If the Republicans take back the house should they impeach Biden?

[BirdinHand]

As for my answer...maybe.

The only topic I would consider even REMOTELY a possibility/something that should be considered at this point is the Afghanistan withdrawal. If Biden pulls anything else at that level of f*ck up militarily? Then, yes...he needs to be immediately impeached. And considering the state of the world at this juncture? It is within the realm of possibility and hence my "maybe"

 

[jpevans]

Where did you disprove that the DNC did not pay for the Steele Dossier? I've repeated that this is the primary dirty trick that concerns me, so how you could miss that, I cannot imagine.

The dirty trick was not to claim Russia originated the hacks; it was to make accusations of Trump's collusion with Russia without evidence. Again, this was clearly stated.

The Russians have always been willing to use every tactic to sow discord. That they attacked the DNC as well as the voting records is just more evidence of that, and nothing more.

The Russians appeared to assist Trump because they helped sow division in American politics. It would not be surprising to learn that Russian intelligence projected Trump's legitimate win, knew that Dems would go insane, and realized exactly how they could play the Mad Libs to undermine the country-- which they did.

I stated earlier that Trump's people met with Russia to get dirt on the Dems. This is not illegal, or the DNC would be in jail for their use of the illicit Steele Dossier. Sad that you really can't keep track of the argument.

I consider a balanced view of the way politicians attack each other to be the hallmark of probity. And to repeat, the DNC's lies were far more broadly deceitful than any of Trump's. Many conservatives learned to take Trump's pronouncements with a grain of salt, like the idea of the Ukrainian server. But you Mad Libs believe every fairy tale the DNC tells you, without realistic evaluation.

Can you cite where Hillary used any intel from the “raw data” that was the Steele, Christopher Steele dossier.

 

[jpevans]

I agree impeaching Biden would make Republicans look petty and vindictive, just as impeaching Trump (twice) made the Democrats look petty and vindictive.

Actually many people think that it made the Senate R’s look petty & inAmerican.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can you cite where Hillary used any intel from the “raw data” that was the Steele, Christopher Steele dossier.

Cite where I specifically spoke of Hillary rather than the DNC.

It's possible HC never said a word about the Dossier to the MSM. Someone sure did though. Could it be someone affiliated with the DNC? "Well, MAYBE."

 

[Blue Dog]

The GOP will absolutely impeach President Biden regardless of whether they should or shouldn’t.

The HoR will impeach knowing they can, while the Senate knows the votes will not be there to convict.

Grand political theater for all to see…

 

[jpevans]

Cite where I specifically spoke of Hillary rather than the DNC.

It's possible HC never said a word about the Dossier to the MSM. Someone sure did though. Could it be someone affiliated with the DNC? "Well, MAYBE."

Like John McCain, maybe.

 

[Slyfox696]

Trump asked Zelensky for an investigation of anything the Dems did on their turf as pushback against the Russian Hoax.

That's stupid. And also wrong.

If the Dems had not paid for the Steele Dossier in order to sell the Russian Hoax

That's stupid. And also wrong.

, and if they had not accused Trump of collusion without evidence

You literally admitted there was evidence. Stop posting lies.

then Trump probably would not have bothered.

That's stupid. And also wrong.

If the request was a "favor" to anyone, it would have been a favor to the American people, as I've already said.

What Trump asked did nothing to benefit Americans.

Just like Mueller, you have zero evidence that Trump colluded with Russia for the specific charge of trying to influence the 2016 election.

Again, Don Jr. literally admitted to it.

You also have failed to articulate any reason why it would be wrong for Trump to seek dirt on his political opponents but not wrong for the DNC.

Why is it wrong for me to rob a bank to make money when I see you getting a paycheck from your job?

You also have no proof that anything conspiratorial took place in the meetings.

They literally met for the expressed purpose of having the Russian government help the Trump campaign by giving them information on Clinton.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

You would be the expert on stupid things, but I've not said anything to equal you in the stupidity department.

Either it is stupid or deliberately dishonest. Which is it?

Collusion has a more specific meaning that what you're giving it. Do some research.

