Impeach Biden over the Security Catastrophe He’s Caused at the Border

The problem is twofold. Firstly the special prosecutor cannot be chosen from anyone in government by the rules. They broke that rule. More importantly the person they chose has been in charge of preventing the investigation of Hunter for years by allowing the statute of limitations on the worst potential charges to expire. This is an attempt to get the same kind of investigation prevention for Joe. It made me laugh when I watched the announcement.

 

I have and it does not include malfeasance. The whole GOP argument is that they don't like the policies of Joe Biden and now want to impeach him on those policies. That is malfeasance under any definition. Furthermore, no crimes have been committed, not even 8 USC 1324. And that too is the problem because it was in the performance of regular judicial administrative duties. Remember, the Federal Bureau of Prisons routinely transfers prisoners from one institution to another, and yet that is not considered harboring a fugitive, is it. And the same is with illegals being transported from one jurisdiction to another. So again, no crimes have been committed and even the GOP, or some of them, have admitted to that.

With this, you are making it about Biden's policies, which define what malfeasance is. malfeasance is not a Misdemeanor crime here under the law. And if the GOP do decide to impeach Biden, it wont' be because of Border issues, it will be something else.

 

Everything needs backing up. It's not worth considering if you're not providing proof.

 

For starters, there is statutory authority to appoint a special counsel if there is a conflict of interest within the DOJ as prescribed in CFR Regulations 28 CFR 600.1. And the decision to appoint the special counsel rests within the sole discretion of the Attorney General. The special counsel is appointed with the following guidelines: "An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation."

It appears the regulations are not in your favor. So, what proof do you have that no one from the government shall appoint a special prosecutor in federal jurisdiction?

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-VI/part-600

 

The key here is not what President Biden has done but that the right won't be satisfied until he's impeached; maybe 2 or 3 times, to get even. The title could just as easily, and more accurately been; "impeach biden over his breakfast cereal.

 

I appreciate the you made ot respond to my thread. I'm afraid I don't care enough to make the effort to prove my point. Sorry. I will leave you to your position without comment.

 

So no proof. got it.

 

No interest. You didn't get that.

 

You have to come up with proof against Old Joe. You haven't. Hunter? He may well end up doing time for what we have so far.

It's touching to hear how you're deeply involved in the really important issues. Healthcare, K-12 education, street violence, property crime, the "war on drugs," stalled real wages, college tuition costs, abortion rights, housing costs--those are minor stuff compared to Hunter Biden.

Do you have answers to any of the above?

 

Of course it does, any misbehavior by a President can be grounds for impeachment. That includes not upholding his oath of office.

No it is not. Malfeasance includes non performance of official and required duties.

Impeachment does not require a crime. His failure to carry out his oath of office and protect and defend the United States is grounds enough.

This from the Clinton Impeachment Defense team

"The Framers and early commentators on the Constitution are in accord on the question of impeachment's intended purpose. In Justice James Wilson's words, impeachments are "proceedings of a political nature . . . confined to political characters" charging only "political crimes and misdemeanors" and culminating only in "political punishments." 27 And as Justice Story put the matter, "the [impeachment] power partakes of a political character, as it respects injuries to the society in its political character."28 In short, impeachment was not thought to be a remedy for private wrongs -- or even for most public wrongs. Rather, the Framers "intended that a president be removable from office for the commission of great offenses against the Constitution."29 Impeachment therefore addresses public wrongdoing, whether denominated a "political crime[] against the state,"30 or "an act of malfeasance or abuse of office,"31 or a "great offense[] against the federal government."32 Ordinary civil wrongs can be addressed through ordinary civil processes. And ordinary political wrongs can be addressed at the ballot box and by public opinion. Impeachment is reserved for the most serious public misconduct, those aggravated abuses of executive power that, given the President's four-year term, might otherwise go unchecked.
https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives...Framers "intended that,31 or a "great offense

 

It's the same person and according to Garland he had MORE authority as a US Attorney assigned to the case.

