Is The Biden Impeachment Inquiry Just Political Theater?
Speaker McCarthy finally bowed to pressure and, likely against his preference, launched an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Already House conservatives like Matt Gaetz are warning that Republican hands will be cuffed. What should we expect from the process? Truth? Also today, Covid tyrants are back and cancelling high school football games again. Finally, Sen. Warren wants Musk probed over failing to facilitate Ukrainian attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Good.
Do you have the answers this morning, or do you have questions?
I have questions.
I don't have any answers.
I have a lot of questions, too.
Then the day I get the answers, oh, things have changed.
We can't believe those people.
They said this, and it wasn't true.
But sorting out the truth is an ongoing process.
We will stay busy to sort it out.
And right now, we're trying to understand the significance of impeachment because it was something the founders felt very strongly about.
It was the ultimate backup to get rid of bad guys.
And it's turned into, I think, a political farce.
They say impeachments are always political.
And it is true because they aren't enforcing the law.
They're not going to enforce the death penalty or anything.
If somebody's doing bad things in office, you get thrown out of office.
And then it goes into the courts and that sort of thing.
They deal with the technicalities of that.
But it hasn't been used.
I mean, up until recent years, I guess it was just that one time, you know, Johnson and he escaped.
The Senate vote was one vote missing.
Or he could have not been indicted, but he could have been convicted by one vote.
So this is unusual, but now it's turned into, you know, just more shenanigans.
It's a political ploy.
It's a political trust.
And it's only, yes, it's supposed to be political.
The people doing this.
But this has become a real political football going back and forth.
So the Republicans were going to teach him a lesson.
You know, of course, Nixon, Nixon was taken out just by consensus.
And at those times, the Republicans and Democrats actually saw things, not necessarily that it was good, but they saw things a little bit less antagonistic.
So they got Nixon to retire or leave.
But this is different now.
And it started, I guess, with Clinton, his impeachment.
And I think the biggest thing about the Clinton impeachment was that is horrible.
We know about impeachment.
He's done for.
And what happened?
Clinton got re-elected.
It's sort of that whole principle is being very much expanded on Trump because the more things they throw at him, the more things he's guilty of, because they don't believe the people who are saying it.
It isn't that they don't think that these things, if people are doing it, they're wrong.
But what has happened is in some ways, what they're getting is the fact that the people are waking up and they don't believe the government anyway.
I mean, who's going to believe that Trump should be put in jail for 94 different federal laws that he broke?
And they flat, I say, we want him to die in jail.
So we've gone a long way.
And so, of course, the indictment or the impeachment of Trump, not only that, they impeached him twice.
I think the historians, if they report this accurately, probably will be laughing there.
That'll be crazy.
But anyway, yesterday was a big day for the people who want impeachment, but there's a lot of pros and cons.
And I don't think any one person has exactly all the answers because there's a lot of opinions on what's going on.
And one thing I sense right now is a strong split, you know, in the Republican Party.
And you hear it on the news.
But the split, the bigger split might be on the Democratic side.
Progressives no longer being progressive.
They're neocons.
The neocons went for, you know, in war and on civil liberties.
They're a bunch of neocons now.
So there's quick shifting.
They're not very, they deal in principle, but they're shifting every day and they change their principles.
So what do you think is going to happen?
Well, it was funny because my first note that I wrote down on this was Nixon.
And you brought up Nixon in your intro.
Oh, it must have been reading your mind.
We think about it for all of the criticism of Nixon, the horrible, the worst president ever.
It's interesting how those were such different times.
A group of elder statesmen came and said, Mr. President, the writing is on the wall for you.
It's just not looking good.
It might be an idea to bow out now.
And he said, okay, that's probably a good thing.
It's so different now.
I mean, it feels like a banana republic when you have two successive presidents, one impeached twice and one under the threat of being impeached.
And then the irony of President Trump being impeached for what Biden was actually doing, which was manipulating stuff in Ukraine to his own advantage.
And I think that's pretty obvious.
At least his son was doing that.
