PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Republicans are going to say it's more than justified when they do it to Biden. Take a look around.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
OP/ED: Biden Will Be Impeached After The Mid Terms & WWYD (5/17/22 19:42 PST) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter GordonGekko
- Start date
moleculo
Footballguy
Except for the clear lack of anything remotely close to "high crimes or misdemeanors"
Dickies
Footballguy
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Ditto
Sheer and utter incompetence, not to mention Hunter dealings > firing a staff member, have sex with an intern, phoning Ukraine, speech at a rallyGerald Ford
"high crimes and misdemeanors” should be defined as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers them to be at a moment in history."
Dickies
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
Sure, maybe, but none of that is what I’m speaking too. The point I’m making is, Trump impeachments valid or not makes no difference. A faction of the GOP want Biden impeachment to happen because “you reap what you sow”. Even if you’re one who believes the Dems weaponized impeachments for political gain wanting your side to do it too makes zero sense. It’s revengeful, spiteful and only drags the country down further. One should never want any of those things for their party.
Dickies
Footballguy
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I don't want them to, but will certainly enjoy the reactions if they do.
moleculo
Footballguy
Nah. The Constitution has a mechanism for incompetence - the 25th amendment.
Incompetence is not a high crime, by any stretch. It's not even a misdemeanor.
Dickies
Footballguy
I have him on ignore and have no desire to reveal an incoherent wall of text or read the 5+ articles he linked.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
The house can and gets to decide that.
Weird you're posting in his thread, explains the not understanding the discussion part though.
moleculo
Footballguy
They do, and I'm quite sure they will. I'm well aware that impeachment is a political act, so I have no doubt it's coming. Doesn't make it right.
The next time I see country over party from the GOP House will be the first.
Last edited by a moderator:
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
the same results Democrats got - Biden will forever have it on his record, the US people will see a sitting and impeached President, it'll waste valuable time/resources ........ Democrats did that twice on Trump, if GOP does it only once on Biden the GOP will still be doing better
I DO agree with you - but if you didn't fight hard to stop the silly impeachments on Trump its real hard to take the high road when talking impeachment on Biden.
moleculo
Footballguy
Believe me, GOP's adherence to party over country became crystal clear to me probably 10 years ago.I'm glad it's finally sinking in.
dkp993
Footballguy
No it’s not. I’m not keeping score nor claiming a “win” for “my side”. At some point we need to say enough is enough. I can say that now regardless of how hard I did or didn’t fight before. I’m not (nor should anyone be) obligated to wait for 2 more GOP impeachments to try and level some imaginary scoreboard before I can say this is bad for our country. In fact the GOP can win back independents like me by being the ones to bring back normalcy.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
I can't imagine the Republicans impeaching Biden just to have Kamala Harris take over. That's like going from bad to worse.
dkp993
Footballguy
You’re missing the 12d chess play. After Biden Kamala would also be immediately impeached too, because she was in charge of the border and thus to blame, then the newly named speaker of the house will be installed in the WH. That newly named Speaker? You guessed it…… Ivanka Trump.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Good point. If you get Biden for incompetence you might as well just skip right over Kamala and got to the speaker, who wont be Pelosi anymore.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
This is really the most fascinating aspect of this entire situation.
So this won't just be a legal matter, but also fought in the Court of Public Opinion. That means the best path to unseat Biden is with Afghanistan. The total outcome is unlikely because the GOP, despite a Red Tornado in the Mid Terms, won't likely get that many new seats in the Senate.
Susan Rice and Kamala Harris outright despise each other. By clearing the deck of Rice, Ron Klain, Jennifer Dillon, and Antony Blinken, that takes out the day to day threats to her new "regime". That would require a full separation from Obama. Which at this point, why not? It's not like Harris has anything to lose.
Gina Raimondo and Pete Buttigieg are fringe contenders for 2024 so they'd be picked off as well. Mayorkas would stay as a sin eater to be a counter narrative sponge for two years.
Katherine Tai and Shalanda Young of OMB are the wild cards there. They along with Merrick Garland are positioned to cut a deal with Harris.
Where this gets interesting is if John Fetterman or Amy Klobuchar become the new VPOTUS. Fetterman is close to impossible to "cancel" Klobuchar can actually run the country. Klobuchar is the only practical "contender" on the projectible 2024 POTUS contender list that has any clue at all about practical public administration and how to execute public policy on the ground. If Klobuchar is de-facto running the country, you'd see some semblance of functional governance again. Unfortunately or fortunately, she is also the only "brand name" on Team Blue who is a straight out warhawk.
I think it would be less about where Kamala Harris is positioned and more about what happens to Fetterman and Klobuchar in the fallout.
I guess it's like Inspector Gadget. Where is Penny in the equation? That's what's going to keep people from getting killed.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
If Biden isn't impeached will you really say that Democrats are just scummy for doing what they did and Republicans have a much higher moral ground ?
