Ken Buck's flawed argument against Impeachment

Video below shows an exchange with Trey Gowdy on FoxNews and.... Well, let's just say it's a dumpster fire in the logic department.

It always pains me when I have to decide whether I will say something publicly against someone I know personally and have been friends with. Ken Buck is that person today. Let's break down the interview he did with Trey Gowdy (YouTube video embedded below) where Ken explains his position on Biden Impeachment.

Trey starts off this interview with the crazy assertion (jokingly proposed it seems) that being a Prosecutor "will get you into heaven." Ken Buck is the former Weld County (CO) Prosecutor. However humorous this little quip may be, Trey is baiting the listener to accept a lot of poor reasoning by positioning Ken Buck as an expert. Therefore, the assumed conclusion posits, you must accept what he says. Gowdy is committing a logical fallacy called the "Appeal to Authority Fallacy." The assertion is Ken Buck is a holy and righteous ex-Prosecutor who knows all.

Trey knows facts are about to be given as mere opinion and somewhat twisted here to bolster Ken’s presentation.

Trey later says, "of all the collogues I served with . . . you may have made reference to the Constitution more than any other colleague." That's great. And that may be accurate. It has very little to do with the issue at hand here. It’s what we call a non sequitur. I hope Ken Buck as well as every Congressman will consult and refer to the Constitution regularly. But they are still politicians.

Next comes the Equivocation Fallacy. This is when the meaning of terms is being changed in the middle of the argument.

Ken now goes to the heart of his argument. There’s just not enough evidence about Hunter and Joe Biden’s coordination here to stand up in a courtroom he asserts. Yes, it's true. A Prosecutor must win in a courtroom by having a good case. Just a little problem here: impeachments are NOT conducted in a formal courtroom. It is a political process conducted in Congress and also in public. Sure, you still must make a compelling case. But the presentation of evidence is of a totally different sort. And the Members of Congress making the case are doing so both to other Members of Congress and to the public.

Richard Nixon was not convicted in an Impeachment. Congress gathered evidence and had public hearings where that evidence was presented. Members of Congress would most certainly have removed Nixon from office due to a combination of evidence presented and public opinion that had turned sharply against Nixon. It was the impeachment process that got Nixon to resign as he was not convicted in the Senate.

Joe Biden has clearly played some role in Hunter Biden’s financial dealings with foreign governments. The governments Hunter was dealing with (China and Ukraine chief among them) have concerning and dangerous connections to international and national policy in both the Obama and Biden administrations. And Joe Biden’s policy decisions related to them have serious consequences on American and international security. This is serious evidence every Member of Congress should consider investigating closely.

Ken Buck asserts that the Impeachment being proposed is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and not treason and bribery--these are the four prescribed reasons for constitutional impeachment. Ken doesn't even mention "bribes" which is clearly one of the assertions being made. He doesn't because he apparently misunderstands what a bribe is in federal law.

18 U.S. Code § 201 does not require that payments that constitute a bribe be directly given to a public official. Indirect payments are also considered bribes--that includes to family members. It is a crime whether Hunter Biden shared money with Joe Biden or not. Peter Schweizer made this point in his recent podcast:

Ken says "there's very little evidence that links Hunter Biden to Joe Biden." Now, Ken is a smart guy. And I am certain he is familiar with the science of genetics. Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son. Hunter Biden received money from foreign governments. There is actual evidence that those working with Hunter knew that Joe's influence was used to grease the skids of the deals made. Ken's statement is false on its face. I think he knows that.

Ken says there's "little evidence" that Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma. I was very surprised to hear Ken Buck say this. That's a false statement. Devon Archer has said publicly that Viktor Shokin had siezed assets of Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky and that therefore Shokin was a threat to Burisma.

NY Post: Ukraine prosecutor whose ouster Biden pushed was ‘threat,’ says Devon Archer

Both Gowdy and Buck make reference to the political nature of impeachments these days. That is truly a concern I share with them. But the substance being pursued after investigations in House Oversight, House Ways and Means, and House Judiciary Committees is clearly indicating a strong argument for an Impeachment inquiry. There is no reason to refrain from an inherently political process after serious investigation and consideration of evidence. Investigations so far provide a compelling argument for expanding the process.