And I guess what this impeachment is going to try to figure out is how involved was then Vice President Biden in the affairs of his son.
We've seen a lot of information, but they say that evidence is lacking.
Now, Politico, we talk about it a lot for all of its faults.
It definitely has a bias toward the mainstream perspective.
If you can put that first one up, they still are able to put some news in their article despite some of the spin.
And this is what you and I both looked at this morning.
Seven key questions about McCarthy's impeachment push.
And I think they did a pretty good lineup of what the real issues are.
This is their playbook section, which is pretty useful, I think.
And let's just chew on the first one for a second if you put this next one on.
What are Republicans trying to prove?
And the answer is that Biden was on the take.
Now, Political says that, but Republicans have not turned up any evidence showing the elder Biden personally profited or that he took any official action to benefit those who paid his family.
I don't think they're going to have a hard time proving that.
I think the stuff is there.
But that seems to be the main thing that they are trying to prove with this.
Yeah, but if you had a Department of Justice whose goal was it to bring about the truth of what's happening, it might be different.
But something's going on because, you know, where I clipped this Politico article, and that wasn't too long ago, and they're not solving many problems because a few hours later, you clipped one, and it says seven key questions.
They're getting more questions.
They're not getting any answers.
And so it is going to be more chaotic than ever.
So I do relate this to the big picture of why it's such a struggle to divvy up the loot.
You know, the loot in Congress and deciding whose country we're going to bomb and that sort of thing.
But we're in a moral and a financial bankruptcy.
So all this talk about why don't they get along a little bit better like they did in the Nixon era, they did what they didn't convict him of anything, but the conditions were such it's time to leave.
And it was obviously a lot different.
But now they just continue to do this and make it more complex.
But if you say, well, they're about to prove that presidential candidate A did this.
Oh, that's bad.
He's done for it.
Oh, no.
His rates just went up.
Oh, that means the people don't care about the truth.
No, maybe they don't believe the people who are saying it.
So I'm sure there's a lot of people having entertainment on this, but too bad it's so serious because we're starting to read articles about people jumping in.
They've been jumping in for years into foreign policy, which country to go bomb.
And now we're doing that too.
And nobody knows who's the commander-in-chief anyway.
So we do live in dangerous times.
You make a good point, though, which is the Justice Department.
Because, and I think Turley had made this point as well.
I mean, if the Justice Department had actually been doing its job, rather than all this crazy stuff about special counsel Weiss, the guy should definitely not have been put in there.
You know, he's the guy who covered it up the whole time.
If they had actually done their job, I mean, I don't think they're doing Biden any service by doing this.
Because if he had just done his job and looked into it, then you may not have even seen this impeachment inquiry.
But this is a response to a completely failed Justice Department.
Okay, you're not going to look into it.
We'll do it ourselves.
And that's where the complication comes.
And it not only confuses them because they don't know what they're doing or they do know what they're doing.
And what they want to do is really confuse and protect their guy and their system.
Of course, they find out that the Department of Justice plus the CIA and the FBI, can you imagine they actually get on the side of these people or doing these nasty things?
So it's in a way a crooked police department.
And when the police are crooked, things don't go well for the innocent bystander.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, the other question the politico was talking about, what's the timeline?
And they pointed out that it was about this time in 2019 that they launched the probe on Trump, the first impeachment on Trump, and they concluded that by Christmas time, and according to the political analysts, and it may have a good point, he said it was a grave mistake because it was a half-baked case that failed to convince the nation that Trump was dangerous and needed to be removed from office, which is what the clip says.
So they tried to rush it.
Will the Republicans try to rush this?
I mean, I would say I don't see there would be any reason to rush it.
You could extend this throughout the year.
There are so many witnesses you could bring up.
You know, who's paying a lot of attention to this is somebody that's decided that she wasn't going to go home and be frustrated in San Francisco.
She's staying in Washington because she might be run out of town in San Francisco when she goes out and walks on the streets.
But Pelosi decides she wants to stay in.
And in her own mind, I'm sure she thinks this is a mess, and our guy's in trouble now.