"“I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution given that he has this authority,” Garland added. “He was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own.”....

......"Garland added that Weiss “has more authority” than would a special counsel, who is effectively required to clear certain major decisions with the attorney general.".."
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/23/merrick-garland-hunter-biden-plea-deal-00103442

THEY WERE................the Republicans led by Grassely sent a letter to Garland A YEAR AGO stressing the need for a special prosecutor.

You still don't get that the the DOJ and FBI had no intention of a full and complete investigation and prosectuion there job was to get the Biden's off which collimated with the bogus plea bargain and blanket immunity for Hunter.

Was Garland lying before when he was fighting against a Special Prosecutor? What changed?

Why do you think I don't know that if the SP is not finished when Biden loses that his investigation will continue? Of course it would continue if we have a proper SP and not one who has already shown their intent to get the Biden's off.

Their complaint is ACCORDING TO THE SP LAW and what anyone with an unbiased view of this would see the need due to all the controversy of the last few weeks the need for a NEW and unattached person to act as the SP.

Why? As y'all have repeatedly noted he is a "private citizen" and your claims there is absolutely not tie to Joe. A SP is required when there IS such a tie to the crimes.

How so? I want a SP appointed as required by the law and the circumstances of the investigation so far. How is that both ways?

 

I don't have to as it has already been presented that he was facilitating the influence peddling and benefitting from it.

It's typical when you can win on the merits you go for the personal..........

 

A special counsel quite literally has more authority. His prediction is that he was a special counsel only in the District for Deleware, which limits his authority to only Deleware.

Except they were wanting a special counsel for that damn laptop and so forth. Why have two special counsels when the laptop was in the Delaware District to begin with?

As for intention, I would like to hear from more than the disgruntled employees who were overturned by their comrades. I would also like to see all the followup evidence on those cases and why they didn't pusue to begin with. Further, intentions is not based on whether one is guilty or not or who the subject of the investigation is. Most of the issues that limited their ability to investigate was the fact of Special Counsel to begin with, not AG Garland. Furthermore, maybe we should see the FBI computer forensic report on the laptop and the original hard drive. That might be interesting, and it won't be a slam dunk for either side, would it.


[/QUOTE]Was Garland lying before when he was fighting against a Special Prosecutor? What changed?[/QUOTE]
What changed was that the plea deal did not go through, so this is why AG Garland did what he did.

Because if Trump is the President, he would want that special prosecutor who was already named to continue. Remember, the special counsel is independent and no one wants to do what Robert Bork did in the Nixon Watergate investigation in which he, as acting AG, fired the special prosecutor. Remember, Trump tried, but both AG Sessions, the acting AG rebuffed his influence when Mueller was appointed special counsel.

That is pure political talk. In reality, what they are saying is they don't like the person who is assigned as special counsel. Unless they can show proof that he is unbiased and so forth, they don't have a leg to stand on. Weiss is a very competent, independent-minded attorney, who is professional at his job. I don't want someone like Sidney Powell or Rudy Guilanni to be assigned to the task. Even John Durham is not up to the task as special counsel because alf of his criminal referrals were completed duds. But we all know where this is heading, the politicization of the DOJ and the FBI by the GOP.

Yes, Hunter is a private citizen but he is also the son of the President of the United States. This is why a SP has been appointed even when Trump was in office and did so with Weiss. Bidnen is just continuing with him as we speak. There has been no evidence that Joe Biden is tied to Hunter's Business deals. Not even with Big Guy comment in one text message does that make it the case. And if you read further in those text messages, the same guy, Big Guy, was cut off from any payment whatsoever. Then we have some of Hunter Business Associates who did not exactly paint a positive picture to the GOP in what Joe Biden knew. One such person said that Hunter called his dad repeatedly, but the conversations were casual in nature. Nothing was mentioned of any business deals or business arrangements by that person,. And that is the best the GOP came up with?

