GOP senator says Biden ‘may not be’ impeachable since he wasn’t in office during accused actions
House Republicans may be moving full steam ahead with their impeachment inquiry into President Biden, but a GOP senator cautioned that the president might not be impeachable.
There's no way the House GOP sees that as relevant, it's not about the law or what's just.
They don't have to find a specific statute to charge him under, but they do have to present some sort of coherent accusation of wrongdoing to avoid looking quite so much like the absolute clowns they are.
They don't care about looking like absolute clowns. They only care about appeasing Trump and MAGA base. Both say that Biden needs to be impeached. They don't care why - just impeach him. If anyone says they look like clowns, they'll just call those people "woke liberal elites working for Soros globalists" or "RINOs" (depending on whether they are Democrats or Republicans).
Then, if they lose their elections due to a blue wave, they'll parrot Trump, claim voter fraud, and demand that they be installed into office because they won when you subtract all the "fraudulent" (read: Democratic) votes.
I really don't seem to be able to accomplish even that. I mean, just look at this shit show.
Wait, what accused action? I thought they didn't even have an accused action.
His crime is that big fat D next to his name. Unforgivable!
He's finally going to get what's coming to him after his hand in the Jade Helm Massacre!
Let's not forget his involvement in the Bowling Green massacre. So many lives needlessly lost.
Let's not forget about him and Hilary personally putting out the hits on the Buttery Males with Ben Ghazi.
Well starting World War 2 seems pretty big to me.
Got some checks for loans that are maybe hinky. Maybe. And even then, it's the sort of thing where literally everyone in Washington is equally guilty.
Got some checks for loans that are maybe hinky.
No, they don't.
Literally the guy running the impeachment inquiry. Similar checks were revealed to have been written by and to Comer after he said that the checks proved Joe Biden did illegal things.
But for some reason Comer thinks his checks are fine but Biden's are criminal.
The inquiry is because his son had a job, and they are generally suspicious because of that. And he said hi to his son on the phone once. There's literally no accusation, they're trying to find something to accuse him of.
Not trump though. All you need to do is ask him
I don’t know about you all but I’m never voting for Hunter Biden.
The optimist in me wants to say: "yeah, you go girl!"
But the pessimist in me is saying: "cool, so if they're so bad, who ARE you voting for?"
Out of the options, the lesser of two evils is easier to fight against.
Edit: I don't actively support Biden. But between the guys who promise to either: A) have made it their purpose to impoverish and delegitimacize everyone but themselves, and the people that, B) are trying to do so without getting caught
I'll go for the people that don't want to get caught. They're at least minimizing the damage they do to the world. 🙄
Extra edit for the dipshits that can't read properly: I was saying that between the Bidens and the big orange blob and his fanatical cohorts, I'd rather have the Bidens. Y'all think I'm talking shit about the wrong person, and that reading comprehension (or lack thereof) is why I don't actively support EITHER side because they're BOTH full of fanatical retards.
I think the most important word in the original post is "Hunter".
How many times have you voted for Hunter?
I love how you just read whatever you wanted to, and then wrote this scree like we give a fuck what you think, and you're not even intelligent enough to catch the joke that's literally one sentence long.
Where did the Hunter Biden hurt you?
He would also have to have actually done any of the accused actions.
No, if they have the votes they can do a sham impeachment for any reason they want. They can vote to impeach just because they don't like his stupid ugly face. But I doubt they actually have the votes. This is just revenge for daring to impeach Trump. It won't succeed but they get to do "investigations". They hope that will hurt Biden next November.
History says that it won't. See: The impeachment of Bill Clinton. For the young ones out there, President Clinton was relentlessly attacked by the Republicans. They claimed that he and Hillary killed a guy and also had crooked land deals. (Among other things.) They launched huge investigations which turned up nothing.
Nothing except that Bill was having an affair with an intern and lied about it once to Congress. Got him!