And she's the super expert on this stuff, you know, and she will get in there and she will expect to be the advisor and may well be their chief advisor.
But that's not going to solve the problem.
She represents government and people are losing confidence in government.
So it's going to increase the division if we have to listen to her constantly or her controls.
So we'll have to see.
I mean, I think the only mitigating factor on the timeline is the media issue because the media, obviously, the mainstream media is 100% on the side of Biden and 100% against the Republicans.
I mean, even Fox News is definitely not a pro-Republican outlet at all.
And now that Tucker's gone, especially.
But you have to, so what you have is this issue that even Fox would see a decent coverage of it would be helping Trump, who they hate.
So they're not going to give it the mainstream media.
Votes Counting Resistance00:11:34
Forget it's like what if you gave an impeachment and nobody showed up?
You know, the old saying about war.
So it's in terms of the mainstream media, this is going to be invisible.
So at least 60, 70% of the nation is not going to see very much.
It's only those that seek out alternative news.
Maybe they're able to see Newsmax or OAN network.
And all of these are good and they are becoming more prominent, but they don't have the power.
The same with the New York Times.
They're not going to report honestly about it.
If you made the argument that it's going to be a bottleneck all the way up to the election, and you could say, well, the best thing is now it's out there for the people to decide.
Vote this way, you're for the impeachment, vote that way.
Oh, it gets complicated.
Whom are we going to impeach?
Should we get ready to impeach Trump or whatnot?
So they're going to keep it in a bottleneck and people will be more confused than ever.
I think both sides are going to get to the point where maybe there's no winners here.
And just march on up there.
And you say, well, this gives a chance for the people.
This gives democracy a chance to show how powerful it is.
But the whole thing is, is who counts the votes?
Who counts the votes?
But no, that means if you say that all the votes went kind of, you're a conspirator in a negative sense.
You're the worst person in the world.
You mean all the votes?
Either ones that come in two or three days later, you have to count them?
Well, there are votes, you know.
And people, you know, one half says, yeah, that's true.
And the other half says, oh, it's not true.
And it doesn't matter because, you know, they make excuses.
So it's not there.
I think I was thinking about all this stuff the other day.
When they talk about having these votes to make decisions, I got to thinking, well, this is what democracy brings.
Whoever gets control of the power, they say, well, you get 51% to get control of the power.
But I don't think Soros is 51%.
And he got control of a lot of stuff.
And there's other people, the people who control the Fed, do you think they had 51% of the vote from the people?
The people are just waking up about that.
Well, you know, this crazy thing in Georgia, they not only indicted all these however many people, but there was like 38 people they wanted to indict.
And some of them were members of the Senate, like Lindsey Graham.
And some of them were even former members who dared to question the election.
So you got to be careful.
They're going to come after you.
They'll take you down to Georgia.
I mean, it's funny, but it's not funny because these guys are total notes.
Yeah.
It is.
Well, go ahead.
No, I was wrong.
I think we're on the same page right now, which is the, will there be public hearings, if we can put that one up, because that's another question they ask, and I think it's worth asking.
And they point out that the Democrats tried to avoid public hearings and that Republicans have claimed that they will air their case before the cameras.
Now, that goes back to what we were saying before, which is if they hold an impeachment and nobody comes, i.e. none of the main networks.
But, you know, I tend to be a little bit more optimistic on this because we've seen the power of Twitter when someone like Tucker Carlson gets 250, 300 million views with the program.
We see the power of Rumble that provides an alternative to YouTube that doesn't censor people.
And if you look at some of the shows on Rumble, they're bigger than ours.
We're coming up there, but they're bigger than ours.
You get a lot of people viewing it.
So if they do want to do some of these live and people are inclined, they will find a place to get it, but it won't be easy.
Yeah, you know, the argument is, is how does one party paint the other party?
And the Democrats have essentially most of the control of the media.
So they paint the Republicans and Trump as just being all over the place and crazy.
And this effort, you would think this would wake up the people too.
Okay, we don't think he should be allowed to have his name on the ballot.
