Comer: No impeachment for Biden, criminal referrals instead

I'll be waiting for the article of the Constitution that says a president can't be indicted.

 

Would someone please post this X/Twitter video in link.

https://twitter.com/levparnas/status/1773170300965847280?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet




Lev Parnas
@levparnas
Follow

THE VIDEO THE REPUBLICANS DONT WANT YOU TO SEE:

Never before seen video of Rudy Giuliani questioning Viktor Shokin.

Rudy - “Was there ever any specific act that any of these people performed”? “Did they get a kick back”? “Did they get a bribe”?

Shokin - No!

#LevRemembers

 

Separation of powers. It is the job of Congress to keep the president in check, not a subordinate officer of the executive branch.

 

Let's see the section or article. I'm waiting but I'll save you some time. You will not find a single word in the Constitution suggesting that a president can't be indicted.

 

Wonder why this video has been hidden from the public. If Comer had this and refused to disclose evidence that exonerates Biden, might be time to bring criminal charges against Comer.

 

Have you heard of the concept of separation of powers?

 

I'm not talking about removing from office. Stop changing the subject. You have not been able to cite a single word from the Constitution saying the president can't be indicted.

 

Article 2 section 1: "executive poweer is vested in the president of the united states."

A subordinate cannot usurp that power that's is bestowed to the president by the constitution.

 

You failed. That says nothing about a president being excluded from a trial. lol

 

The part that says executive power flows solely through the president. A subordinate cannot usurp that authority which is what would be happening if they try to indict the president.

 

There is not a lick of provable evidence he is talking to Shokin at all... What are you trying to pull here?... a 16 second clip ain't gonna cut it @Izzy

 

Even if you believed that executive power was inherent (as opposed to what’s directly written in the Constitution), that inherent power would only apply if for national security, etc.

 

The constitution is explicit. The executive power is vested in the president of the united states.

If you disagree, please cite where in the constitution that power can be usurped by a subordinate.

 

@Izzy
@omni

Show us the whole conversation.... not a 16 second cherry picking unverifiable piece we can not be certain it was a Shokin conversation at all...

 

we're not talking about power being usurped or removal from office. we're talking about a president going to trial. You claimed a president can't be indicted and fail to show in the Constitution where it says that.

 

Taking the president to trial is an executive action, right? According to the constitution, the executive power is vested solely in the president.

I dont see anywhere in the constitution that allows a subordinate to usurp executive authority from the president.

 

It has been proven the Biden influence peddling syndicate was receiving the tens of millions, when is Biden going to explain for what? He's the President doesn't he owe us a FULL explanation?

The Trump Organization has long proven for what they get paid out front in the open by millions of people from around the world.

 

Had there been some proof Joe was involved, perhaps he’d feel inclined to weigh in on the conspiracy theories.

 

Well, low and behold, Joe Biden is being invited to give his input into the whole Biden family dealings.... looks like his golden opportunity to "weigh in on the conspiracy theories."

""The Bidens received $15 million from China, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Romania and the Oversight Committee traced how $40,000 from CEFC, a Chinese government linked energy company, landed in Joe Biden’s bank account. During the investigation’s interview and deposition phase, Biden family associates provided evidence of Joe Biden’s knowledge of and participation in his family’s business schemes.""

https://oversight.house.gov/release/chairman-comer-invites-president-biden-to-testify-before-the-oversight-committee/
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-28-CJC-letter-to-JRB.pdf

 

Already explained by his brother. Not a crime to loan your family money.

 

No, he doesn't.
Certainly not to fantasizing MAGA types looking to fabricate more propaganda. Gomer and his critters have proven nothing. All they have is speculation and
perjury.

On the other hand, the Trump organization has committed fraud for the past decade or so in New York State. That's a fact by virtue of a court decision.

What did Trump and his critters do for the Saudis to get a job managing BILLIONS of dollars with an unqualified real estate agent ?
When are they going to explain what they sold ? Was it cover for an assassination ? What other "help" did they give the Saudis ?
Orange was the president, unlike Joe during the time frame under examination. Doesn't the Orange Stain owe us a FULL explanation ?
And we won't even get into the aid and comfort that Orange gave to the Putin regime.

 

That didn't explain where the money came from only how it was laundered try again.

And the personal accountant who handled all of The Big Guys banking and checking and bills said there is no record of any loan.

 

There was plenty of proof and he has yet to speak out and explain why he had NEVER EVER said ANYTHING about ANY BUSINESS with HUNTER when we know he was involved and attended meetings and affirmed he was part of the package with our worst foreign adversaries who were sending them the tens of millions of dollars. What records have to Bidens produced to refute it?

 

The Executive Branch indicting the President is not a matter of separate branches. It is merely a DOJ rule that a sitting President would not be indicted, served an indictment, and prosecuted. That Congress should decide if it is so necessary to do so and impeach and removed. A sort of diplomatic immunity. But then if the SS walked in and found Jill dead on the floor and The Big Guy gun in hand there would be little to stop an immediate arrest and arraignment regardless of how fast Congress could impeach and remove.

Go back to Clinton where the IC law required Ken Starr to report their findings to the Speaker of the House. Which he did detailing the several criminal charges he sought to prosecute and all the overwhelming prima facie evidence to do so. And the House said yep he did and he is impeached but the Senate Dems refused to remove him. So the indictments waited and when Clinton left office then IC Ray went to the WH handed him the awaiting indictments he would submit and a plea bargain. Clinton signed in a heartbeat as he had no defense against the charges, his guilt was never in question even during the impeachment.

 

Yes he does he is the leader of the country and these are our worst foreign adversaries funnelling tens of millions of dollars to his family and down to him and he has offered no reasonable explanation AT ALL. He had just been called before Congress to finally do so. YES even in the justice system when there is evidence against you you must refute it else it will be taken as fact. This is a Constitutional matter and a national security matter on top of the all the probable cause of many crimes being committed here.

Diversions not allowed go start another thread if you have some claims to make about Trump NOTHING you can say about him mitigates a thing HERE.