So they impeached him for lying to Congress, though to most of America it sounded like impeaching him for having an affair. Certainly, not a very moral thing to do, but not "high crimes and misdemeanors." The impeachment passed the House but not the Senate.
The Republicans expected that impeaching President Clinton would neuter his support and they would rise to victory. Instead, the opposite happened. People are angry over the obvious political impeachment and gave the win to the Democrats.
I think that most of the Republicans realize that this will backfire on them. However, Trump is demanding that Biden be impeached and they are too cowardly to say no. So they are hoping against hope that they find something, ANYTHING to actually impeach Biden on while they rocket towards a repeat of Clinton's impeachment minus the affair.
"Well you see, the Dems did TWO sham impeachments so it's only fair we get to do it too."
Republicans: This guy is the oldest president in the history of the USA, what do you mean his son isn't pulling the strings? That is how it works with all elder politicians!
Honestly, it's kind of amazing that they have spent all this time investigating Biden and haven't found anything crooked. How is that even possible for a politician at his level?
Well as far as I see it he either is the folksy Grampa that he wants you to believe he is or he is a lizard person protected by dark forces within the world government. I see no other options.
I mean, as far as I can tell they have found a lot of crooked, IE suspicious as hell, stuff. Just nothing actually illegal. Like, it was both legal and crooked for him to get his son on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. Seems like everyone skips over that there is plenty of substance in the nonsense republicans are yelling about, this time. Though tbh I could be wrong, because I have no way of knowing for sure which parts of their yelling are completely made up and which are a twist of the truth.
But ya know, not trump, he's young.
You're only as old as women you... retches oh god. I couldn't finish typing that.
To be impeached- wouldn’t one need to have done something worthy of impeachment?
Unfortunately not. The House can begin impeachment over anything they want, including things that are not even against the law, as long as they have the votes.
One of the articles of impeachment against Johnson was basically "this guy is an asshole". The Senate didn't vote on that article, and acquitted him otherwise.
So there is an argument that you can impeach a President for being an asshole, but it's not entirely clear.
Should have put a spoiler alert lol. Ruining the drama :/ aha
Did they just realize he wasn't a part of the government?
Lol would be hilarious if this was referring to Hunter. "Oh wait, shit this guy's not in the government? Why the fuck have we been talking about him for the last 4 years?!"
"Also, how many people died in Benghazi? Four? And we caught the guy who did it? And it wasn't Hillary?"
Greene: "Because I wanted to introduce his penis photos into the Congressional record. I mean, look at this thing!" (Holds up a giant poster board sized zoom in on Hunter's privates.)
Mullin is a piece of shit who couldn’t even handle himself with a bored union rep who was halfheartedly teasing him.
I'm just surprised that anything has come out of his mouth that resembles any understanding of the law. As an Oklahoman, my bar is pretty much on the ground for our politicians.
Beginning to soften the blow of disappointment for their rabid base.
The plan is to make it appear that he gets off on a technicality, rather than them having no case from the beginning.
that's embarrassing how does anyone vote for these people
Because the one party state rigged it to be this way. They make sure the Dems aren't a meaningful improvement ever, to sow apathy.
I don’t think they actually need a valid reason for impeachment.
They could have impeached Obama for wearing his brown suit. Or Jaywalking when he went to the restaurant and put ketchup on his burger or whatever the heck that was about.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/
Reasoning: Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Poor Sourcing, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Launched in 1982, The Washington Times is a daily newspaper concentrating on politics and news. Based in Washington, D.C., The Washington Times was founded by a self-professed messiah, Korean Sun Myung Moon. According to its parent company, during Washington Times’ 20th anniversary, Moon said: “The Washington Times is responsible for letting the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”
And also, presumably, because there were no crimes.
None that he committed, anyway.
What his adult kid may or may not have done isn't the legal (or even moral) responsibility of the parents.
Isn't this the clown who Bernie Sanders chastised for wanting to have a physical fight with someone who was testifying to a Congressional committee?