That doesn't fit into the Constitution very well.
But when you think of it, if we had an objective reporting on this, there could be a pretty strong case for the Democrats being in a real box.
Who are they ever president?
How are they going to defend this guy?
I mean, he got in probably with a lot of shenanigans, and now he's fading, and he wants to be re-elected.
And they think that that's going to happen.
But they have him to worry about.
And they got to get rid of him.
I mean, the Democrats are split now on him.
Half of them are saying, he's ready to go.
We've got to get rid of this guy.
But then, oh, yeah, we like Kamala.
She's an adult.
She's a good person.
And she's going to serve our purpose.
And then if 60% are against Trump, Biden, 70% are against Kamala.
So they're really in a box.
I think they face a much bigger dilemma politically than the Republicans do.
And we'll see what happens.
Yeah, but the only thing is, I think they're better at circling the wagons.
Because if you look at the Republicans, someone like Mitch McConnell, who devotes his entire life when he's not frozen up, devotes his entire life to trying to hurt Trump.
Okay, you don't like Trump?
Whatever.
If he's a nominee, you shouldn't be trying to undermine him, in my view.
I'm not a Republican, but I'm just saying the Democrats wouldn't do that.
They're pretending that Joe Biden is just fine and dandy.
There's nothing wrong with this guy.
They'll do that to the end of the day, but Republicans are just standing in line to put the knife in constantly.
Don't worry about it.
We have a place in the basement.
We can have a lock on it.
A lock on it.
Yeah, well, bring out Michelle.
She'll take care of it.
Is there one final thing on this before we move on?
Because we're getting long-winded on this, but there's a lot to unpack.
But just do the one, is there any way this doesn't end?
You have to skip ahead one more, I think.
Because this actually, one more, if you can.
Yeah.
So this is, you know, and I hadn't really taken this on board.
We talked about it before the show.
Is there any way this doesn't end in Biden's impeachment?
And I was going on what Charlie had written before, and it's like, hey, if the Justice Department is not going to take up this issue, just start an inquiry.
At least you'll start things going.
But then you think about it, where is it going to go?
Well, if you do the next one, as it makes sense now, of course it has to go into the impeachment process.
Because as Politico helpfully pointed out, any other scenario ignores the reality of 21st century impeachment politics.
Opening an inquiry, then failing to follow through, would be a major political boon to Biden.
Essentially, a tacit admission by the GOP that he's innocent.
So now we know that the brakes are off, the wheels are going, the car's going down the hill, and we know it's going to end there.
If that's the case, maybe it would be an advantage to the Republicans not to delay it till November to do the vote that you suggest that you're advising them to do.
That they go to do it.
I mean, we're still early in a way.
Maybe five or six months would be enough.
Have a vote.
Get it out of the way.
Because we know he's not going to be convicted.
Yeah.
I mean, that's not going to happen.
Yeah, something weird would have to happen in the Senate.
Well, let's move on now.
And here's something I know that gets your blood boiling.
I can see it boiling from here in South Africa just a foot away from you.
Put on this next one because COVID cancellations are back.
California high schools cancel football games.
This is from the EPIC Times.
And yes, it's not across the board.
They're trickling because I don't think they feel they have the power that they had last time.
But it's happening.
They're testing the waters.
You're doing this on purpose and pointing toward me because you're trying to say, Ron, you're a little bit too optimistic about it.
You're always trying to have a positive spin on something.
So I can have to, let me search this through a little bit more.
But it is sad, but the positive side is that they're not going to get away with it like they did the last time.
There's going to be more resistance.
Do you think those governors, I mean, the governor of South Dakota, she did well with her position.
Florida governor did well.
Texas governor, not quite as strong, but did well with this.
So that, they're not going to cave.
I think they're going to stand firm.
And the one thing that I would be concerned about more than that being locked on is as bad as it was is that the violence of the people.
You know, people, people, you ever hear these stories where they go into a store and they're shopping and somebody sees somebody that didn't have the mask on and didn't follow the rules of the tyrants.