You don't get to choose. You are not the Attorney General. Merick Garland is and he gets to appoint who is special counsel if there is a conflict of interest within the DOJ. And there certainly is with Hunter Biden, Donald Trump and so forth.

 

It is not any misbehavior here. It is certain crimes and misdemeanors. That is it. That means an actual law violated. If you disagree with the policy, the founders wished it was resolved in Congress, or by elections. That is it.

Which is not something that the founders wanted to include. It is not a misdemeanor nor a crime. Period. But it is by definition Malfeasance because you are strictly disagreeing with policy decisions here.

But then again, if it does happen and Trump is elected again, we can do this with Trump, except there will be about three dozen impeachment articles on all the things he has done. While using your arguments against you, how much you will do a complete 180 with the different strokes for different folks' arguments here.

Actually it does.

I don't think you are understanding what you are reading here. The whole argument was about perjury in which Clinton and Star was using here when he asked about sex with Monica Lewinsky. This argument was focusing on this sexual activity while he was president. There was a law already on the books about a hostile workforce environment, but no third party came forward to make that complaint. But he was interviewed anyway, and they were trying to get the perjury charge removed since it did not involve in a crime. But perjury is a crime, and it was allowed.

 

there has been no proof. Plenty of allegations, but no proof. Even FD 1023s are not proof in the legal sense. And the only thing you have proven is payments from point A to Point B to Point C. And that is not any evidence of wrongdoing.

 

FALSE.................it does NOT require a crime to impeach and remove a President. Misdemeanor in the Constitution is "misbehavior" of an official capacity as I showed you.

Would you please read what I post especially the cites...

Rather, the Framers "intended that a president be removable from office for the commission of great offenses against the Constitution."29 Impeachment therefore addresses public wrongdoing, whether denominated a "political crime[] against the state,"30 or "an act of malfeasance or abuse of office,"31

It does not require a crime.

And if Biden is elected again there are about $20 million and counting on which to impeach and remove him but why wait we already have reason enough to do so, he and his family have been compromised by our worst foreign adversaries and we cannot take a chance on our national security with such an profitable arraignment for a sitting President.

Actually it does not. Nixon had not been charged with a crime and yet he was on the verge of being impeached.

False again. The Clinton impeachment was not about the sex with Lewinsky. It was Paula Jones who sued him for sexual harassment and sexual assault it wasn't Starr taking him to court for it. Under federal law Jones had a right to question him on his sexual harassment in the workplace including trading sex for favors and rewards with other subordinate employees. It's call the Molinari Amendment which CLINTON signed into law that compels such testimony under oath. The whole argument about the perjury and obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury and witness tampering had to do with him submitting the false affidavit denying not just the sex but more importantly those rewards and favors for sexual favors by a subordinate worker showing Clinton indeed does engage in such behavior with subordinate employees. It helped Jones case and hurt his case and he feared, rightfully feared, if it came out it WOULD get him impeached,

And he should have been impeached and removed just as any other federal official who was trading sex with a subordinate employee in a federal office during federal work hours when the subordinate employee was being paid for sexual favors they could provide and creating a hostile work environment in a federal office.

 

There is a mountain of evidence, bank records, text messages, emails, hand written notes, testimony, videos, pictures which cross corroborates the facts as we know them and that mountain gets bigger and bigger. We also have the blatant lies and misstatements indicating a consciousness of guilt, that they are trying to hide the facts. Yes payments for what pray tell, why was cash being funneled through a multitude of shell companies into the private coffers of the BBF, Biden Family Fund? From point A to point B to Point C to point D to point E to point F to point G to point H to point I to point J.........................till you get to point X so far.

 

Some like to speculate and ignore the principle of innocent until proven guilty is a court of law.

I wanted to confirm that there have been no indictments, and whether any are in order has yet to be determined.