Yes and he should always be remembered for the time Bernie Sanders saved him from an ass-whooping that would literally go down in history.
I honestly kind of wanted to see that fight. You know how much good PR the UAW would have gotten regardless of the outcome.
"Union president takes punch to the face for workers rights*
That is a headline that sells all day long.
The best part is their Orange Leader is trying to get Courts (at the Supreme Court now) to rule that the President has some kind of ultimate immunity. This would of course put Presidents above the law and out of reach of even the Supreme Court. It would also of course make it so Biden could do whatever he wanted (not that he actually would) - negating their whole farce.
Its so stupid too, because that's literally against the written word of the constitution. The damned thing literally says that the president is still liable under the rule of law even after being impeached and removed from office. These chucklefucks don't give a single wet shit about the constitution, they're just hoping their base is stupid enough to go along with the subversion.
Exactly. Say the President has absolute immunity to do anything he wants. Joe Biden could then declare Trump Public Enemy #1 and have him imprisoned pending trial. Then all MAGA Republicans could be called Public Enemies 2 through however many and have them imprisoned. And doing this would be perfectly legal because the President is immune.
Of course, the President isn't immune, Biden wouldn't do this, and he'd be wrong if he did. Still, if we accept Trump's assertion that the President can do anything he wants and it's always legal, then they are opening the door for Biden to take any action he wants with no repercussions.
The Washington Times is a garbage conservative conspiracy generator. If we’re not linking to Newsmax or FoxNews, we shouldn’t be linking to it.
True that!
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/
Reasoning: Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Poor Sourcing, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
They're so gross. One doesn't fail multiple fact checks by accident!
I'm pretty sure the stuff the Rs were actually going after Clinton over didn't happen in office either, Lewinsky just presented a big target they could attach it all to.
Well yes and no. Special console ken starr was appointed over possible tax evasion. He found out about Monica. Then Clinton got in trouble over that AND lying about it. Bill narrowly avoided purjery charges.
Bill narrowly avoided purjery charges.
This is why he asked questions like what the definition of "is" is. He wanted to be absolutely certain what he could get away with without committing perjury.
He did not have sexual relations with that woman because he had them define what they meant by sexual relations, and they said intercourse. So a blowjob literally didn't count. He asked for the definition of is because whether that just meant currently or at any time in the past was central to his answer.
In my opinion it would be a disaster if you could receive compensation for future policy input, act on that input in office, and be immune simply because you were not in office when you received it.
Just prove he did or did not do it instead of whatever this nonsense take is.
I don't think that that is the case here though. I agree what you're saying in terms of a presidential candidate for example. But let's be real, it's already happening there. Candidates accepting campaign donations in return for implied favorable consideration if they win.
In my mind though, what you're taking about still pertains directly to the presidency and would be fair game for impeachment. To me, it isn't so much important whether the person is in office, but whether the prior action impacts their ability to preside (mostly) free from undue external influence.
lol. Here is how this is going to play out. Nothing will happen officially on this until next fall, within 30 days of the election. Then, there will be “leaks” to the media about details of Biden guilt, which will be complete bullshit but an attempt to swing independent voters.
Source: Hillary Clinton in 2016. Buttery males.
Goddam “facts” and “reality”. So often creating problems for extremists. Too bad that “alternative facts” phrase became a punchline instead of a legitimate part of our vocabulary.
By the letter of the text, "bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors" are all things one does in office which betray the dignity of the position. "High crimes" means crimes done by those in a place of authority.
So no, whatever Hunter stuff from before the election they're trying to base the impeachment on would not be impeachable if you're trying to be Constitutional.
But, there's no one who can judge what counts as impeachable except the people who vote on it. They can really impeach/remove someone for whatever reason they want, they just need enough people to agree.
Misdemeanors is the key word, I think. It literally just meant having the wrong demeanor for public office.
Having no evidence except "payback for Trump, baby" might be a larger problem
So one of them has a half a brain cell