer compos mentis — if his brain no longer functions. That has been the case for Joe Biden for a long while. So clearly has that been the case, that Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party pushed him off the back of a train to get him out of the nomination. But they left him in office, which means she has abdicated her duty.
But there’s something more specific that I want to look at today. I want to go all the way back in the time machine to 2019. You remember that Donald Trump was impeached twice. The first time he was actually not impeached over January 6, he was impeached over Ukraine.
Trump held a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky in which he allegedly threatened Zelensky with the withdrawal of American military aid if Zelensky did not cause prosecutors in Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma, a natural gas company in Ukraine where Hunter Biden served on the board.
This was considered an impeachable offense. The basic idea for those who voted in favor of impeachment is that the president of the United States could not use foreign policy as a way of manufacturing election-related topics. You could not try to swivel an American election based on withholding aid from an American ally.
In fact, here is how the impeachment charges against Trump ran in 2019. As you may recall, he was, in fact, impeached in the House and then, of course, he was acquitted in the Senate. So, in 2019, here is how those Trump impeachment charges ran:
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
Just to get it straight, the charge brought against Trump in 2019 was that Donald Trump had made the government of Ukraine do something beneficial to his reelection effort, and in order to do that he had threatened to withdraw their aid.
WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show
Now, fast forward to 2024. Israel is currently engaged in a war in the Gaza Strip. That war is with Hamas, a terror group that, as you will recall, a little more than a year ago, on October 7, 2023, invaded Israel, killed 1,200 people, and took 250 hostages back into the terror tunnels in the Gaza Strip. Ever since then, the Biden administration has been reticent to simply push for an Israeli victory.
The Biden administration’s foreign policy on its own terms makes no sense. Their foreign policy in Ukraine — where Ukraine is currently fighting a defensive war, where they are not going to achieve total victory, they’re not going to take back the Donbas region, and they’re not going to take back Crimea. Their foreign policy has been a total victory for Ukraine. Whatever Zelensky wants, he gets.
Then, when it comes to Israel — which does have dominant military power in the region — they demand Israel de-escalate the situation, and de-escalation needs to start right now.
Imagine for a second the Biden administration reversing those positions. What if, when it came to Ukraine, they said, “We are willing to provide the amount of aid necessary in order for you to protect our borders and we’re going to push for an off-ramp.” And when it came to Israel, they said, “You get what you need in order to destroy your enemies and we will stand back and watch with glee as you take out Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the Iranian proxy groups.”
That would make this a very different world right now. That foreign policy makes some sort of sense. In fact, that is something that the Biden administration should be doing right now.
I recently had a conversation with the father of Edan Alexander, an American hostage taken on October 7 and being held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. He, quite rightly, suggested that if the Biden administration had a spine or any brains at all, they would be saying to Iran, “We will let Israel completely off the chain to destroy your nuclear facilities unless you get Hamas to release the hostages.” And tomorrow the hostages would be out. He’s totally right about that, by the way.
Instead, here is what is going on — and here’s where the impeachable offense comes in.
Right now, the Biden administration is putting open pressure on the State of Israel to let in aid to the Gaza Strip. Now, do I think this is really about aid for the Gaza Strip? I do not. Why? Because it is well known that Hamas is stealing about 50% of all aid now going into the Gaza Strip.
According to the New York Post:
Hamas terrorists were captured on video taking control of 47 of 100 aid trucks entering the Gaza Strip on Tuesday. “It’s no secret that Hamas takes control of humanitarian aid. We’ve already published here tapes of Hamas, in which you hear them say themselves they have no more room in their warehouses,” Channel 12‘s Almog Boker reported on Wednesday evening. “But this evening we also bring special documentation of what it looks like from inside, with cameras that are tracking it in real time,” he said.
Where is the aid supposed to be dropped off? Well, it’s supposed to be dropped with members of the UNRWA, which is a Hamas front group.
So yesterday, the Biden administration warned Israel that they would withdraw military aid if Israel did not facilitate large-scale entry of humanitarian aid into the northern Gaza Strip.
According to The Wall Street Journal:
In a letter to senior Israeli officials, dated Oct. 13 and signed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the U.S. blamed Israel for a drastic drop in humanitarian aid into Gaza that contributed to starvation and widespread suffering, particularly in the enclave’s north where Israel launched a renewed ground operation nearly two weeks ago. The top American officials gave Israel 30 days to “reverse the downward humanitarian trajectory” or else it “may have implications” for future weapons transfers and funding under U.S. law.
Blinken and Austin specifically cite a part of Foreign Assistance Act that bars the U.S. from providing security aid to any nation that “prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.”
“We have seen Israel make changes before, and when they make changes, humanitarian assistance can increase,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Tuesday after the letter’s release.
Now, here is the reason I’m skeptical that the threat to withdraw aid is about the humanitarian assistance in the northern Gaza Strip.
Reason number one: Israel has been shipping enormous sums of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip for months. At this point, we are talking about basically 2,500 calories per person, per day in the Gaza Strip for months on end — into an area where the civilians are still largely aligned with Hamas and where Israeli hostages are still being held captive, including multiple Americans.
