RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: What About a Biden Impeachment Inquiry? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

What About a Biden Impeachment Inquiry? He also did what Trump is accused of. Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,704
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 14 November 2019 - 03:49 AM

What About a Biden Impeachment Inquiry?
He also did what Trump is accused of.

E. DONALD ELLIOTT
Spectator
11/12/19

EXCERPT:

In his fine book Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide (2017), Harvard Law School Professor Cass R. Sunstein, a prominent Democrat who served in the Obama White House, stresses a key point about impeachment: grounds for impeachment should be neutral in the sense that we would be willing to apply them equally to politicians with whom we agree as well as those whom we despise.

A general principle of law, enshrined among other places in the 14th Amendment, is that norms are valid only if we are willing to apply them to everyone; that’s why the statue of Justice is blind. Professor Sunstein is right, however, that the neutrality test is particularly important for impeachment, because the constitutional standard is necessarily vague and turns on judgments such as whether or not misdeeds are sufficiently serious to justify removal from office.

If we would not be willing to apply the same rule to someone with whom we agree politically, we should doubt whether it is a valid basis to kick someone out of office with whom we disagree. Or, in the immortal words of Vinny, the homespun legal philosopher in the movie My Cousin Vinny, “It won’t hold water” to say that something is an impeachable offense when the other side’s guy does it but it is perfectly okay when our own guy does essentially the same thing.

Joe Biden has admitted to doing almost exactly what the House Democrats accuse President Trump of doing in their impeachment inquiry: using his position in government to obtain private political benefit from a foreign government. We should all be asking, “Why isn’t Biden also the target of a second impeachment inquiry?”

Some people might think that is because Biden has left office, but according to both William Murphy, professor of American History at the State University of New York, and every other expert I know who has addressed the issue, former officials like Biden may also be impeached after they leave office. Impeaching a former official is not a meaningless gesture because impeachment may prohibit someone from holding office in the future, including the presidency in Biden’s case; in the words of the Constitution, impeachment may disqualify a person “to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

(Full Story)
0

#2 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,673
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 04:27 AM

We truly have entered into the twilight zone.

Article II, Section 4 states ”The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment...”

Biden is none of these and he’s not in office, so what would they be removing him from?
0

#3 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,972
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 05:52 AM

View Postcorporal_little, on 14 November 2019 - 04:27 AM, said:

We truly have entered into the twilight zone.

Article II, Section 4 states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment..."

Biden is none of these and he's not in office, so what would they be removing him from?


They are just applying the Pre-impeachment rule that the DNC is now applying to the POTUS. They were talking impeachment the minute he won the election. Thus we are looking at Joe Biden being the nominee. Therefore his actions as VP now are impeachable based on the DNC application of Pre-Impeachment. Got it?
0

#4 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,673
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 10:23 AM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 14 November 2019 - 05:52 AM, said:

They are just applying the Pre-impeachment rule that the DNC is now applying to the POTUS. They were talking impeachment the minute he won the election. Thus we are looking at Joe Biden being the nominee. Therefore his actions as VP now are impeachable based on the DNC application of Pre-Impeachment. Got it?

No, I don't got it. Trump is currently the President. He is subject to impeachment regardless of if we think it's wrong, Constitutionally it is up to the House to impeach or not.

Biden isn't a civil officer, he isn't currently Vice President and he's sure as hell not President. Again, what office would you be removing him from?
0

#5 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,722
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:07 AM

Hey leftards, what goes around comes around.

:biglaugh:
0

#6 User is offline   AntonToo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 15,525
  • Joined: 28-September 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:09 AM

View PostModerator T, on 14 November 2019 - 03:49 AM, said:

Joe Biden has admitted to doing almost exactly what the House Democrats accuse President Trump of doing


That is pure fantasy.


I don't know where the hell righties got the idea that Biden EVER mentioned any kind of personal gain in exchange for American foreign policy but it's blatantly false. He "admited" nothing like that and it remains poorly supported speculation.

Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. The stated reasoning for the firing was corruption, which of course would be in direct interests of American foreign policy. Joe did not try to make this a secret and he openly spoke about it, so there is also no evidence of any conscience of guilt.

