So When Do REPUBS IMPEACH BIDEN?

Doesn't matter it's not going to happen whether it's five or fifty.

 

Except we won't have the entirety of the alphabet soup media the telling everyone that still listens to the lying bastards how brave Republicans are for voting to impeach Biden.

 

Well, the problem now is if McCarthy is the speaker, he won't have the votes. In fact, it will be tough to do an agenda if he doesn't have full support because the most he will have is 219, that gives him only 3 votes as headroom, he'll have to do a lot of horsetrading as moderate congresspersons will want demands met in exchange for votes, as the projections stand now. So, there will be moderates who won't want to impeach, and so it will die on the grapevine, so to speak. For him to do as he pleased, he'd need something like 240 seats, giving him so much headroom he wouldn't have to horse trade to get an extreme agenda through. On the stuff most of his caucus supports, he won't have a problem, but on things like impeaching and investigations, he will. For bills, it had better be a bipartisan bill, or it is DOA at the senate. Looks like we are going to have 51 seats.

 

Sarcasm normally depends on body language which obviously isn't present in print. It might be obvious to anyone who knows you, but it isn't to those who don't know you.

Whenever I use sarcasm, I use the ^sarcastrophe^ punctuation to highlight it. If you can use them, it will be helpful for the proper interpretation.

but, it's a good idea to avoid sarcasm in print, anyway.

 

I've said what we can do many times. They don't like my solutions because it means they'll end up with less because poor people get more.

 

This help...?



And...

• Over the past two years, homicides and gun assaults trended upward while most property crimes receded. In the first half of 2022, crime patterns partially reversed: in particular, homicides and gun assaults declined while property crimes rose.
• The number of homicides declined by 2% in the first half of 2022 compared to the first half of 2021 (a decrease of 54 homicides). While this reduction is heartening, the homicide rate is still 39% higher than it was during the first half of 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic.
• The number of gun assaults dropped by 6% in the first half of 2022, but this trend is based on data from just 12 cities and should be viewed with caution.
• Aggravated assaults (+4%) and robberies (+19%) increased in the first half of 2022 compared to the first half of 2021.
• Domestic violence incidents decreased by 5% between the first half of 2021 and the first half of 2022. This result is based on just 12 cities studied and should be viewed with caution.
• Residential burglaries (+6%), nonresidential burglaries (+8%), larcenies (+20%), and motor vehicle thefts (+15%) all increased in the first half of 2022 compared to the first six months of 2021.
• Drug offenses dropped by 7% in the first half of 2022 over the first half of 2021.

https://counciloncj.org/mid-year-2022-crime-trends/

 

This only exposes the absurdity of pretending Joe said this when Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and was recorded doing pretty much the same thing, although the Orange Oaf knew how many votes he needed.

 

I'm pretty sure they weighed in. Confirmation hearings, for the most part, are a dog and pony show serving one purpose -- campaigning points.

 

There is a kernel of accuracy here but most is turned around. A person does not recuse himself "from allowing" somebody else to do something. Sessions recused only himself from anything to do with the campaign, period. Sessions recusal did not affect the DOJ one iota. Secondly the GOP did not appoint Mueller, the acting AG did. The GOP can never appoint a special counsel, nor can it ever get rid of one. When Sessions recused himself he did not suggest, confirm, or deny and DOJ action.

 

I'm not aware of any high crime Biden has committed although blackmailing a foreign country might be -- though it would be quite a stretch. IMO Clinton's crimes were not High, though admittedly the penalties for perjury are pretty steep. I am speaking for myself, not for the GOP. Nor am I explaining the GOP or anybody else.

 

Republicans, like every other group, are not homogeneous. When I say Republicans will not stop social security or medicare I know full well there are likely a few individual Republicans out there who think and blab otherwise. Republicans and Trump did try to kill Obamacare, but it is not Medicare. In fact Obamacare was designed to kill off about a third of Medicare called Medicare Advantage.

 

Ridiculous. The Constitution is far from clear on the matter. As RBG pointed out, the right to an abortion is grounded in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, you may disagree with that contention but it is a legit interpretation.

What Alito Gets Wrong About the History of Abortion in America
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/02/alitos-anti-roe-argument-wrong-00036174

 

Feel free to quote Republicans saying they plan to cut Social Security for current recipients. And no calling for Congressional review every five years by one Republican is not calling for cutting SS.

 

None of this clarifies what the framers meant by "high." Just because it is political doesn't make it high just as it being criminal doesn't make it high, either. Or just because it violates some public trust does not make it high, either. The framers clearly meant "high" to be an extremely high bar to overcome the generally low bar for impeachment that England had. Same could be said for treason.

Constitutionally high does not mean anything the House wants it to mean. But in practice it does as there is no arbiter that could keep congress in line, so they can do and have done -- in probably every instance so far IMO -- whatever they wish without any constitutional restraints.

 

Go figure!

 

For the second time today, congress, of any type, cannot name, appoint, or dismiss any special prosecutor.

 

I certainly agree that others, including scholars, have opposing opinions and interpretations. Falling back on the amorphous 14th amendment -- the catch all for many SCOTUS personal opinion rulings -- doesn't make it clearer at all.

 

Well the Republican caucus will likely be ungovernable, and (presumably) McCarthy, will be Boehner 2.0. That does not mean that they will never speak with one voice. It will depend on the issue, and when there is division within the Republican ranks. I have yet to see any Republican lawmakers speaking out against impeaching Biden, have you? Hence, I don't know how you can be so certain, "there are moderates who won't want to impeach." To be clear, I am not saying that I think that won't be the case; I'm saying that this will be dependent on, for one thing, the new Republican members to the House, and I, personally, am not so familiar even with the opinions of the current, Republican House members, to be able to predict their views on this. It would be surprising, if you were that well acquainted, even though not all the House races have yet been decided.

