McCarthy okays an impeachment probe for President Biden

Over 60% of the country believe he engaged in influence peddling and over 40% believe he broke criminal law

I would argue that a vast majority of those who do not believe that Biden engaged in influence peddling or that such peddling is not illegal are Democrats who exclusively watch CNN, MSNBC, read WaPo and the NY Times. Anyone with any semblance of logic and an ability to pay attention to what we know would understand reality. Biden was knee deep in Hunter's business dealings which were largely about taking bribes and selling his dad's influence.

Legitimate income?

To simultaneously believe that Hunter Biden was a crack head spending millions on hookers and blow as well as a high powered crack pot attorney and political advisor who earned 20 million dollars legitimately is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. If the 20 million dollars that made it's way into 9 different Biden accounts came from legal means, then there would have been no reason to launder it through 19 different shell companies raising over 130 suspicious activity reports. The people who hired Hunter for this legitimate purpose would have provided him with a paycheck to deposit and some form of income statements to report to the IRS. But alas, that was not the case. Even if you take the idea that Hunter was a legitimate member of the Burisma board of directors as well as a Chinese financier, those actual jobs fall well short of the 20 million that came from Ukraine and China. Where did the rest of this money come from and why was it laundered?

Not illegal, just unethical?

Now there are a growing number of Democrats who concede that Hunter sold influence to make this money. They simply argue that such influence peddling is not necessarily illegal and that Joe never actually ever provided any real influence. Well he did have Shokin fired at the request of Burisma owners, but Democrats will claim it was because our own State Department and the European Union equivalent were wrong to praise the Ukrainian prosecutor for taking on corruption and that Joe knew better and had him fired for a lack of progress on the corruption situation. All of that FBI evidence of a bribe and sworn testimony from Hunter's buddy and partner (David Archer) is just coincidental. Joe had good reason (not 5 million good ones) to have Shokin fired. Btw... if you believe that, well I have a luxury apartment in Puyallup Washington to sell you cheap and you will have a really cool roommate to boot. Oh, and it is not an old folks home I promise.

Hunter may have broken the law, but Joe is clean?

The final argument is from those who are willing to concede that Hunter Biden probably broke the law. But they will argue that none of the 20 million dollars can be "directly" traced to a Joe Biden bank account, and therefore Joe was not really involved. When he had business meetings or talked to people on the phone on behalf of Hunter, they were just talking weather and stuff. Not business. Apparently Hunter is just too clever and snuck all of this illegal activity right by the old man without him noticing. These people demand that if we dug hard enough we would probably find out that the "big guy" and this "pop" character who was obviously getting a cut was likely someone like Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis... but certainly not Joe Biden.

Lastly, does this really change anything?

I do believe it will be harder for the FBI, DOJ, and the Biden Administration to stonewall an impeachment probe. I get that McCarthy and others will argue that there isn't much legal difference between a regular congressional probe and an impeachment probe, but I think the public at large will see that differently. That being said, there is at least a reasonable chance that the evidence brought forward will be significant, but certainly not enough to garner any sort of conviction. A narrow vote for impeachment in the House and a Senate acquittal may give Democrats some validation to argue that it was a partisan affair. Of course much of that will be determined by what sort of impeachment articles are brought and what evidence they can bring to the table (and to the public) in those regards. Nobody expects that Democrats will vote to find Biden guilty of any of this, even if the evidence is overwhelming. So the real audience here are the undecided voters, not Senate Democrats and the real strategy will be to bring Biden down into the same mud as Trump and watch them wrestle on equal dirty footing.

How about a potential twist?

What if this probe does prove to be overwhelmingly damaging to the President to the point where even the liberal press will have to report on it? Does that give Democrats who do not want to see Biden run for another term a way out? Imagine how it would play out if Democrats voted guilty and literally removed Biden as President (effectively ending his run for a second term). They could then not only replace Biden, but suggest that they had the courage to accept that Biden was a flawed person who should not be running. Obviously they could argue that the GOP lacks the same courage of conviction for standing up for Trump. The new Democrat (regardless of who) would come across as the squeaky clean person who is above all of this impeachment and criminal trial activity. Why go with the accused criminal or the Party who stands by him, when you can choose the Party who stands up to their own corruption and does the right thing? Four dimensional chess? Perhaps and I seriously doubt Democrats would be clever enough to go that direction. But it could work, right?