Once upon a time, presidential impeachment was a rare event. However, with four out of the five inquiries in U.S. history occurring in the past 25 years, there has been a growing interest in understanding and explaining the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, which was launched on Tuesday. Many have turned to the 2019 impeachment of President Donald Trump as a reference point, as both investigations revolve around allegations of using the elected office for personal gain and have been marred by sharp partisan divisions.
While the comparison to Trump’s impeachment is understandable, it is more useful to analyze the House investigation into Benghazi from 2014 to 2016. Both inquiries rely more on vibes and political machinations than on concrete evidence. Kevin McCarthy’s pursuit of the speakership of the House played a central role in both cases. Examining the outcome of the Benghazi investigation may offer some insights into how the current impeachment inquiry could unfold.
Like the ongoing impeachment inquiry, the Benghazi story began with U.S. involvement in a foreign country—Libya. In 2012, Islamist attacks on two U.S. facilities in Benghazi resulted in the death of the U.S. ambassador, a Foreign Service officer, and two CIA contractors. Republicans blamed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for failing to prevent or respond promptly to the attack. Although then-Speaker John Boehner initially resisted calls for a special committee to investigate the attack, he eventually relented.
The purpose of the Benghazi committee was to diminish Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency in 2016, as Republicans openly admitted. Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader at the time, even acknowledged in a televised interview that the committee was designed to damage Clinton’s reputation. This confession cost McCarthy the speakership and led to his eventual withdrawal from the race. McCarthy’s current involvement in the Biden impeachment inquiry puts his leadership position at risk once again, as he is beholden to the far-right faction of his party.
The first impeachment of Donald Trump centered on a clear allegation from a whistleblower: Trump attempted to extort Ukraine into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities using congressionally appropriated funds. Although new information emerged during the inquiry, the basic allegation was evident from the beginning. The focus was on determining whether Trump’s actions constituted a “perfect” call, as he claimed, or a serious breach of his presidential oath.
In contrast, both the Benghazi investigation and the Biden impeachment lack a clear understanding of the specific misconduct involved. In Benghazi, the consensus was that something terrible had occurred, but Republicans failed to establish why it was Clinton’s fault. Regarding Biden, it is widely acknowledged that Hunter Biden engaged in unethical behavior, but no evidence of wrongdoing by his father has been presented. McCarthy’s justifications for the impeachment inquiry are weak, unproven, and inaccurate, as journalists Philip Bump and Luke Broadwater have explained.
Nevertheless, Republicans are resolute in their belief that Biden is highly corrupt. They are determined to uncover evidence that supports their view, despite facing challenges in obtaining witnesses and dealing with individuals who are facing federal charges. This perspective is not only held by the far-right within Congress but also prominent voices in the conservative press. However, at present, there is no substantial evidence of serious misconduct by Joe Biden. The ongoing impeachment inquiry appears to be a transparent attempt to hinder Biden’s reelection prospects.
The Benghazi committee initially seemed like an extensive fishing expedition. Despite more than two years of work, the committee failed to find any wrongdoing by Clinton. Her 11-hour testimony before the committee was widely considered a victory for her, as she effectively responded to Republican committee members’ questions. By the time of the election, “Benghazi” had become a punchline against Republicans rather than a significant campaign issue. Consequently, the entire investigation was an embarrassing episode for the GOP.
The Biden impeachment could follow a similar trajectory. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee leading the investigations into Hunter Biden, has appeared ineffectual in his efforts. So far, there is no evidence of offenses reaching the historical threshold for impeachment. Moderate House Republicans exhibit little interest in impeachment, making it challenging for McCarthy to secure a vote in the full House—let alone a successful impeachment. Even if the inquiry progresses, the Democratic Senate is highly unlikely to convict Biden.
However, the Benghazi experience also suggests another possibility. While the committee failed to incriminate Clinton, its investigation did uncover her use of a private email server, which became a defining issue in the 2016 presidential election and arguably contributed to her loss. Therefore, just because an investigation falls short of its intended goal does not mean it will fail entirely.
*Lead image: Illustration by Paul Spella. Sources: Alex Wong / Getty; Bashar Shglila / Getty; Bastiaan Slabbers / NurPhoto / Getty; Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times / Getty.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