No, it does not. I suggest YOU do research.

Trump campaign and Russians had numerous contacts and were working together. Everyone knows this so why you're choosing to post lies about it, I don't know.

You also lack all qualifications for honesty.

You admit collusion while claiming no collusion happened. Nothing you've said has been remotely factual. You probably aren't a good judge of honesty.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you...what is your primary language? Because based on your writing, I'm guessing it is not English.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's stupid. And also wrong.

That's stupid. And also wrong.

You literally admitted there was evidence. Stop posting lies.

That's stupid. And also wrong.

What Trump asked did nothing to benefit Americans.

Again, Don Jr. literally admitted to it.

Why is it wrong for me to rob a bank to make money when I see you getting a paycheck from your job?

They literally met for the expressed purpose of having the Russian government help the Trump campaign by giving them information on Clinton.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

Either it is stupid or deliberately dishonest. Which is it?

No, it does not. I suggest YOU do research.

Trump campaign and Russians had numerous contacts and were working together. Everyone knows this so why you're choosing to post lies about it, I don't know.

You admit collusion while claiming no collusion happened. Nothing you've said has been remotely factual. You probably aren't a good judge of honesty.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you...what is your primary language? Because based on your writing, I'm guessing it is not English.

Everything you called stupid is sensible, so your counters are the actual stupidities.

I said there was evidence that Trump’s people met with Russians to get the dirt on the filthy DNC. That’s not collusion. Trump even stated outright that he would accept information from foreign powers, which means that he unlike you knew that did not merit the label of collusion.

I see that the question about moral equivalence regarding dirt-seeking flew right over your head. Not sure if that stems from stupidity or partisan dishonesty. Probably both.

 

[Ouroboros]

Like John McCain, maybe.

So you can’t cite a quote in which I specifically spoke of Hilary? Way to dodge.

Did John McCain pay for the Dossier?

 

[RealityNow]

Sadly, that's how (SOME) right wing confederate groomed conservative republican white people think... "History is full SUCH "attack mentality". These type of right wing confederate groomed conservative republican white people, have no business in any role of Government.

 

[Indydave]

they should not but they probably will if it comes about........our government is no longer a government......it's a Fox news circle jerk because they know all they have to do is bleat and bray about discrimination or religious freedom or white/black supremacy or guns or gays and the mass of fools will fall in line and support them......

the dems are cowards and the repubs are just plain morons.....and they are what the voters wanted and voted for

 

[Slyfox696]

I said there was evidence that Trump’s people met with Russians to get the dirt on the filthy DNC. That’s not collusion.

"Hey, Trump and Russia were working together in secret, but that doesn't mean they were colluding!"

That's literally what you just said. Which means you either don't know what the word "collusion" means or you're posting obvious lies hoping people won't notice.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Hey, Trump and Russia were working together in secret, but that doesn't mean they were colluding!"

That's literally what you just said. Which means you either don't know what the word "collusion" means or you're posting obvious lies hoping people won't notice.

Collusion is defined here for you here since you have no clue as to what it is:

“One of the most commonly used provisions of the U.S. Code, 18 USC §371, makes it a federal crime for two or more people to conspire ‘to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose,'” Schulhofer told us via email. “Agreeing (colluding) with someone for a perfectly lawful purpose, like arranging a game of golf or tennis, is not a crime. But colluding with the Russians, i.e. agreeing to cooperate, encourage or assist them in any way in pursuing anything they were doing that was illegal, is most certainly a crime.”

That's from a legal expert who's not particularly friendly to Trump, BTW.

So where is your proof that any of the things you claim to be collusion are literally illegal? Which laws do you THINK were broken?

 

[TrumpTalibanSteaks]

'No question' a Republican House will impeach Joe Biden: CNN legal analyst

During a Monday morning appearance on CNN's "New Day," legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told host Brianna Keilar that he has no doubt in his mind that a Republican-majority House of Representatives will attempt to impeach President Joe Biden if they take control after the midterm election.As part of...

www.rawstory.com

Many on the Right see Trump's impeachment as unfair persecution of an innocent man.

