Opinion: The Coming Biden Impeachment Farce

[Tennesseer]

Opinion
The Coming Biden Impeachment Farce

When House Republicans return from their recess this fall, they’re likely to have an item on their agenda besides pushing the government toward shutdown: impeaching Joe Biden. “You’ve got to get to the bottom of the truth, and the only way Congress can do that is go to impeachment inquiry,” the Republican House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, said on Tuesday. Some Republicans are pretending that a mere inquiry doesn’t imply an actual impeachment, but it’s hard to imagine MAGA congressmen being satisfied with an investigation that stops short of bringing charges.

“What I’m hearing from Republicans is that Speaker McCarthy basically has no choice,” Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said when I asked him whether impeachment was likely. “This is what they want.” And with yet another Trump indictment imminent, I suspect impeachment momentum will only accelerate. Amid the drama of a presidential front-runner facing multiple felony charges, Republicans are going to need counterprogramming.

To be clear, impeachment is not what all Republicans want: As The New York Times wryly noted, some in the party argue “that the House must find actual corruption or wrongdoing before lawmakers consider impeachment.” Given McCarthy’s very thin margins in the House, he may not have the votes to begin a process some of his members are dreading. Nevertheless, with the Republican base clamoring for impeachment, McCarthy has clearly signaled it’s a live possibility. Which raises a question: Impeachment for what?

This is less obvious than it should be, at least if you’re not immersed in the Fox News cinematic universe. Democrats are largely tuning out the House’s lurid and shambolic investigatory hearings, which have so far featured photos of a naked Hunter Biden and a much-hyped star witness who turned out to be a fugitive indicted on charges of, among other things, arms trafficking and acting as an unregistered Chinese agent. Behind this circus, however, is something rather astonishing: A major part of the pretext for a possible impeachment of Joe Biden is exactly the same set of lies about Ukraine that helped convince Democrats to impeach Donald Trump the first time.

SPOILER: Click to show

Let’s recall why Trump tried to essentially extort Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky. The ex-president wanted Zelensky’s help creating the false impression that a bribery scheme led Biden, as vice president, to call on the Ukrainian government to fire its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin. In 2018, Rudy Giuliani dispatched two henchmen — both now convicted felons — to Ukraine to find proof that Biden had targeted Shokin to protect the energy company Burisma, which had put Biden’s son Hunter on its board.

Not surprisingly, Giuliani’s men came back empty-handed. “Throughout all these months of work, the extensive campaigns and networking done by Trump allies and Giuliani associates, including the enormously thorough interviews and assignments that I undertook, there has never been any evidence that Hunter or Joe Biden committed any crimes related to Ukrainian politics,” one of the two men, Lev Parnas, wrote in a recent letter to the Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee.

It’s true that Hunter Biden almost certainly owed his Burisma gig to his family name, a sleazy arrangement if not an illegal or uncommon one. (See, for example, the $2 billion investment Jared Kushner received from a Saudi investment fund over the objections of the fund’s own advisers, which found the operations of Kushner’s firm “unsatisfactory in all aspects.”) Republicans have demonstrated, if it wasn’t clear already, that Hunter is a deeply compromised figure who should never hold any position of public trust. But Joe Biden wasn’t acting in his son’s interest when he called for the removal of Shokin.

Shokin’s removal was a priority for Ukraine’s Western allies because he was, as The New York Times reported in 2016, “widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite.” Among those Shokin was alleged to have protected was none other than Mykola Zlochevsky, head of Burisma. The anti-corruption activist Daria Kaleniuk told The Intercept that Shokin was fired for his failure to investigate the “corruption and economic crimes” of the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who was deposed and fled to Russia, “and his close associates, including Zlochevsky.” It’s hard to see what Zlochevsky had to gain if Shokin were replaced by a prosecutor with more integrity.

Of course, that didn’t stop Trump from trying to manipulate Zelensky into opening an investigation into Biden, Shokin and Burisma, part of an effort to give weight to his smears of Biden. At the time of Trump’s first impeachment, those smears were repeatedly debunked. But now Republicans claim they have a reason for resurrecting them: House investigators recently discovered an F.B.I. document from 2020 that mentions a confidential source claiming to have heard Zlochevsky bragging about paying the Bidens to deal with Shokin. According to the document, this confidential source claimed Zlochevsky had 17 recordings to back him up.

As Raskin points out, though, Trump’s Justice Department already scrutinized these claims and evidently found nothing worth acting on, and even some Republicans who eagerly hyped the recordings have since conceded they may not exist. Impeaching Biden over this kind of hearsay would be like impeaching Trump over the Steele dossier.