And they go over and tell them about it.
That happened to me a lot.
So pull their mask off.
So that's going to, there's something boiling there, and the people are going to get very angry.
This whole thing, and I think you were alluding to my interest in this, they cut out the football game.
That's what I meant when I said blood boiling.
That's what got your anger.
The football game.
Because that was a symbol of our victory over the mask when they brought it back.
Now they want to take them out again.
It's a real shame.
Well, it's interesting that you mentioned the states, the states that were successful and that did well, because, you know, Professor Michael Vlajos, who we had speak at our conference, and hopefully we're going to get those speeches up.
We've got about half of them uploaded.
But he makes that point that offense, essentially, we're going to have a de facto kind of secession because there will be states that protect civil liberties and there will be others that don't.
It's sort of having the effect of what happened before the Civil War without hopefully having a war.
And I'm not doing justice to his argument because his argument was excellent.
But sort of a de facto separation of the states, which is not really the worst outcome.
You know, talking about sports, in 1984, I had been in Congress for three terms.
And I knew I didn't want to stay there.
I did.
I was surprised I ended up there.
So I wanted to go back to medicine.
So I announced.
But during the time we were up there, conditions were different.
We had the Congressional Baseball Camp.
And I liked that.
And I played on it.
And one thing I noticed is once you play baseball with people, you know, it just, the animosities just disappear.
Maybe it's not true anymore, but it just disappeared.
And I wrote a little summary of when I left Congress back in 1984.
And my conclusion was that we should play a lot more baseball and stay away from the legislation.
And we'd all get along a lot better.
The country would be better off.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Absolutely right.
Warren Urges Musk Action00:07:25
Well, we'll see what happens.
It's just a trickle right now.
A couple of games canceled.
But you know that they're just hot and bothered over there in California.
You just can't wait for more canceling.
But there's one story written, and I don't know whether it was, probably just a pure opinion because nobody has this much clout.
And they say, this is what they're doing is they're testing the waters.
Are the people going to roll over or is there going to be a lot of resistance?
Because they didn't have a national mandate come up.
They hid it here and here and they're testing it, trying to see it.
Well, why don't they go to Florida and South Dakota?
A few places like that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, we should probably move on to our last one because we're getting close to our witching hour here.
Speaking of witches, I shouldn't have said that.
Boy, you'll be in trouble.
I'm in trouble now.
Unpatriotic.
Go on to the Senator Warren calls for.
We're going to skip ahead here because I had too many clips.
I wasn't sure how things were going to go today, so I just put a bunch of clips in the hopper.
Here we go.
Senator Warren calls for probe into Musk for preventing attack on Russian fleet.
This is our friend Dave DeCamp over at antiwar.com.
Most people, I think, know the story that Elon Musk gave Ukraine access to Starlink for free.
And that's his constellation of satellites that provide internet capability for people.
He gave that to Ukraine for free.
And so apparently what happened is it was not covering Crimea.
And he actually just came out and said, today, we weren't covering Crimea because Russia was under sanctions and Crimea is part of Russia.
But anyway, it was never turned on for Crimea.
And he apparently got a call saying, turn it on for Crimea.
And he said, no, I'm not going to do that.
We said we're going to have an attack.
He said, no, I don't want to be part of that.
And so now, Senator Warren, if you can put it back up, that's kind of a quick thumbnail.
She's mad.
They were going to take out the entire Black Sea fleet.
She's furious because we weren't able to get Russia its Pearl Harbor.
And so she wants to have an investigation into Musk, who's hated by the left, even though he's probably one of them.
She wants to find out why on earth he didn't allow them to attack it.
You know, Musk is a famous person, a lot of money.
You know about that.
And he is amazing because politically he has to be involved because he deals with the government.
There's no doubt.
And I always thought that is that bothers me a bit.
But I think his basic instincts, the more we watch what he does, the more optimistic we might become.
And I think this is sort of a shift in a way that he was doing exactly what they want, but all of a sudden he said, enough is enough.
You know, this could start a war.
And so he's backing off.