DoS, IMF, EU, Ukranian anti-corruption groups and even prosecutor's own deputy - all of them applauded the removal of this swamp monster. Joe's stated reason for firing fully checks out. Trump's ENDORSEMENT of that corrupt official on the call with Zelensky is the damning fact here.

Here is a conservative source talking about that:

https://www.washingt...r-viktor-shokin


So what is left? Purely circumstatial evidence that Bidens son happened to be on the board of Burisma. Righties keep reaping a falsehood that Biden was personally under investigation, but thats compeltely false and he personally was never under any investigation by prosecutor in question or anyone else in Ukraine. The (dormant) investigation of Burisma had to do with 2012-2014 period, before Biden was on the board.

Aside from that there is EXACTLY NOTHING here and to try to equate this dead-end to a continiously evolving account of Trump pressuring Ukraine for political favors is to be completely detached from reality.
0

#7 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,786
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:10 AM

View Postcorporal_little, on 14 November 2019 - 10:23 AM, said:

No, I don't got it. Trump is currently the President. He is subject to impeachment regardless of if we think it's wrong, Constitutionally it is up to the House to impeach or not.

Biden isn't a civil officer, he isn't currently Vice President and he's sure as hell not President. Again, what office would you be removing him from?


They had been accusing Trump of doing something (collusion, conspiracy) before he was sworn in. I don't see how that would be different than Biden right now if he were to ever be sworn back in.
0

#8 User is offline   Bubbajoebob 

  • M dwarf stars
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:25 AM

Don't need impeachment. Just file criminal charges, convict the various dishonest former politicians, and lock them up.
0

#9 User is offline   Weaseljd 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,623
  • Joined: 04-September 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:35 AM

View Postcorporal_little, on 14 November 2019 - 10:23 AM, said:

No, I don't got it. Trump is currently the President. He is subject to impeachment regardless of if we think it's wrong, Constitutionally it is up to the House to impeach or not.

Biden isn't a civil officer, he isn't currently Vice President and he's sure as hell not President. Again, what office would you be removing him from?


You can actually still impeach former office holders. The legal effect is that they are deemed removed from office, even retroactive. You may say "so what", but the biggest effect is that if they impeach after they are already gone, their entitlement to ongoing federal benefits from having held that office are also eliminated. Biden loses his pension from being vice president. he loses any security clearances he may have had and still has from holding that office. So the ongoing benefits he enjoys from having been a former vice president who retired from office are also extinguished. So impeachment now would still have consequences to Biden even though there would be no "removal" from office since "former" executives who leave due to losing an election or term limit are still afforded benefits of being President or Vice President.
0

#10 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 59,516
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 12:15 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 14 November 2019 - 11:09 AM, said:

That is pure fantasy.


I don't know where the hell righties got the idea that Biden EVER mentioned any kind of personal gain in exchange for American foreign policy but it's blatantly false. He "admited" nothing like that and it remains poorly supported speculation.

Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. The stated reasoning for the firing was corruption, which of course would be in direct interests of American foreign policy. Joe did not try to make this a secret and he openly spoke about it, so there is also no evidence of any conscience of guilt.

DoS, IMF, EU, Ukranian anti-corruption groups and even prosecutor's own deputy - all of them applauded the removal of this swamp monster. Joe's stated reason for firing fully checks out. Trump's ENDORSEMENT of that corrupt official on the call with Zelensky is the damning fact here.

Here is a conservative source talking about that:

https://www.washingt...r-viktor-shokin


So what is left? Purely circumstatial evidence that Bidens son happened to be on the board of Burisma. Righties keep reaping a falsehood that Biden was personally under investigation, but thats compeltely false and he personally was never under any investigation by prosecutor in question or anyone else in Ukraine. The (dormant) investigation of Burisma had to do with 2012-2014 period, before Biden was on the board.

Aside from that there is EXACTLY NOTHING here and to try to equate this dead-end to a continiously evolving account of Trump pressuring Ukraine for political favors is to be completely detached from reality.


And Trump gained nothing personally, nor any political gain or favors, nor kept anything secret.

But by all means keep up the infantile temper tantrum, guaranteeing Trump's re-election.