Nevertheless, there is a sort of logic to House Republicans’ impeachment plans. Part of their motivation, Raskin argues, is an attempt to ensure that Trump isn’t the only 2024 candidate carrying the stigma of impeachment. More than that, by impeaching Biden for Burisma, they’d be signaling that Trump, as president, would have been justified in asking Zelensky to investigate Biden. Republicans may not be able to expunge Trump’s impeachments, which the ex-president is reportedly demanding. But they could retroactively try to excuse the behavior that led to the first one.

And since the Republican aim is getting revenge and sowing confusion, rather than actually proving high crimes and misdemeanors, they may be able to use the obscurity of the allegations — and the need to plunge down various rabbit holes to understand them — to their advantage. Rather than make a specific case, Republicans are trying to foment the cynical sense that scandal surrounds Biden just as it does Trump. The point is not to hold anyone accountable for actual wrongdoing, but to parody the process of trying.

The Coming Biden Impeachment Farce

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 28, 2023 9:28:02 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Opinion
The Coming Biden Impeachment Farce

When House Republicans return from their recess this fall, they’re likely to have an item on their agenda besides pushing the government toward shutdown: impeaching Joe Biden. “You’ve got to get to the bottom of the truth, and the only way Congress can do that is go to impeachment inquiry,” the Republican House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, said on Tuesday. Some Republicans are pretending that a mere inquiry doesn’t imply an actual impeachment, but it’s hard to imagine MAGA congressmen being satisfied with an investigation that stops short of bringing charges.

“What I’m hearing from Republicans is that Speaker McCarthy basically has no choice,” Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said when I asked him whether impeachment was likely. “This is what they want.” And with yet another Trump indictment imminent, I suspect impeachment momentum will only accelerate. Amid the drama of a presidential front-runner facing multiple felony charges, Republicans are going to need counterprogramming.

To be clear, impeachment is not what all Republicans want: As The New York Times wryly noted, some in the party argue “that the House must find actual corruption or wrongdoing before lawmakers consider impeachment.” Given McCarthy’s very thin margins in the House, he may not have the votes to begin a process some of his members are dreading. Nevertheless, with the Republican base clamoring for impeachment, McCarthy has clearly signaled it’s a live possibility. Which raises a question: Impeachment for what?

This is less obvious than it should be, at least if you’re not immersed in the Fox News cinematic universe. Democrats are largely tuning out the House’s lurid and shambolic investigatory hearings, which have so far featured photos of a naked Hunter Biden and a much-hyped star witness who turned out to be a fugitive indicted on charges of, among other things, arms trafficking and acting as an unregistered Chinese agent. Behind this circus, however, is something rather astonishing: A major part of the pretext for a possible impeachment of Joe Biden is exactly the same set of lies about Ukraine that helped convince Democrats to impeach Donald Trump the first time.

SPOILER: Click to show

Let’s recall why Trump tried to essentially extort Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky. The ex-president wanted Zelensky’s help creating the false impression that a bribery scheme led Biden, as vice president, to call on the Ukrainian government to fire its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin. In 2018, Rudy Giuliani dispatched two henchmen — both now convicted felons — to Ukraine to find proof that Biden had targeted Shokin to protect the energy company Burisma, which had put Biden’s son Hunter on its board.

Not surprisingly, Giuliani’s men came back empty-handed. “Throughout all these months of work, the extensive campaigns and networking done by Trump allies and Giuliani associates, including the enormously thorough interviews and assignments that I undertook, there has never been any evidence that Hunter or Joe Biden committed any crimes related to Ukrainian politics,” one of the two men, Lev Parnas, wrote in a recent letter to the Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee.

It’s true that Hunter Biden almost certainly owed his Burisma gig to his family name, a sleazy arrangement if not an illegal or uncommon one. (See, for example, the $2 billion investment Jared Kushner received from a Saudi investment fund over the objections of the fund’s own advisers, which found the operations of Kushner’s firm “unsatisfactory in all aspects.”) Republicans have demonstrated, if it wasn’t clear already, that Hunter is a deeply compromised figure who should never hold any position of public trust. But Joe Biden wasn’t acting in his son’s interest when he called for the removal of Shokin.