I mean will it REALLY impact how you view the two parties ?
(HULK)
(Smash)
Without giving our personal thoughts on Trump's guilt in these situations, the things he was impeached for, do people not universally agree that we don't want our President to:
Some people in this thread are saying the Trump impeachments were for BS reasons and politically motivated... but IF he did these things, should he not have been removed from office? In my mind, these are incredibly serious charges and anyone who did do them shouldn't be President.
- Solicit foreign interference in US elections
- Obstruct justice
- Incite an insurrection
Some people in this thread are saying the Trump impeachments were for BS reasons and politically motivated... but IF he did these things, should he not have been removed from office? In my mind, these are incredibly serious charges and anyone who did do them shouldn't be President.
Last edited by a moderator:
quick-hands
Footballguy
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Direct Headline: How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance
Many Democrats, including members of Congress, refused to accept Trump as the legitimate president when he was elected and refused to do so as rioting broke out at the inauguration. Many of the same members have used the same type of rhetoric to “take back the country” and “fight for the country.” The concern is that this impeachment will not only create precedent for an expedited pathway of “snap impeachments” but allow future Congresses to impeach presidents for actions of their supporters. The point of this column is to call for greater caution and deliberation before we take this step to consider the basis and implications of this impeachment....Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his speech to supporters before the Jan. 6 rioting at the U.S. Capitol. Like many, I condemned that speech as it was still being given, calling it reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. However, Trump’s speech does not meet the definition of incitement under the U.S. criminal code. Indeed, it would be considered protected speech by the Supreme Court.....
The governing legal standard for violent speech is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio. As a free speech advocate, I have long criticized that 1969 case and what I consider its dangerously vague standard. However, even Brandenburg would treat Trump’s speech as protected by the First Amendment. Under that case, the government can criminalize speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”....There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely....Thus, Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.....
Jonathan Turley January 11, 2021
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/11/how-a-snap-impeachment-can-shatter-our-constitutional-balance/
Direct Headline: 'Any president' could be impeached under Dem precedent, Turley warns
The Democrats' "snap impeachment" effort on the basis of speech alone sets a dangerous precedent that would allow for the impeachment of "any president" in the future, warns constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley....
By Bob Unruh January 11, 2021 at 11:11am
https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/president-impeached-dem-precedent-turley-warns/
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/#tab-opinion-1948083
********
Jonathan Turley pointed out not long after the 2020 election cycle that Trump's 2nd impeachment would set a dangerous path for the future with impeachments.
1) While Trump is an exhausting 4th rate failed reality TV star, grifter and narcissist, that doesn't mean the principles of law can just be set on fire because half of America despised him. There are deep Constitutional and legal questions regarding both of his impeachments.
2) There is apparently an automatic assumption that Biden has done nothing in the past year and a half to warrant impeachment. It's just immediately written off by the radical leftists here without any depth and discussion and greater context. The possibility exists that the GOP will push a partisan "payback" impeachment once they retake Congress in the Mid Terms AND Biden also took actions that warrant actual impeachment. Just because the GOP's intent may be wrong in this doesn't change the reality that Biden can't be absolved as our Commander In Chief and the de facto leader of the entire free world just for that alone.
3) I am the only lawyer in the PSF who has brought up Brandenburg. The only one. Why? Because I have such a desire to mount a stellar defense of Trump? I'm no Trump fan. No one here can ever accuse me of that. But I find it critical to point out the actual PRINCIPLE OF LAW and the need to defend it in order to defend our Republic, whether or not it's Trump or anyone else's impeachment in the current national daily media cycle.
A blind partisan attack via the impeachment process on Biden is not good for our country. BUT A COMPLETELY BLIND TRIBALIST DEFENSE OF BIDEN AGAINST IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT REAL DISCUSSION/INVESTIGATION/CONTEXT IS ALSO NOT GOOD FOR OUR REPUBLIC.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Do we want Harris pulling the puppet strings in the Ukraine? I have a problem with that.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
VIDEO: NO CRIMES HERE: Law Professor Outlines Reasons For NO IMPEACHMENT For President Trump Dec 4, 2019
House Republicans delivered a point-by-point rebuttal Monday to Democrats’ impeachment efforts, claiming in their own report that the evidence collected in the inquiry to date does not support the accusations leveled against President Trump -- or rise to the level of removal from office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNpVc7J8kC8
VIDEO: WATCH: Republican counsel’s full questioning of legal experts | Trump impeachment hearings Dec 4, 2019 PBS NewsHour
During his questioning of legal experts, Republican counsel Paul Taylor evoked Alexander Hamilton’s concerns over impeachments, favoring the interests of one political party over the other. Taylor asked Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, whether Hamilton predicted a “real danger here of hyperpartisan impeachments.” Turley said yes, adding that it was notable that there wasn’t a “slew of impeachments” during the framers’ time. “And I think that’s a lesson that can be taken from that period, that the framers created a standard that would not be endlessly fluid and flexible,” Turley said. “And that standard has kept us from impeachments despite periods in which we have really despised each other.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pj1k3CTpss
*****
Were both of Trump's impeachments LEGALLY JUSTIFIED? Under the actual principles of law in this country? Is there a practical Constitutional basis to support one or both of them?
