Impeach!
-
Grandstanding.
-
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Biden stated on Friday that President Trump “isn’t fit to hold the job” and said that he did not want Trump to attend the inauguration. I have no problem with that statement. Indeed, Trump himself has said far worse about Biden and he has also stated that he does not want to attend the inauguration. I also have no problem with calls for Trump’s resignation or a bipartisan statement of condemnation from Congress. However, critics want to push through an impeachment will little discussion or deliberation on highly dubious constitutional grounds.
When asked, Biden stated;
“I’m focused on the virus, the vaccine, and economic growth. What the Congress decides to do is for them to decide,” Biden answered when asked if he supported such moves. … We’re going to do our job and the Congress can decide how to proceed with theirs. That’s a decision for the Congress to make. I’m focused on my job.”
The defense of the Constitution is “his job” and this would gut both the process and the standard for impeachments. This was an opportunity to take a principled stand to unify the country by asking his party to stand down and not pursue a “snap impeachment.” As I discuss in my column today, this impeachment not only threatens principles underlying impeachment but also free speech in our Constitution.
As with court packing, this is not the time for good people to stand silent even in the face of such unhinged anger. Indeed, Democrats may loathe the day that they embraced the concept of a “snap impeachment” — a contradiction in constitutional terms. Impeachments are designed for deliberative, not impulsive, acts.
Indeed, Biden’s reference to more pressing matters is preciously the point. He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system.
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in Impeach!, quoting Jonathan Turley:
...
Indeed, Biden’s reference to more pressing matters is preciously the point. He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system.Has Turley ever got around to comment on Trump’s priorities (e.g., vaccine rollout vs. frivolous “election fraud” lawsuits) or Trump undermining our constitutional system? He ever commented on how Trump supporters challenging and dragging out the electoral vote counting process and rioting at the Capitol distracted Congress from “more pressing matters”?
I got the sense that this Turley dude is some mix of a Trumpist and a partisan hack. What do you think?
-
@george-k said in Impeach!, quoting Jonathan Turley:
...
Indeed, Biden’s reference to more pressing matters is preciously the point. He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system.Has Turley ever got around to comment on Trump’s priorities (e.g., vaccine rollout vs. frivolous “election fraud” lawsuits) or Trump undermining our constitutional system? He ever commented on how Trump supporters challenging and dragging out the electoral vote counting process and rioting at the Capitol distracted Congress from “more pressing matters”?
I got the sense that this Turley dude is some mix of a Trumpist and a partisan hack. What do you think?
I don't know. You asked the question, you can do the homework.
But in reference to this column, nothing I've read about the proposed articles of impeachment have anything to do with the questions you raise. If they do, please elaborate.
"This Turley dude..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley
In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Turley argued that, despite his doubts that fraud existed, Americans should welcome the involvement of the courts to vet and validate the election results.
-
Other than pure vindictiveness, what's the point?
I think it’s important for the history books to document that there were repercussions to a sitting president who refused to accept a free and fair election that he lost, lied about fraud and it being stolen, and incited a mob that invaded the Capitol.
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
incited a mob that invaded the Capitol
- Please provide evidence.
- Do you support impeachment, then?
- If so, what will it accomplish, remove him from office?
- You serious, Clark?
- Yes, as well as the 25th.
- Yes, along with the historical record of the consequences if another sitting president tries to do this.
-
-
Damn right I'm serious. Please provide evidence where he suggested people invade the Capitol and attack their political opponents (Maxine Waters did that) and LEOs. Specific quotations, please.
-
You support impeachment. OK, it's a political process. I suppose I can understand that on the basis of your hatred for this (admittedly) reprehensible man. At what cost, however? When the GOP controls the House, and they will, sooner or later, do you think they will not do exactly the same thing? I don't.
-
The historical record will show that he was impeached twice, setting up a precedent that is to be followed in the future: "We hate this guy, so let's throw him out."
3a) "if another sitting president tries to do this." What, specifically, are you talking about? See point #1.
Again, let me reiterate. I found President Trump to be a horrible person. I disagreed with much of his behavior. I would not enjoy his company in my home. Does he lie? Yeah, probably. Does he cheat? Yeah, probably that too. Those are not, IMO, "high crimes and misdemeanors."
But...
Unless you can point to specific things he's done you have little to hang your hat on other than your distaste for the man. If you can't, it's TDS.
-
-
If you are 100% sure there was election stealing and you’ve exhausted every legal avenue, and you’re being stonewalled- an armed insurrection makes sense. What else do you do at that point?
The POTUS - who has the ability to get the best information says the election was 100% stolen.
There’s essentially no more representation at that point.
-
Also - “let’s have trial by combat” is not a great phrase to utter.
Yes, Giuliani said it. But if Himmler suggested something about killing Jews while Hitler is on the same stage - there’s not much distinction.
(Sorry for using a Nazi analogy, I don’t mean to say Trump and his administration are Nazis)
-
“let’s have trial by combat” is not a great phrase to utter.
Yes, Giuliani said it. But if Himmler suggested something about killing Jews while Hitler is on the same stage - there’s not much distinction.Bullshit.
You can be prosecuted/impeached because of something that someone you associate with said?
Is that your point?
-
If you are 100% sure there was election stealing and you’ve exhausted every legal avenue, and you’re being stonewalled- an armed insurrection makes sense. What else do you do at that point?
The POTUS - who has the ability to get the best information says the election was 100% stolen.Strawman. I didn't bring up his complaints about a stolen election. You did.
What incitement to riot did he utter? I'm being very, very specific here. He's said a lot of bad things, a lot of inaccurate things, but unless you can show that he actually incited a riot, or a crime, then there's nothing.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
What incitement to riot did he utter? I'm being very, very specific here. He's said a lot of bad things, a lot of inaccurate things, but unless you can show that he actually incited a riot, or a crime, then there's nothing.
George, do you believe impeachment shouldn't happen at all? That no one should even investigate the allegations? I read the Althouse stuff, btw.
-
If you are 100% sure there was election stealing and you’ve exhausted every legal avenue, and you’re being stonewalled- an armed insurrection makes sense. What else do you do at that point?
The POTUS - who has the ability to get the best information says the election was 100% stolen.Strawman. I didn't bring up his complaints about a stolen election. You did.
What incitement to riot did he utter? I'm being very, very specific here. He's said a lot of bad things, a lot of inaccurate things, but unless you can show that he actually incited a riot, or a crime, then there's nothing.
“Let’s have trial by content” from a guy sharing his stage.
Also - if you believe his chain of logic, I’m saying I’d personally believe an armed insurrection is warranted. FWIW. You’re right that wasn’t your direct question, but I’m saying it’s a reasonable reaction to the situation the President was painting. (That likely wouldn’t hold up as criminal responsibility- but we can make our political judgements about it.)
-
-
“Let’s have trial by content” from a guy sharing his stage.
See my comment about guilt by association.
@Aqua-Letifer said
George, do you believe impeachment shouldn't happen at all? That no one should even investigate the allegations?
I think it's a waste of time and money for an issue that is moot. Investigate away. Have at it. What do you think the result will be? What do you think it will accomplish other than political points?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Bullshit.
You can be prosecuted/impeached because of something that someone you associate with said?
Is that your point?Let’s take this example to its extreme. If Guiliani says “you go mess up that Capitol. Go after senators. Etc. etc.”
And Trump goes on stage right after and says nothing about it. No culpability?
Also - the line for acceptable conduct by a President should not be criminality. So prosecution is different than impeachment. Impeachment is a lot fuzzier.