Shokin’s removal was a priority for Ukraine’s Western allies because he was, as The New York Times reported in 2016, “widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite.” Among those Shokin was alleged to have protected was none other than Mykola Zlochevsky, head of Burisma. The anti-corruption activist Daria Kaleniuk told The Intercept that Shokin was fired for his failure to investigate the “corruption and economic crimes” of the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who was deposed and fled to Russia, “and his close associates, including Zlochevsky.” It’s hard to see what Zlochevsky had to gain if Shokin were replaced by a prosecutor with more integrity.

Of course, that didn’t stop Trump from trying to manipulate Zelensky into opening an investigation into Biden, Shokin and Burisma, part of an effort to give weight to his smears of Biden. At the time of Trump’s first impeachment, those smears were repeatedly debunked. But now Republicans claim they have a reason for resurrecting them: House investigators recently discovered an F.B.I. document from 2020 that mentions a confidential source claiming to have heard Zlochevsky bragging about paying the Bidens to deal with Shokin. According to the document, this confidential source claimed Zlochevsky had 17 recordings to back him up.

As Raskin points out, though, Trump’s Justice Department already scrutinized these claims and evidently found nothing worth acting on, and even some Republicans who eagerly hyped the recordings have since conceded they may not exist. Impeaching Biden over this kind of hearsay would be like impeaching Trump over the Steele dossier.

Nevertheless, there is a sort of logic to House Republicans’ impeachment plans. Part of their motivation, Raskin argues, is an attempt to ensure that Trump isn’t the only 2024 candidate carrying the stigma of impeachment. More than that, by impeaching Biden for Burisma, they’d be signaling that Trump, as president, would have been justified in asking Zelensky to investigate Biden. Republicans may not be able to expunge Trump’s impeachments, which the ex-president is reportedly demanding. But they could retroactively try to excuse the behavior that led to the first one.

And since the Republican aim is getting revenge and sowing confusion, rather than actually proving high crimes and misdemeanors, they may be able to use the obscurity of the allegations — and the need to plunge down various rabbit holes to understand them — to their advantage. Rather than make a specific case, Republicans are trying to foment the cynical sense that scandal surrounds Biden just as it does Trump. The point is not to hold anyone accountable for actual wrongdoing, but to parody the process of trying.

The Coming Biden Impeachment Farce

Isn't it obvious- For being a Democrat

[billisonboard]

First, please indulge another personal story. It was my high school years in the early 70s and I was leaving the house dressed in my favorite old tattered plaid flannel shirt. My mother stopped me, reminded me she had told me to get rid of the shirt, that I was not allowed to wear it outside of the house again. I informed her I was going to wear it so she grabbed the front of it and yanked it ripping off buttons. I responded verbally so she went to slap my face. I grabbed her wrist and we locked eyes. Without words I let her know this would be the last time she would hit me. I let go of her wrist, she slapped me, and I walked out of the house. She never attempted to hit me again.

Why this story? I think that just like I had to let her take that final swing, we are going to have to endure conservative Republicans impeaching someone, most likely Biden but perhaps a cabinet secretary. There has to be a purging event for their pent-up (unreasonable) rage.

[grumpyhermit]

Because January 6th wasn't enough? I think you are deluding yourself if you think it will stop with an impeachment. It won't. They will keep going, and going, and going. Why would you expect the irrational to suddenly act rationally?

And sorry, if you want to let people whale on you to get out their aggression, go for it, but I'll be damned if I just sit back and let someone take out their rage on me go make themselves feel better/important. "Letting" the Republicans will not dull the rage of the Republican party, it will embolden it. 

[billisonboard]

No, January 6th was a different set of players so wasn't enough. I do realize what I am saying is pointless. People like you will join them in the dance to piledrive this country into the ground. However, I do need to try.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Jul 28, 2023 10:42:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

First, please indulge another personal story. It was my high school years in the early 70s and I was leaving the house dressed in my favorite old tattered plaid flannel shirt. My mother stopped me, reminded me she had told me to get rid of the shirt, that I was not allowed to wear it outside of the house again. I informed her I was going to wear it so she grabbed the front of it and yanked it ripping off buttons. I responded verbally so she went to slap my face. I grabbed her wrist and we locked eyes. Without words I let her know this would be the last time she would hit me. I let go of her wrist, she slapped me, and I walked out of the house. She never attempted to hit me again.

Why this story? I think that just like I had to let her take that final swing, we are going to have to endure conservative Republicans impeaching someone, most likely Biden but perhaps a cabinet secretary. There has to be a purging event for their pent-up (unreasonable) rage.

So you are saying that we have to fall over and let them do what they want just to satisfy some sort of quid pro quo?  That's a lousy idea, because where will it stop?  We also know that the GOP won't stop at 1, they'd try to purge everyone.  Letting them do this just plays into them.