:coolshades:
0

#11 User is offline   LeansToTheRight 

  • Dr. Elson Floyd. RIP
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,372
  • Joined: 25-October 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 12:40 PM

View Postcorporal_little, on 14 November 2019 - 10:23 AM, said:

No, I don't got it. Trump is currently the President. He is subject to impeachment regardless of if we think it's wrong, Constitutionally it is up to the House to impeach or not.

Biden isn't a civil officer, he isn't currently Vice President and he's sure as hell not President. Again, what office would you be removing him from?

Did you not read the article? If you did read it and you are asking these questions, I don’t know that anyone here will be able to help you understand it.
0

#12 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 18,226
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 14 November 2019 - 12:45 PM

Quote

Joe Biden has admitted to doing almost exactly what the House Democrats accuse President Trump of doing in their impeachment inquiry: using his position in government to obtain private political benefit from a foreign government. We should all be asking, “Why isn’t Biden also the target of a second impeachment inquiry?”


When did Biden make this admission?
0

#13 User is offline   LeansToTheRight 

  • Dr. Elson Floyd. RIP
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,372
  • Joined: 25-October 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 12:49 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 14 November 2019 - 11:09 AM, said:

That is pure fantasy.


I don't know where the hell righties got the idea that Biden EVER mentioned any kind of personal gain in exchange for American foreign policy but it's blatantly false. He "admited" nothing like that and it remains poorly supported speculation.

Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. The stated reasoning for the firing was corruption, which of course would be in direct interests of American foreign policy. Joe did not try to make this a secret and he openly spoke about it, so there is also no evidence of any conscience of guilt.

DoS, IMF, EU, Ukranian anti-corruption groups and even prosecutor's own deputy - all of them applauded the removal of this swamp monster. Joe's stated reason for firing fully checks out. Trump's ENDORSEMENT of that corrupt official on the call with Zelensky is the damning fact here.

Here is a conservative source talking about that:

https://www.washingt...r-viktor-shokin


So what is left? Purely circumstatial evidence that Bidens son happened to be on the board of Burisma. Righties keep reaping a falsehood that Biden was personally under investigation, but thats compeltely false and he personally was never under any investigation by prosecutor in question or anyone else in Ukraine. The (dormant) investigation of Burisma had to do with 2012-2014 period, before Biden was on the board.

Aside from that there is EXACTLY NOTHING here and to try to equate this dead-end to a continiously evolving account of Trump pressuring Ukraine for political favors is to be completely detached from reality.

Hunter Biden got a job he had no reason to get other than there was now access to Joe. What did Joe personally gain? Nothing. Unless some of the money going to Hunter was funneled to Joe. Joe’s a pretty simple guy, I’m sure he didn’t want or need any of that money. But getting his kid set up for life with a kush job like that? That actually can be considered personal gain for Joe. And what does Borisma get for putting someone like Hunter on their board? What does Ukraine benefit? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Has there been any independent investigation into this? And why did Joe lie about knowing Hunter was on the Burisma board?

These things need to be investigated. One of the Dems star witnesses in the first round of hearings on Wednesday even said as much. Why is the media silent on this?
0

#14 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,018
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 12:55 PM

View Postcorporal_little, on 14 November 2019 - 10:23 AM, said:

No, I don't got it. Trump is currently the President. He is subject to impeachment regardless of if we think it's wrong, Constitutionally it is up to the House to impeach or not.

Biden isn't a civil officer, he isn't currently Vice President and he's sure as hell not President. Again, what office would you be removing him from?


Yes, Congress shouldn't waste its time on impeaching an ex-Vice President. The amount of corruption that the Bidens participated in amounts to prosecutable offenses. That's why we have the DoJ.
0

#15 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,722
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 14 November 2019 - 01:02 PM

View PostAntonToo, on 14 November 2019 - 11:09 AM, said:

That is pure fantasy.


I don't know where the hell righties got the idea that Biden EVER mentioned any kind of personal gain in exchange for American foreign policy but it's blatantly false. He "admited" nothing like that and it remains poorly supported speculation.

Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. The stated reasoning for the firing was corruption, which of course would be in direct interests of American foreign policy. Joe did not try to make this a secret and he openly spoke about it, so there is also no evidence of any conscience of guilt.