So in a way, he might be challenging some of those people that deals with the other side of the contract because he puts up a lot of satellites.
They have to depend on him to do it.
It's amazing what he does with satellite.
They shouldn't play games with him.
Yeah.
Well, here's what Warren said, put that next one on.
Congress needs to investigate what's happened here and whether we have adequate tools to make sure foreign policy is conducted by the government and not by one billionaire.
Of course, she's probably close to that herself in terms of money.
It's very good to her to be in the Senate.
But here you have, I mean, Musk is a private citizen.
Yes, he does do business with the government.
He's a private citizen.
SpaceX is a private company, you know, to a degree.
And he doesn't want to provide services in a way that he thinks could expose his company to being the trigger for a major war.
And she says, well, you can't do that.
We're going to probe it and see how can you do that.
Yeah, I don't know.
I think that's good.
And that was just recent that that happened.
So that may change things for the good because the violence that would have come if he had not stepped in or participated in it and given in to it, that would have been really bad.
So I'm glad he backed off a little bit here.
And here's how we explain it.
You put that next one up.
I think it's a pretty good explanation.
He said there was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol, the obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor.
If we had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.
I think it was very responsible for him to refuse it.
And it does remind me of that story during the Cold War where there was that one Russian submarine officer who everyone else detected a U.S. launch, and he was skeptical and doubtful, and he refused to allow them to launch a response to it.
And it turned out it was a false alarm because everyone talks about red lines, but it's hard to imagine that if with our intelligence and our participation, Russia had experienced its own Pearl Harbor and the Black Sea Fleet had been sunk in Sevastopol, that there wouldn't have been some kind of major response.
It's hard to imagine.
You know, this is such a mixed deal because we mix our corporations and our government too often.
They're much too close.
And of course, there's emergency powers on that.
If things were delayed a little bit and we wanted to do it, you know, they've already talked about the Defense Production Act, which gives them unbelievable power.
So this is something that I think is crucial that the Defense of Production Act is always available and they can put pressure on these individuals.
But the lines are harder to draw.
We do know that if you're at war, that's when the people declare the war through their Congress, that there's a commander-in-chief, and a commander-in-chief is to direct things.
So this is a military operation.
If he would have gone along with that, well, he got involved in it, so he took a position.
But she's on the side of taking over foreign policy.
And the situation we have now is a mess anyway, because I don't think the corporation should have that much power to do it.
And there are others, though, that have been in business, and maybe even former people that had Twitter might have gone in a different direction.
Yeah.
Well, I'm going to close it up because we are live, as everyone knows, every day.
And I know, Dr. Paul, you've got an interview coming up, and we want to make you enable you to get over to your other end of our vast studio down here in Lake Jackson.
So I want to thank everyone for watching.
You can support us without spending a penny by clicking like, by sharing this with others, by subscribing if you're not subscribed, by making a thoughtful comment underneath, asking some probing questions underneath, and maybe we'll try to respond to some if we can.
But whatever the case, thanks again for watching the show.
Over to you, Dr. Gold.
You know, I was in Congress when the impeachment came for Clinton, and I voted for the impeachment.
And it was a mixed thing.
Different Directions00:01:11
I wasn't jumping up and down, and I thought they were missing the point.
But my point was that I'd have trouble not voting to impeach just about everybody I know that's in government because they should be impeached when they don't obey the Constitution.
And the only way you can impeach a congressman is vote him out of office.
But we don't have enough people who are crystal clear and very desirous of following the Constitution, so it marches on.
But no, I thought that it would be hard for me to, whomever they put up there, a chance to impeach them because you could find some things.
They disobeyed the Constitution.
You could talk about even the printing of money and the foreign policy.
How about the transfer of wealth from one group to another and all the looting going on and the viciousness of the taxes?
I don't want to get into that because I'm sure our viewers are very much aware of the shortcomings of governments that's there for our benevolence.
They're there to help take care of us, take care of us, make us safe and prosperous.
And they're not doing a very good job.
And that's why I vote for peace and prosperity as soon as we can get it.