[billisonboard]

Jul 28, 2023 15:49:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Jul 28, 2023 10:42:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

First, please indulge another personal story. It was my high school years in the early 70s and I was leaving the house dressed in my favorite old tattered plaid flannel shirt. My mother stopped me, reminded me she had told me to get rid of the shirt, that I was not allowed to wear it outside of the house again. I informed her I was going to wear it so she grabbed the front of it and yanked it ripping off buttons. I responded verbally so she went to slap my face. I grabbed her wrist and we locked eyes. Without words I let her know this would be the last time she would hit me. I let go of her wrist, she slapped me, and I walked out of the house. She never attempted to hit me again.

Why this story? I think that just like I had to let her take that final swing, we are going to have to endure conservative Republicans impeaching someone, most likely Biden but perhaps a cabinet secretary. There has to be a purging event for their pent-up (unreasonable) rage.

So you are saying that we have to fall over and let them do what they want just to satisfy some sort of quid pro quo?  That's a lousy idea, because where will it stop?  We also know that the GOP won't stop at 1, they'd try to purge everyone.  Letting them do this just plays into them.

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

[happyhoix]

Jul 28, 2023 17:17:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 28, 2023 15:49:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

So you are saying that we have to fall over and let them do what they want just to satisfy some sort of quid pro quo?  That's a lousy idea, because where will it stop?  We also know that the GOP won't stop at 1, they'd try to purge everyone.  Letting them do this just plays into them.

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

So the GOP is going to fill the time between now and November 2024 obstructing anything the Dems want to get passed while hauling people in front of committees to interrogate them and threaten everyone with impeachment, but not actually being able to impeach anyone because the less radical GOP members won’t get on the clown car of impeachment with them. 

Sounds like a stupid plan, but heck, people planning to run against them in the primaries or general elections can have fun creating campaign commercials outlining how useless these MAGA GOPers are. 

[tbop77]

I gained my political awakening during the Nixon administration.  I remember how upset I was that he got away free and clear and didn't get convicted and go to prison.  My dad told me that it would tear the country apart.  I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but those words come to mind over and over again.  

[djAdvocate]

Jul 29, 2023 10:00:09 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

I gained my political awakening during the Nixon administration.  I remember how upset I was that he got away free and clear and didn't get convicted and go to prison.  My dad told me that it would tear the country apart.  I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but those words come to mind over and over again.  

Nixon was not a threat to the republic.

i would argue that if Trump gets off, and can go back to public life, it is far more of a threat than if Nixon was convicted.

[grumpyhermit]

Jul 29, 2023 15:27:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 29, 2023 10:00:09 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

I gained my political awakening during the Nixon administration.  I remember how upset I was that he got away free and clear and didn't get convicted and go to prison.  My dad told me that it would tear the country apart.  I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but those words come to mind over and over again.  

Nixon was not a threat to the republic.

i would argue that if Trump gets off, and can go back to public life, it is far more of a threat than if Nixon was convicted.

For me the bigger issue isn't that he isn't going to face legal consequences equal to his crimes - i have long since given up the idea that the rich and powerful will be held to the same standard as the masses. 

The thing that truly disturbs me is that I think he could win. It's one thing to rail against the elite minority, but what do you do when its a preponderance of your fellow citizens? That's what disheartens me the most. How can you seriously look at that garbage can of a human and still support him? And not just support, but GLEEFULLY support. 

[billisonboard]

Jul 31, 2023 8:40:02 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Jul 29, 2023 15:27:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nixon was not a threat to the republic.

i would argue that if Trump gets off, and can go back to public life, it is far more of a threat than if Nixon was convicted.

For me the bigger issue isn't that he isn't going to face legal consequences equal to his crimes - i have long since given up the idea that the rich and powerful will be held to the same standard as the masses. 

The thing that truly disturbs me is that I think he could win. It's one thing to rail against the elite minority, but what do you do when its a preponderance of your fellow citizens? That's what disheartens me the most. How can you seriously look at that garbage can of a human and still support him? And not just support, but GLEEFULLY support. 

I was and am concerned that that overzealous shouts to lock him up and throw away the key are increasing the likelihood that he will be reelected.

[grumpyhermit]

I think he should face consequences, but I don't disagree with you on the fallout of the calls to hold him accountable. There are some topics we as a country are polarized past the point of rational debate, and he is definitely one of them. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2023 8:40:02 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Jul 29, 2023 15:27:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nixon was not a threat to the republic.

i would argue that if Trump gets off, and can go back to public life, it is far more of a threat than if Nixon was convicted.