DoS, IMF, EU, Ukranian anti-corruption groups and even prosecutor's own deputy - all of them applauded the removal of this swamp monster. Joe's stated reason for firing fully checks out. Trump's ENDORSEMENT of that corrupt official on the call with Zelensky is the damning fact here.

Here is a conservative source talking about that:

https://www.washingt...r-viktor-shokin


So what is left? Purely circumstatial evidence that Bidens son happened to be on the board of Burisma. Righties keep reaping a falsehood that Biden was personally under investigation, but thats compeltely false and he personally was never under any investigation by prosecutor in question or anyone else in Ukraine. The (dormant) investigation of Burisma had to do with 2012-2014 period, before Biden was on the board.

Aside from that there is EXACTLY NOTHING here and to try to equate this dead-end to a continiously evolving account of Trump pressuring Ukraine for political favors is to be completely detached from reality.



We can always count on your intelligent input...:yawn:

View PostMontyPython, on 14 November 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

And Trump gained nothing personally, nor any political gain or favors, nor kept anything secret.

But by all means keep up the infantile temper tantrum, guaranteeing Trump's re-election.

:coolshades:


:exactly:
0

#16 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,673
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 02:03 PM

View PostWeaseljd, on 14 November 2019 - 11:35 AM, said:

You can actually still impeach former office holders. The legal effect is that they are deemed removed from office, even retroactive. You may say "so what", but the biggest effect is that if they impeach after they are already gone, their entitlement to ongoing federal benefits from having held that office are also eliminated. Biden loses his pension from being vice president. he loses any security clearances he may have had and still has from holding that office. So the ongoing benefits he enjoys from having been a former vice president who retired from office are also extinguished. So impeachment now would still have consequences to Biden even though there would be no "removal" from office since "former" executives who leave due to losing an election or term limit are still afforded benefits of being President or Vice President.

You would know more than I ever would about this stuff. It's just weird to me how you could or would even want to impeach a former VP. If he did something illegal, let the DOJ prosecute him.
0

#17 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,673
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 02:04 PM

View PostLeansToTheRight, on 14 November 2019 - 12:40 PM, said:

Did you not read the article? If you did read it and you are asking these questions, I don’t know that anyone here will be able to help you understand it.

I read the article, I just don't agree with it. However, I'm not an attorney.
0

#18 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,673
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 02:06 PM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 14 November 2019 - 11:10 AM, said:

They had been accusing Trump of doing something (collusion, conspiracy) before he was sworn in. I don't see how that would be different than Biden right now if he were to ever be sworn back in.

I get that, but I can see where someone can be impeached and removed for something they did before they became President. I just can't see how you would do that after they're not in office anymore.

But, like I said above here, I'm not an attorney, so some of this stuff is just mumbojumbo to me.
0

#19 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 59,516
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 02:33 PM

From my reading of the responses in this thread, the point of impeaching Biden wouldn't be to remove him from any office - Corporal Little's correct that you can't "remove" somebody from a position he doesn't occupy.

But there's still a reason: He currently gets all kinds of bennies because of his former position: Pension payments, security clearances, armed security teams, and so forth. Every taxpayer is paying for all that stuff. If he's impeached, he loses all that stuff.

Sounds like a good reason to me.

B)
0

#20 User is online   Buckwheat Jones 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,955
  • Joined: 08-May 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 02:51 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 14 November 2019 - 02:33 PM, said:

From my reading of the responses in this thread, the point of impeaching Biden wouldn't be to remove him from any office - Corporal Little's correct that you can't "remove" somebody from a position he doesn't occupy.

But there's still a reason: He currently gets all kinds of bennies because of his former position: Pension payments, security clearances, armed security teams, and so forth. Every taxpayer is paying for all that stuff. If he's impeached, he loses all that stuff.

Sounds like a good reason to me.

B)

I think the real reason is to enforce the principle of an equal application of the law. Kommissar's belief that the Trump phone call is damning reveals that he is willing to make the assumption that "everybody knows what he meant." However his unwillingness to extend the same courtesy to biden just shows that he's another dumb tool.

Anyway, if we were to apply the laws equally to all, then hillary would have been charged in her server issues.
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users