Given that they take back the House, should they impeach Biden for retribution?

I hope they do. I want the GOP, if it gets power, to do all the things they want to do. I want the country to experience full blast what the GOP has to offer.

 

[The flaming lib]

The Rs need to impeach him if for no other reason then to show the dims that bogus impeachments on their part will be
followed up with real impeachments for their dims. Hopefully this will make them think twice but I doubt it.

 

[vesper]

At this time, I do not see Republicans impeaching Biden. But members of his cabinet may be on the chopping block. I do see them holding hearings.


They will work on legislation and get it passed in Congress, but Biden will never sign it into law. But they will be able to go to the American people and say they tried. And G-d willing, what Biden refused to sign into law, the next Republican President in 2024 will sign the legislation into law within the first 24 hours in office.

They will be able to stop feckless leftist policies getting passed. The party on the left will be over.

 

[Slyfox696]

Collusion is defined here for you here since you have no clue as to what it is:

I'm well aware what the definition is...did you actually read your own source?

That's from a legal expert who's not particularly friendly to Trump, BTW.

Here's what he said:

"Stephen Schulhofer, a law professor at New York University, said the act of collusion can be either benign or criminal, depending on the circumstance.

...

Or, as Sklansky told us, “Whether it is a crime depends on what you are colluding about.”

In other words, you're trying to claim that because they weren't charged with a crime of conspiracy, they didn't collude. But A) that's stupid and B) that's not what your source is saying.

So now that you've provided a source which says you're wrong and I'm right, will you admit collusion happened?

So where is your proof that any of the things you claim to be collusion are literally illegal? Which laws do you THINK were broken?

"the act of collusion can be EITHER benign or criminal"...in other words, whether anyone was charged with a crime is irrelevant in determining if collusion occurred. Is it possible that collusion is potentially criminal? Yes. Is collusion only evident when it is criminal? No.

I swear Trump defenders say the stupidest things. Trump and Russia colluded. There's no disputing this.

 

[Slyfox696]

At this time, I do not see Republicans impeaching Biden. But members of his cabinet may be on the chopping block. I do see them holding hearings.

For?

See, when Republicans say they are going to impeach because *we'll make up a reason here*, it kind of undermines any legitimacy.

 

[The Mark]

'No question' a Republican House will impeach Joe Biden: CNN legal analyst

During a Monday morning appearance on CNN's "New Day," legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told host Brianna Keilar that he has no doubt in his mind that a Republican-majority House of Representatives will attempt to impeach President Joe Biden if they take control after the midterm election.As part of...

www.rawstory.com

Many on the Right see Trump's impeachment as unfair persecution of an innocent man.

Given that they take back the House, should they impeach Biden for retribution?

I voted no awhile back, but thinking about it a bit, I want to add a caveat.
"No, unless he does something worthy of impeachment."

Of course, I'm fully aware that "something worthy" has a wide range of possible interpretations.
So I'll put it a different way: "Not just because Trump was impeached."

Even if Republicans for some reason followed this guideline, it likely would not stop attempts to impeach him based on reasons that are even less concrete than Trump's 1st impeachment.

I have yet to find a definitive explanation or definition of what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means, in the impeachment clause of the constitution.
The one that makes the most sense to me is for the "Misdemeanors" term to include "abuse of power" and "breach of public trust", but by those definitions I suspect at least 50% of congress and the senate would need to be impeached.

Maybe that's how it should be used, but with how much of a tradition using public office to improve one's private situation has become, it'd wipe out most of both main parties.

And they're the ones who would have to vote for each and every impeachment, so that ain't gonna happen unless we somehow manage to elect enough people who resist the culture in Congress long enough to overturn the tradition.

If I had my way there would be a primary challenger for every incumbent in every election, if only to ensure they had to either debate their positions or hide.

 

[Court Jester]

I say no. If Republican are put back in power, then it will be because the voters want them to carry the ball FORWARD. Don't be like the dems, and don't be like the stupid Republicans who wasted time going after Bill Clinton for a BJ. Heck, can you blame the man? Have you seen his awful wife?