For me the bigger issue isn't that he isn't going to face legal consequences equal to his crimes - i have long since given up the idea that the rich and powerful will be held to the same standard as the masses. 

The thing that truly disturbs me is that I think he could win. It's one thing to rail against the elite minority, but what do you do when its a preponderance of your fellow citizens? That's what disheartens me the most. How can you seriously look at that garbage can of a human and still support him? And not just support, but GLEEFULLY support. 

i think you are more cynical than me, which, given the fact that i went so far as to buy an apartment in Turkiye, is saying something.

[scgal]

Jul 28, 2023 17:17:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 28, 2023 15:49:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

So you are saying that we have to fall over and let them do what they want just to satisfy some sort of quid pro quo?  That's a lousy idea, because where will it stop?  We also know that the GOP won't stop at 1, they'd try to purge everyone.  Letting them do this just plays into them.

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

[pulmonarymd]

What's a little insurrection among friends. If Trump's actions and inactions on January 6 do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. then nothing is worthy of impeachment. 

[tbop77]

Aug 1, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 28, 2023 17:17:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

Seems I remember his own party, who had to run for their lives on J6 while he sat there and watched, stating shortly after he was responsible.  

Now it appears he is so upset he is not in office, he is threatening his own party.  How did that big red wave work out for him in the midterms?  


Former President Donald Trump however, is pressuring GOP lawmakers to put action behind their words and begin the impeachment process against Biden − or face electoral consequences.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/get-out-donald-trump-threatens-house-republicans-to-impeach-biden-or-risk-losing-their-jobs/ar-AA1eChPN

[djAdvocate]

Jul 28, 2023 21:42:20 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jul 28, 2023 17:17:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

So the GOP is going to fill the time between now and November 2024 obstructing anything the Dems want to get passed while hauling people in front of committees to interrogate them and threaten everyone with impeachment, but not actually being able to impeach anyone because the less radical GOP members won’t get on the clown car of impeachment with them. 

Sounds like a stupid plan, but heck, people planning to run against them in the primaries or general elections can have fun creating campaign commercials outlining how useless these MAGA GOPers are. 

i think we have shown that impeachment will not result in conviction EVEN IF the actual evidence of wrongdoing appears, bills.  so, what we have here is yet another effort to undermine criminal justice in the US.  since the judiciary has failed the GOP, they are resorting to the only gavel they have: the one in McCarthy's hand.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 1, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 28, 2023 17:17:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

he did nothing wrong after the 2020 election?  if he is convicted of crimes that were part of that impeachment, will you change your tune?

[Tennesseer]

Aug 1, 2023 8:37:34 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Aug 1, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

Seems I remember his own party, who had to run for their lives on J6 while he sat there and watched, stating shortly after he was responsible.  

Now it appears he is so upset he is not in office, he is threatening his own party.  How did that big red wave work out for him in the midterms?  


Former President Donald Trump however, is pressuring GOP lawmakers to put action behind their words and begin the impeachment process against Biden − or face electoral consequences.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/get-out-donald-trump-threatens-house-republicans-to-impeach-biden-or-risk-losing-their-jobs/ar-AA1eChPN

[billisonboard]

Aug 1, 2023 9:19:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 28, 2023 21:42:20 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

So the GOP is going to fill the time between now and November 2024 obstructing anything the Dems want to get passed while hauling people in front of committees to interrogate them and threaten everyone with impeachment, but not actually being able to impeach anyone because the less radical GOP members won’t get on the clown car of impeachment with them. 

Sounds like a stupid plan, but heck, people planning to run against them in the primaries or general elections can have fun creating campaign commercials outlining how useless these MAGA GOPers are. 

i think we have shown that impeachment will not result in conviction EVEN IF the actual evidence of wrongdoing appears, bills.  so, what we have here is yet another effort to undermine criminal justice in the US.  since the judiciary has failed the GOP, they are resorting to the only gavel they have: the one in McCarthy's hand.

I should have used criminal activity, a stronger term. I have to think that if it is documented that foreign money went into a Joe Biden controlled account, the Senate would convict. What I am hearing concerning Cabinet Secretaries and basically dereliction of duty charges, those don't have a chance. Bottom line though, I see this as petty political revenge game playing and not some larger conspiracy.

