Amid biden corruption, what will the Democrats do if biden has a "medical event"?

Imagine if instead of Kamala Harris being VP, it was, say, Gavin Newsom.

Does anyone doubt that Democrat bigwigs would be forcing Biden to resign or be removed by the 25th Amendment?

Fortunately for biden, his selection of the grossly incompetent Harris for his VP insured he would never be impeached.  So right now the only things keeping Biden in office are the prospect of Harris becoming president and the Media's support in covering up his crimes.  

Aside from Harris being VP, Biden would never be impeached (no matter how much testimony makes his crimes obvious) because it takes 67 votes in the senate to remove him from office.  That would require about 20 Dem senators to vote for removal, which simply won't happen, no matter how much clear evidence is presented that biden took money from China, via his son's "business deals," laundered thru Hunty's 20-odd shell companies.

Without conviction and removal being assured, the GOP is understandably unwilling to bother impeaching him.

For the same reason, removal under the 25th Amendment won't happen.

But if biden can't run due to age, the Dems are in a bind, since Harris will want to be the party's nominee, and the party can't dump her without angering blacks and women.  So the Dems have to find a way to keep Harris from running.  This may not be easy, as Harris seems to have delusions of both competence and popularity.

This problem gets far more difficult if biden has a stroke or other "medical event" that prevents him from finishing his first term, since that would automatically make Kammie president.

If biden were to have a "medical event" I suspect the Dems would ask their Republican counterparts to help conceal it, to keep Kammie from becoming president, since this would make it harder for the Dems to avoid nominating her--which, barring a steal, would likely give the GOP a landslide win.  

So the Repubs would be well advised NOT to help the Dems conceal biden's "event."  But enough Repubs would worry that elevating Kammie to the presidency would give her a far better chance of being the nominee and being elected, to they'd probably go along with the Dems.

But again, concealing biden's medical issue to keep him in the presidency would actually make it easier for the Dems to get rid of Harris, since if she's president (even for a few months) she'd be more likely to insist on being the 2024 nominee, which would likely result in a GOP win.

The Media can continue to cover up the fact that biden can't read a teleprompter without mangling his words, losing his place or going off-script, like calling Ukraine "Iraq" or claiming he's cured cancer.

He still insists that he never discussed Hunty's vast international business ventures with him, and the Dems have already neatly, seamlessly switched the Narrative from "He never discussed business with Hunter" to "He was never *in business* with Hunter."

The two phrases are close enough that most Democrat voters won't pick up on the distinction, and those who do won't care.  The Dems have cunningly changed their Narrative because they know evidence is likely to emerge showing that he *did* discuss business with Hunty--even though the Media will never report that.

Dem voters will cheerfully ignore any emails, testimony, recordings and affidavits showing that Joe was in fact intimately involved in Hunty's "business ventures" and profited from them.  Dem voters wouldn't care in any case.  Hey, "a father's love for his son," right?  That's the newest Narrative, and Dem voters love it.

Even if the Narrative changes yet again, this time to "The president never *personally* profited from any of his son's business ventures," Dem voters will think they're hearing the same denial as before and will still vote for him.

The Dems are hoping no one views the video of biden on-stage at a Council of Foreign Relations event on January 23, 2018, boasting about the time he went to Ukraine as VP to announce that the U.S. had agreed to guarantee a Billion-dollar loan to that nation.  Supposedly it was already agreed to.

But biden insisted that unless the president of Ukraine fired a specific prosecutor who was investigating Burisma--an energy company that had named Hunty to its board at a cool million bucks a year--the U.S. wouldn't guarantee the loan.

biden concluded by repeating his ultimatum to the president of Ukraine:  "I said 'I'm leaving  in six hours.  If he's not fired, you're not getting the loan.'  And son of a bitch: he was fired."  That's a direct quote, on video.  It's a clear example of biden extorting a foreign nation to protect his son's position--and his reputation.  Utterly corrupt.  But neither the Dems nor the Media care.

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

[pic: biden at CFR]

The audience of Democrat and Deep-Staters laughed and applauded.  They loved that kind of power-politics, but only from a Dem president.  By contrast, when Trump asked the new president of Ukraine to look into the firing of that prosecutor, the Dems impeached Trump for...something.

biden didn't want the Ukrainian prosecutor to reveal that biden's son Hunty--with zero experience in energy--was being paid a million bucks a year--literally, $83,333.33 per month--to sit on the company's board.

If Hunty gave other members of the biden family a total of, say, $50,000 per MONTH, is that a benefit to Joe?  Hunty or one of his partners bragged in an email (on his laptop) that by routing the cash thru his shell companies it would be impossible to trace the money.

Taking bribes from, say, China is exactly the type of "high crime" the Constitution explicitly says warrants impeachment and removal from office.  If Trump had done this, he would have been removed.  Biden won't even be impeached, for reasons set out earlier.

How can we explain why biden suggested that the U.S. wouldn't respond to a Russian invasion of Ukraine as long as the "incursion" was "minor"?  (Yes, kiddies, he did say that, on video.)

Nor can we explain why the biden regime lied when it assured Americans that covid-19 was NOT modified in a Chinese lab in Wuhan to make it lethal to humans, when the regime's own scientists knew from the outset that that's what happened.  

The Democrats' refusal to remove biden for taking bribes from foreign powers makes a mockery of the rule of law, and the Constitution.

So, returning to Harris:  I haven't seen figures on what percentage of female Democrat voters would support Kammi, but should Dem leaders plot to keep Kammi from getting the nomination it seems likely to cause more blacks to either stay home or vote GOP.  The Democrats have to decide whether to support the incomparably stupid Harris as their nominee or refuse and risk losing a crucial number of black and female voters.

Since the party is still backing the obviously cognitively-challenged biden, it would seem hypocritical to refuse to support Harris, who though seemingly dumb as a post, is at least young and not in the grip of senility.

H/T Victor Davis Hanson
https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/31/the-biden-presidency-is-unsustainable/