We need to move the nation forward, and far from the HELL which the democrats have taken is very short order. Time to get to work.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm well aware what the definition is...did you actually read your own source?

Here's what he said:

"Stephen Schulhofer, a law professor at New York University, said the act of collusion can be either benign or criminal, depending on the circumstance.

...

Or, as Sklansky told us, “Whether it is a crime depends on what you are colluding about.”

In other words, you're trying to claim that because they weren't charged with a crime of conspiracy, they didn't collude. But A) that's stupid and B) that's not what your source is saying.

So now that you've provided a source which says you're wrong and I'm right, will you admit collusion happened?

"the act of collusion can be EITHER benign or criminal"...in other words, whether anyone was charged with a crime is irrelevant in determining if collusion occurred. Is it possible that collusion is potentially criminal? Yes. Is collusion only evident when it is criminal? No.

I swear Trump defenders say the stupidest things. Trump and Russia colluded. There's no disputing this.

You didn’t answer my question. What was the crime you think Trump committed, given that you have no evidence that Trump plotted to do any of the things Dems accused him of doing? Does evidence matter at all in your partisan world?

The rest of your post is just deflection and empty rhetoric.

 

[Slyfox696]

You didn’t answer my question.

I was busy correcting the false things you were saying.

What was the crime you think Trump committed

This is an irrelevant question. I've already told you that.

We're talking about whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. As your own source said, actions do not have to be criminally charged to be collusion. You admit Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner secretly met with Russian officials to get information on Clinton.

That is collusion.

given that you have no evidence that Trump plotted to do any of the things Dems accused him of doing? Does evidence matter at all in your partisan world?

The evidence shows copious amounts of collusion. Which is what we're discussing.

The rest of your post is just deflection and empty rhetoric.

The rest of my post is citing YOUR source and showing you how you are wrong using YOUR source.

 

[Ouroboros]

I was busy correcting the false things you were saying.

This is an irrelevant question. I've already told you that.

We're talking about whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. As your own source said, actions do not have to be criminally charged to be collusion. You admit Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner secretly met with Russian officials to get information on Clinton.

That is collusion.

The evidence shows copious amounts of collusion. Which is what we're discussing.

The rest of my post is citing YOUR source and showing you how you are wrong using YOUR source.

Nope, you’ve been insisting that Trump was guilty of criminal collusion. You never made any distinctions about benign collusion until I presented evidence for that distinction. So up that point I correctly pointed out that Trump was not guilty of the collusion of which you accused him— your only specific allegation being that Trump had attempted to foment a phony investigation.

You had no evidence for then and you have none now. So that answers my question as to whether evidence matters at all in your partisan world.

Or did you have other examples of criminal collusion you forgot to specify?

 

[Slyfox696]

Nope, you’ve been insisting that Trump was guilty of criminal collusion.

This comment is a lie. I never said "criminal collusion", nor did I ever hint at it. Why are you posting lies?

All I've said is that there was collusion. Which there was. I'm guessing the fact you're now posting obvious lies about what I said shows that you know I'm right and you were wrong.

You never made any distinctions about benign collusion

I never said anything about criminal collusion at all.

So up that point I correctly pointed out that Trump was not guilty of the collusion of which you accused him

Are you really trying to knock down a strawman based on YOUR false statements?

— your only specific allegation being that Trump had attempted to foment a phony investigation.

Do you even know what conversation we are having?

Or did you have other examples of criminal collusion you forgot to specify?

Why are you posting obvious lies about my position? My entire position has simply been that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Which they did. If you were ignorant of the fact that collusion was not only criminal in nature, then that's a you problem. But it doesn't change the fact I've been right the entire time and I've exposed you as either being incredibly ignorant to the definition of the word "collusion" or outright posting lies about the actions of the Trump campaign.

So, which is it? Were you ignorant or were you posting lies?

 

[vesper]

For?

See, when Republicans say they are going to impeach because *we'll make up a reason here*, it kind of undermines any legitimacy.

Excuse me, I have not heard a Republican in Congress state they were going to impeach anyone. However, I do see it possible for members of Biden's administration where hearings will be held that could result in them being impeached.