[dondubble]

Aug 1, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 28, 2023 17:17:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

So true. Extorting our ally in an attempt to find usable political dirt and an attempted coup d’etat are just a sneeze to people like you. And Hillary, Hillary, Hillary myth’s don’t forgive your criminal clown.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Aug 1, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 28, 2023 17:17:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

You don’t think extortion is a crime?  

I think it is utterly amazing how Trumpers can bend over backwards to excuse things that the common citizen could never get away with.  I guess you also believe that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it.  How heinous a crime does it have to be?  We already know you are willing to excuse crime, now how bad?  Murder?  We already know he steals.  

I guess as long as you aren’t the victim of the crime, all is good.

[scgal]

Aug 1, 2023 9:21:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 1, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

he did nothing wrong after the 2020 election?  if he is convicted of crimes that were part of that impeachment, will you change your tune?

convicted yes plea bargain no

[scgal]

Aug 1, 2023 12:12:30 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Aug 1, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

You don’t think extortion is a crime?  

I think it is utterly amazing how Trumpers can bend over backwards to excuse things that the common citizen could never get away with.  I guess you also believe that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it.  How heinous a crime does it have to be?  We already know you are willing to excuse crime, now how bad?  Murder?  We already know he steals.  

I guess as long as you aren’t the victim of the crime, all is good.

He didn't extort anyone. The phone call was perfectly fine for a sitting president

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 1, 2023 12:16:54 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 1, 2023 9:21:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he did nothing wrong after the 2020 election?  if he is convicted of crimes that were part of that impeachment, will you change your tune?

convicted yes plea bargain no

So people who agree to plea bargains aren't guilty? Why do they agree to them then? Do you give everyone who agrees to a plea bargain the benefit of the doubt, or is that reserved for only Trump?

ETA: A jury found that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll. A judge called him a rapist as a result. Is Donald Trump a rapist? A jury said so.

[tallguy]

Aug 1, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 28, 2023 17:17:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The House Republicans are going to impeach someone. That is a simple fact. Nothing can be done to stop it so "letting them" is not applicable. And unless some powerful evidence of actual wrongdoing appears, the Senate will not convict. That is a simple fact also. The House might even impeach multiple people though time left until January 2025 would make it tough. But still, the Senate isn't going to let them purge anyone. So our real choices are to fuel their rage with our rage or sadly shake our heads and ask them if they are finished yet.

This is how I view Trumps impeachments.They were a farce nothing burgers he did nothing wrong in either events. The dems were so upset that he was in office and not Hillary that they just had to do something. 

Fortunately for the rest of us, your track record of being correct on issues is worse than probably anyone else currently on this board, so....

[dondubble]

Aug 1, 2023 12:16:54 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 1, 2023 9:21:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he did nothing wrong after the 2020 election?  if he is convicted of crimes that were part of that impeachment, will you change your tune?

convicted yes plea bargain no

A plea bargain is a conviction. Our prosecutor friend does it every day to speed the process as the docket is still way behind from COVID. Don’t fool yourself.

[dondubble]

Aug 1, 2023 12:18:19 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 1, 2023 12:12:30 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

You don’t think extortion is a crime?  

I think it is utterly amazing how Trumpers can bend over backwards to excuse things that the common citizen could never get away with.  I guess you also believe that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it.  How heinous a crime does it have to be?  We already know you are willing to excuse crime, now how bad?  Murder?  We already know he steals.  

I guess as long as you aren’t the victim of the crime, all is good.

He didn't extort anyone. The phone call was perfectly fine for a sitting president

Says you, a Trump cultist. If those ‘in the know’ had not ignored their subpoenas and testified before the impeachment committee, he would have been convicted and removed from office.

But it’s good to know you support extorting an ally over a much needed defense package so he could get political dirt on his eventual competitor.

[billisonboard]

Aug 1, 2023 12:16:54 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 1, 2023 9:21:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he did nothing wrong after the 2020 election?  if he is convicted of crimes that were part of that impeachment, will you change your tune?

convicted yes plea bargain no

Working to follow this through. Generally a person accepts a plea bargain because they think that a jury will find them guilty if they go to trial and they will get a "bargain" of some sort in exchange for a "plea" of guilty. So if Trump pleads innocent then goes to trial and is convicted, you accept he committed a crime. But if he pleads guilty, precluding the opportunity for a jury to declare him guilty, then he is not guilty ofa crime. Is it that there are no "crimes" actually committed. People just do stuff. There are times when a guilty verdict is declared by a jury thus making a previous action a criminal offense. And if a person just says words like, "I did it"; that doesn't constitute a crime being committed. Am I close to your thinking scgal?