How does this apply with Biden?
You can't set a hyper aggressive standard with a low bar and not expect that to be used against you when power eventually changes hands. One of our Founders, Alexander Hamilton pulled no punches in assessing the long term threat of such to our Republic. I'm not assessing the perceived right or wrong of it in terms of outcomes that some zealots want, as much as the practical nature of creating the environment for all out non stop fight with impeachment as a partisan weapon. It's the same thing as Biden's Disinformation Board. If it was able to get up and running ( fortunately popular outcry and criticism shut it down), then what would happen with it when the GOP took back the White House?
An actual Constitutional defense of Trump during impeachment is NOT just a defense of Trump as an individual, it's also a defense of our very Constitution itself and the principles that guide it.
You can't set the bear trap then claim the moral high ground and express anger and resentment when someone else resets that bear trap just for you.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
They don't want Biden gone, and they know he won't be removed. They just want to damage him and don't care about the damage to the country.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
If babies start dieing for lack of formula you'd get bipartisan and Senate convicted impeachment.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
VIDEO: Brandenburg v. Ohio Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained Jul 16, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vbjj9wJCD4
*****
What Turley is saying, regarding impeachment as a partisan weapon, is that if a majority of people don't like the law in place, then there is a formal process to change the law. What you don't do is decide the law doesn't count in some specific instance against a specific person or situation because you think that's true "justice"
What they teach in the first year of law school, besides Brandenburg and Schenck ( the "clear and present danger" test) is the reality that when you walk into the court, you are only sure to get the law, you may or may not get justice. The concepts of law and justice are completely different.
Brandenburg, as applied to Trump's 2nd impeachment, would be an interesting overall legal and political deep discussion here, but it would never happen. Most of the lawyers here lean hard left, so why discuss the actual law and admit it would very difficult to have Trump meet all three elements of the precedent? Another thing is the legal field is very wide, meaning many of the lawyers here will likely specialize in something other than Constitutional law, and why admit that? Part of the "game" of the legal profession is convincing the average citizen that you know more than you do, which nearly all lawyers don't. And let's face it, some of them won't like the prospect of having a geriatric like myself eating them alive.
So the answer Godsbrother, if the goal is to "Be Better", is to formally use the process in place to change the law instead of subverting the principle of law and gutting our Constitution because it's useful for a tribalist hit job. If that's true for Joe Biden, it has to also be true for Donald Trump. You'll say that's not fair. And you know what? You are probably right. It's not fair. But the application of law is often not fair. As stated, the law is not justice. But before you decide to slam fist some more Destroy The Cheeto At All Costs here, consider that it's the same principles of law that I'm discussing that prevented Mike Pence from just showing up and saying, "No, no, that doesn't count, these votes don't count, we are going to do this in the exact way I just made up right now" You can't have the principle of law just when it suits the benefit of your personal political tribe. But that's what you really want, you desperately want standard that's useful to you without accepting that standard is a double edged sword, which is why you appear to consistently unload low value logical fallacy bombing on everyone with impeachment.
Ask how one can change the law. And how you can be a part of it. That's productive. Screaming for justice without regard for the actual law is just trying to ice skate uphill. Your rage against Trump doesn't empower you, it just lets everyone around you know you are actually powerless. Find the person you can never criticize, that's real power.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
FairWarning
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Pretty low bar for impeachment if we are going for incompetence now. Which president wouldn't get impeached based on those grounds?
moleculo
Footballguy
Any president from the same party as the house majority. That's it. Actual competence is irrelevant because partisan hacks gonna hack.
Expect auto impeachment of any cross-party president moving forward.
dkp993
Footballguy
Yes, And I’m not saying they should have passed it. But the optics of it are exactly that.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
John Q. Public. It’s already been spun everywhere that the nearly 200 house members voted to shot down aid for Formula in a time of need.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
That doesnt have anything to do with:
I suspect that if that prediction came to pass the congresspeople who know what's in the bill could explain the way they voted, both for the bill and impeachment. Your post:
Makes no sense in that regard.
dkp993
Footballguy
I think where we are differing is in how much we think the average person is engaged in the details. The people who are listening to the explanation you’re say would come are not the people I’m referring too. Most are reading headlines and going about their day imo. I also think politicians are acutely aware of that, especially those that aren’t locked into their seats.
Similar threads