So, do I think this is about humanitarian assistance? No, I do not. I actually think they’re looking for a legal excuse to embargo Israel in order to threaten them not to do anything too big with Iran.
Why?
Here’s where the other half of the story comes in.
MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28
The Washington Post recently reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated Israel will strike Iranian military, not nuclear or oil targets.
Buried in this Washington Post article, however, is a bit of a revelation. According to The Washington Post:
The White House had no immediate comment. The Israeli prime minister’s office said in a statement that “we listen to the opinions of the United States, but we will make our final decisions based on our national interest.”
However, as the Post continues:
The retaliatory action would be calibrated to avoid the perception of “political interference in the U.S. elections,” the official familiar with the matter said, signaling Netanyahu’s understanding that the scope of the Israeli strike has the potential to reshape the presidential race.
Let’s be very clear about what is happening right now.
That admission, that this is about the U.S. presidential race, that there is pressure being put on the Israeli government not to retaliate against Iran — that pressure is being driven by electoral concerns along with the threat to withdraw military aid from Israel in order to get Israel to do less with Iran in advance of the election. Do you know what that looks like? That looks an awful lot like foreign political interference during an election year. That looks an awful lot like what Democrats impeached Donald Trump for in 2019.
When you put those two pieces of the puzzle together, that’s what it looks like. Number one, the United States openly threatening withdrawal of military aid to Israel, supposedly based on humanitarian assistance concerns, which is clearly not the case. Number two, the story that says Israel is going to hold back the full brunt of an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities in order to facilitate the election efforts of Kamala Harris.
That is the 2019 impeachment case in a nutshell.
Remember, Kamala Harris has been on every phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu for weeks. She’s in the room. There are pictures of her in the room. So, she and her campaign are saying to Netanyahu, “Don’t go too hard on Iran.” Simultaneously, the secretary of state is saying, “And by the way, you should just know your military aid might get put on hold.”
That sounds an awful lot like the 2019 impeachment charge against Donald Trump.
But I guess it’s fine, so long as it’s a Democrat. Which is, of course, the case.
The media apparently have no interest in whether or not foreign aid provisions are being violated, so long as we’re not talking about Ukraine and Donald Trump.
[#item_full_content]
[[{“value”:”
Kamala Harris should be impeached.
There are a bunch of reasons she could theoretically be impeached. For example, the fact that she has not yet invoked the 25th Amendment to get rid of her boss after defenestrating him from his nomination would be a pretty good-sized abdication of her constitutional duty.
The Constitution suggests that the vice president is chiefly responsible for getting rid of the president if the president is no longer compos mentis — if his brain no longer functions. That has been the case for Joe Biden for a long while. So clearly has that been the case, that Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party pushed him off the back of a train to get him out of the nomination. But they left him in office, which means she has abdicated her duty.
But there’s something more specific that I want to look at today. I want to go all the way back in the time machine to 2019. You remember that Donald Trump was impeached twice. The first time he was actually not impeached over January 6, he was impeached over Ukraine.
Trump held a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky in which he allegedly threatened Zelensky with the withdrawal of American military aid if Zelensky did not cause prosecutors in Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma, a natural gas company in Ukraine where Hunter Biden served on the board.
This was considered an impeachable offense. The basic idea for those who voted in favor of impeachment is that the president of the United States could not use foreign policy as a way of manufacturing election-related topics. You could not try to swivel an American election based on withholding aid from an American ally.
In fact, here is how the impeachment charges against Trump ran in 2019. As you may recall, he was, in fact, impeached in the House and then, of course, he was acquitted in the Senate. So, in 2019, here is how those Trump impeachment charges ran:
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
Just to get it straight, the charge brought against Trump in 2019 was that Donald Trump had made the government of Ukraine do something beneficial to his reelection effort, and in order to do that he had threatened to withdraw their aid.
WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show
Now, fast forward to 2024. Israel is currently engaged in a war in the Gaza Strip. That war is with Hamas, a terror group that, as you will recall, a little more than a year ago, on October 7, 2023, invaded Israel, killed 1,200 people, and took 250 hostages back into the terror tunnels in the Gaza Strip. Ever since then, the Biden administration has been reticent to simply push for an Israeli victory.
The Biden administration’s foreign policy on its own terms makes no sense. Their foreign policy in Ukraine — where Ukraine is currently fighting a defensive war, where they are not going to achieve total victory, they’re not going to take back the Donbas region, and they’re not going to take back Crimea. Their foreign policy has been a total victory for Ukraine. Whatever Zelensky wants, he gets.
Then, when it comes to Israel — which does have dominant military power in the region — they demand Israel de-escalate the situation, and de-escalation needs to start right now.
Imagine for a second the Biden administration reversing those positions. What if, when it came to Ukraine, they said, “We are willing to provide the amount of aid necessary in order for you to protect our borders and we’re going to push for an off-ramp.” And when it came to Israel, they said, “You get what you need in order to destroy your enemies and we will stand back and watch with glee as you take out Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the Iranian proxy groups.”