 

You don't have to be taken seriously, either.

You still haven't put forward solutions, and you focus on Hunter Biden when you could be addressing more important concerns.

Canadians live an average 3.8 years longer than Americans. Apparently, you don't think that's a big deal.



And how come the median income in Canada is within $654 of ours, but their average income is $3,290 less? Look lie their workers get a bigger piece of the pie.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country



When is Trump going to bring the tablets down from Mount BS so you guys will know what to think?

 

Actually, it does not. Nixon had not been charged with a crime and yet he was on the verge of being impeached.
If you look at the whole Clinton impeachment trial, all of the articles were actual crimes that were voted on. There were two perjury crimes, there was an obstruction of justice crime, and there was abuse of power crime. What Clinton argued was the fact that the circumstances leading up to those crimes. In other words, he did not intentionally commit any crime as premeditated. And that is what you don't understand at all with the Clinton Impeachment. All of these are crimes. The circumstances of those crimes do not matter in the impeachment phase, but the key here is crimes, which are explicit in the US Constitution under Article 2. That being said, the rest is political nonsense. If you try to impeach a president because you don't like their policy, you will open the floodgates on the next president.

when it comes to Clinton or any other official or employee, having sex or an affair or a sexual relationship is a matter of personal choice. If it does not interfere with your duties or your office, it is perfectly legal. There is, however, a hostile work environment in which a third party can make a complaint, but none have done so, not even Tripp who did not work in the same areas a Monica did. Some people in the WH suspected of the affair, but they too did not complain. And this means that it was not illegal to have an affair. Ethically, it was wrong since he was married, but how many powerful and married men have had affairs? Plenty including Trump by the way with one very public affair when he was married to Ivana. It also does not matter if one is in government or in business or even a private citizen, now does it if we are talking about ethics, right? Or is that going to be the next excuse you are going to use?

As for the House and the investigations, the GOP thinks this is a winning strategy to keep the House and regain the Senate in 2024. Even if the GOP regains the Senate, it still won't be enough to remove Biden if he is reelected. If the Dems control the house again, that committee's investigation would be stopped and there would be no impeachment no matter how hard you try. Remember Rep Gonzalez from Texas in the 1980s where is produced legislation on a constant basis to impeach Ronald Reagan. Even the DNC did not listen to him at that time. I don't think this is a winning strategy at all. In 2024, it will be about table issues that concern the economy, jobs, inflation, and so forth. The GOP won't win on culture wars or their hatred of Joe Biden or the Democrats. It will help them in the primary, but at the same time, you don't get exactly quality candidates as Mitch McConnell says.

For Nixon, the articles were being drawn up. If he stayed in office for two more days, those articles would have been voted on. Those articles stopped when he resigned, and Ford pardoned him which precludes any further investigation. But that is not what is happening here and no subsequent president is going to pardon a former president even if he is in a different party.

As for the rest of your post, it is pure bunk

 

All bank records show is deposits and withdrawals, either by check, ATM or electronic. That is it. You need additional evidence such as contracts, agreements, and so forth, all in writing or in electronic format to prove if any of those deposits were nefarious. Simply stating them coming from China is not enough. And if that were the case, you would probably indict PayPal, World Remit, and Western Union who receive payments from China, wouldn't you? And so far, Comer has not subpoenaed any additional evidence to support or not support those claims any to my knowledge. Second, FD 1023s are not worth much legally. They are raw, unverified information. Thus no evidence to back up whatever claim they are making. And that is why the FD 1023 was used to begin with.

With international finance and business operations, point A to point B to point C to whatever is quite common. Again, that is not nefarious to the trained eye or to those who are familiar or experienced with international finance. It is quite common and common business practice, which is why you need those supporting documents to begin with such as contracts, agreements, and so forth to prove your case. If this was to go to court, Hunter and Joe Biden would be acquitted hands down in a jury of their peers.