IOW, this seems to be only your speculation. It may well turn out to be correct. There are numerous Republicans, in both chambers, however, who are speaking as if impeaching Biden is expected of them, by their voters. Rep. Matt Gaetz (on Steve Bannon's podcast), in fact, ridiculed those in his own party who want to do dumb things like "work with the Democrats so that we don’t have to go through the pains of any government shutdowns.” He also insisted that investigating Biden, should take precedence over “policy [and] bill making." Senator Ted Cruz said he thinks "there’ll be enormous pressure on a Republican House to begin impeachment proceedings," and that Republicans would impeach Biden, "whether it's justified or not." While granted, Cruz will not be one of those, voting on the initial impeachment, Rep. Nancy Mace concurred (on Chuck Todd), that “there’s a lot of pressure on Republicans” to vote to impeach Biden. And Sen. Joni Ernst, according to the author of the Vanity Fair article I linked (top of pg. 6), "best summed up the party’s position when she said: 'I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened.'”

Now, if I look at this logically, then I come up with the same expectation as yourself. As I, earlier in this thread, wrote: that had been my initial leaning, when I began the thread. But, if we are correct, in our natural assumption, how do we account for Republican Adam Kinzinger's statement that, under GOP leadership, there'd be impeachments of President Biden, "every week?" Just utter hyperbole & alarmism? What about fmr. Republican Representative David Jolley's promising-- his word-- that Republicans will impeach Biden?

So, the difference in our views, is that I give credence to these current & former members of the Republican caucus, understanding their own dynamics, better than me. Perhaps they are all wrong. I certainly hope that your guess is correct, and that there will be the handful of GOP Representatives with the courage and integrity to stand up against a baseless impeachment, if all the rest of the House is adamant about moving ahead with one. I'll note, there'd only been two members, willing to put partisan politics aside, to go against McCarthy, and work on the J6 Committee. I am certain, had any others expressed an interest, Pelosi would have welcomed them with open arms. So, I just don't feel whatever will, ultimately occur, is as matter-of-fact a thing, as you paint it to be.

Actually, more important than not impeaching Biden, I hope that enough Republican Congressmen have the sense to not allow the U.S. to default on its Debt. Now that, would be tragically stupid.

 

You're breaking my heart.

 

Just wow
Rosenstein appointed Mueller while Sessions was in office
Read a book

You mean the report that states
Their is no evidence of Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to effect the outcome of the election
You mean that evidence
Read a book

Deflection
They had 3 years to depose Trump plus the 2 years after he left office
And these idiots still can't find a charge to indict or depose with
So either Trump outsmarted the entire Democrat party or they are just that dumb

Uneducated lefty can't fight the actual facts so decides to run to your little trumpy post again. How precious

Says the poster who got smoked so bad on their fake Afghanistan claims, decided to run from the last post. lol

 

We know how scary Jordan is to the fake woke left.
If I were you I would get used to it because you're getting ready to see a lot of him.

 

I can only hope that you are right, and that common sense will hold sway over hardcore ideology. I would note, though, that even "moderate" Paul Ryan, had wanted to kill Medicare, and sunset Social Security, didn't he? So I don't think these ideas are anything new, or are only goals of the fringe of the Party. Also, the laws that Republican legislatures around the country have been passing, restricting abortion, are seen as just as radical, by just as many people, as who would view serious cuts to Medicare & Social Security, as extremist.

So, you believe that Republicans have learned, from this flop of a midterm "wave?" That had been my hopeful premise, at the outset of this thread, but I can't honestly say I am as confident of that, as before, based on what "black sheep" Republicans, like Adam Kinzinger & David Jolley maintain. I think post-election rhetoric might give us a clue, but it is yet too soon to judge whether there is recognition by Republicans, of their own overreach. Thus far, it seems that what I'm hearing from them, is a blaming of this voter reproof on Donald Trump-- for some, willing to break from the unqualified support that he demands, and many still offer him-- or on stupid young voters-- who some conservative commentators are now suggesting, should not be allowed to vote, until they have more life experience-- or on single women, who one Fox hosts says, need to get married (see my Current Events thread, "Fox News 'at war' with Trump").




On a more minor note, are you sure about Obamacare being intended to kill off "Medicare Advantage?" I will continue on this topic, in my next reply.

 

This is nothing new, in Republican politics. There have been plans to privatize Social Security, going back at least as far as G.W. Bush's Presidency. And starving out, or "drowning" Medicare and other "entitlements," has been a priority of Republicans as mainstream as Paul Ryan, and as influential as Grover Norquist.

I love your attempt at repeating the Roe playbook, of telling people there's nothing to worry about, until the moment comes when the thing that was "never going to happen," becomes a fait accompli. Then, of course, you'll move to explaining how it really isn't all that bad-- as with the SCOTUS abortion ruling: people just need to travel out of state, right? Meanwhile, we have Republicans (Lindsey Graham, & others) talking about-- while national protections for abortion were unconstitutional, and should be left to each individual state-- national restrictions on abortion! Though, I'm sure you'll tell us all, how that will never happen.

 

the question is.... will republicans prevent doing anything to save social security and medicare

 

As someone who has run political campaigns, I can assure you Democrats see Jordan is a godsend.

I don't like Jordan for the same reason I don't care for other extremists, from Majorie Greene to Ilhan Omar and Ocasio-Cortez—they're poisoning our politics.