That would make this a very different world right now. That foreign policy makes some sort of sense. In fact, that is something that the Biden administration should be doing right now.
I recently had a conversation with the father of Edan Alexander, an American hostage taken on October 7 and being held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. He, quite rightly, suggested that if the Biden administration had a spine or any brains at all, they would be saying to Iran, “We will let Israel completely off the chain to destroy your nuclear facilities unless you get Hamas to release the hostages.” And tomorrow the hostages would be out. He’s totally right about that, by the way.
Instead, here is what is going on — and here’s where the impeachable offense comes in.
Right now, the Biden administration is putting open pressure on the State of Israel to let in aid to the Gaza Strip. Now, do I think this is really about aid for the Gaza Strip? I do not. Why? Because it is well known that Hamas is stealing about 50% of all aid now going into the Gaza Strip.
According to the New York Post:
Hamas terrorists were captured on video taking control of 47 of 100 aid trucks entering the Gaza Strip on Tuesday. “It’s no secret that Hamas takes control of humanitarian aid. We’ve already published here tapes of Hamas, in which you hear them say themselves they have no more room in their warehouses,” Channel 12‘s Almog Boker reported on Wednesday evening. “But this evening we also bring special documentation of what it looks like from inside, with cameras that are tracking it in real time,” he said.
Where is the aid supposed to be dropped off? Well, it’s supposed to be dropped with members of the UNRWA, which is a Hamas front group.
So yesterday, the Biden administration warned Israel that they would withdraw military aid if Israel did not facilitate large-scale entry of humanitarian aid into the northern Gaza Strip.
According to The Wall Street Journal:
In a letter to senior Israeli officials, dated Oct. 13 and signed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the U.S. blamed Israel for a drastic drop in humanitarian aid into Gaza that contributed to starvation and widespread suffering, particularly in the enclave’s north where Israel launched a renewed ground operation nearly two weeks ago. The top American officials gave Israel 30 days to “reverse the downward humanitarian trajectory” or else it “may have implications” for future weapons transfers and funding under U.S. law.
Blinken and Austin specifically cite a part of Foreign Assistance Act that bars the U.S. from providing security aid to any nation that “prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.”
“We have seen Israel make changes before, and when they make changes, humanitarian assistance can increase,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Tuesday after the letter’s release.
Now, here is the reason I’m skeptical that the threat to withdraw aid is about the humanitarian assistance in the northern Gaza Strip.
Reason number one: Israel has been shipping enormous sums of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip for months. At this point, we are talking about basically 2,500 calories per person, per day in the Gaza Strip for months on end — into an area where the civilians are still largely aligned with Hamas and where Israeli hostages are still being held captive, including multiple Americans.
So, do I think this is about humanitarian assistance? No, I do not. I actually think they’re looking for a legal excuse to embargo Israel in order to threaten them not to do anything too big with Iran.
Why?
Here’s where the other half of the story comes in.
MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28
The Washington Post recently reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated Israel will strike Iranian military, not nuclear or oil targets.
Buried in this Washington Post article, however, is a bit of a revelation. According to The Washington Post:
The White House had no immediate comment. The Israeli prime minister’s office said in a statement that “we listen to the opinions of the United States, but we will make our final decisions based on our national interest.”
However, as the Post continues:
The retaliatory action would be calibrated to avoid the perception of “political interference in the U.S. elections,” the official familiar with the matter said, signaling Netanyahu’s understanding that the scope of the Israeli strike has the potential to reshape the presidential race.
Let’s be very clear about what is happening right now.
That admission, that this is about the U.S. presidential race, that there is pressure being put on the Israeli government not to retaliate against Iran — that pressure is being driven by electoral concerns along with the threat to withdraw military aid from Israel in order to get Israel to do less with Iran in advance of the election. Do you know what that looks like? That looks an awful lot like foreign political interference during an election year. That looks an awful lot like what Democrats impeached Donald Trump for in 2019.
When you put those two pieces of the puzzle together, that’s what it looks like. Number one, the United States openly threatening withdrawal of military aid to Israel, supposedly based on humanitarian assistance concerns, which is clearly not the case. Number two, the story that says Israel is going to hold back the full brunt of an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities in order to facilitate the election efforts of Kamala Harris.
That is the 2019 impeachment case in a nutshell.
Remember, Kamala Harris has been on every phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu for weeks. She’s in the room. There are pictures of her in the room. So, she and her campaign are saying to Netanyahu, “Don’t go too hard on Iran.” Simultaneously, the secretary of state is saying, “And by the way, you should just know your military aid might get put on hold.”
That sounds an awful lot like the 2019 impeachment charge against Donald Trump.
But I guess it’s fine, so long as it’s a Democrat. Which is, of course, the case.
The media apparently have no interest in whether or not foreign aid provisions are being violated, so long as we’re not talking about Ukraine and Donald Trump.
“}]]
