No. 3 House Republican on impeaching Biden: 'Anything is on the table when we are in the majority'

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  174 comments

By:   Nicholas Ballasy (Just The News)

No. 3 House Republican on impeaching Biden: 'Anything is on the table when we are in the majority'
"But what I believe we should focus on is conducting oversight and making sure that we're passing legislation to secure the border once and for all," said New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, GOP Conference chair.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Addressing the possibility of a GOP-controlled House impeaching President Biden in 2023, House GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik told Just the News that "anything is on the table when we are in the majority."

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said recently there's a chance a Republican-led House would move to impeach Biden, specifically for his handling of the southern border crisis.

Stefanik shared her reaction to the comments Cruz made about impeachment.

"We've focused like a laser on the crises in America, and what I hear from voters — even in my district in northern New York, because I represent border patrol officers who have been transferred again and again and again to the southern border — it's crisis after crisis, it's a catastrophe," the New York lawmaker said during a press call with journalists on Monday.

"Anything is on the table when we are in the majority," Stefanik allowed. "But what I believe we should focus on is conducting oversight and making sure that we're passing legislation to secure the border once and for all. The policies of the previous administration under President Trump were working."

Illegal border crossings increased 5% in November over the previous month. Since November 2020, illegal border crossings were up 140%. The federal government has not released December 2021 border statistics yet.

Progressive Democrats such as Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that they supported impeaching former President Trump while on the campaign trail in 2018.

Then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did not publicly support impeachment during the 2018 campaign, which led to Democratic control fo the House. In 2019, Pelosi opened an impeachment inquiry against Trump after his phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Stefanik said she's currently focused on congressional oversight of the Biden Administration.

"My focus is on conducting oversight and making sure that we're passing legislation that we've introduced," she said. "We have numerous bills introduced to secure the border, and making sure that the border is fully funded."

Some of those oversight actions include the House Jan. 6 Select Committee. House Administration Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday, arguing that her office is blocking access to records related to security preparation of the U.S. Capitol ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot.

"There is irony in the fact that at the same time House Democrats are holding witnesses in criminal contempt of Congress for raising genuine questions of legal privilege, you continue to obstruct Republican access to House records relating to the security preparedness of the Capitol complex on January 6th, 2021," Davis wrote. "This double standard only adds to the evidence that Democrats are weaponizing events of January 6th against their political adversaries."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

So two can play the game?  Let's see if Republicans do it next year.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

I said this in another thread.  I hope they don't go down that route. I don't like Biden and I don't believe that if he runs in 24 that he stands a snowball's change in hell of being re-elected. But pushing impeachment of Biden on day 1 would be an extremely partisan issue that I don't want to see.  I feel they would be better served (by that I mean the American people of course) if they would focus on passing bills to fix the southern border, fix immigration, work on the economy,  actually provide a fix for health care, etc.  And if they do not have a veto-proof majority in the Senate and all Biden does is veto any bill that comes to his desk then they need to take that info to the public to show how the president is impacting everyday American's lives with his actions.  I feel that would provide a lot of push for the 24 elections to increase the Republican numbers in Congress as well as put a Republican in the White House.  (TBH I really don't want to see any one party have total (majority of the House, 60+ seats in the Senate and the WH) control of government. Neither party has the restraint to avoid the partisan crap that is always to the detriment of the American people. 

And lets be honest. If an impeachment were to succeed does anybody really want to see Harris sitting in the Oval Office?  To me that's kind of like cutting off  your leg to get out of a trap only to fall into a vat of acid.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @1.1    3 weeks ago

You are right to a certain degree. In his first year Biden proved to be the worst president we ever had. One could argue that he didn't protect the nation on the southern border and as you know that is crucial dereliction of duty. Leaving Biden out of it, a Republican congress won't be able to pass legislation with him or Harris still in office. I'm hoping the next congress does a lot of investigative work. There are so many issues to be looked at: Hunter Biden, the origins of covid-19 and Dr Fauci's involvement in it, Marc Elias suits that altered election laws, and oh yes - Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
a Republican congress won't be able to pass legislation with him or Harris still in office.

Very very true, which is why I want the Republicans to send up bills that actually do good for the country and when Biden veto's them for the Republicans to widely show how Biden is working against the American people.  Too many people in this country can only view things through their partisan lenses and it will take rubbing their noses in it to get them to wake up. But this only works if the Republicans pass bills that are actually good for the American people and not just partisan politics.

There are so many issues to be looked at: Hunter Biden, the origins of covid-19 and Dr Fauci's involvement in it, Marc Elias suits that altered election laws, and oh yes - Adam Schiff,Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar.

Again very true. But they have to be smart about it as well as fully transparent to the American people otherwise they risk looking just extremely partisan. And if they attempt to do too much at the same time they risk getting nothing accomplished and looking like fools, as these things always have a time limit on them.   I would think the first priorities should be covid-19 and the Marc Elias suits/election laws issues.  Next IMO would be Hunter Biden.  Not sure if I were them I would bother with Schiff, Swalwell or Omar. Those three are already out in the open and have proven what they are and what they are about, I'm not sure what an investigation into any of them would do as I don't know if it would make much difference to their constituents. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Snuffy @1.1    3 weeks ago

The horror of Camala the Clueless ascending to Oval Office is too awful to contemplate. The best thing the Republicans can do is to effectively neuter Biden by controlling both the House and Senate.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

And lest I forget, let us investigate the murder of Ashli Babbitt.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
And lest I forget, let us investigate the murder of Ashli Babbitt.

Are you martyring this woman?  

murder ≡ " the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" 

She was not murdered, Vic, she was part of an armed insurrection of our Capitol.   Participate in that kind of activity and you put yourself at risk of getting shot (and killed).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
Are you martyring this woman?  

Yes I am.


She was not murdered, Vic, she was part of an armed insurrection of our Capitol.  

Who was charged with insurrection (Pelosi's word) or treason or even sedition?


Participate in that kind of activity and you put yourself at risk of getting shot (and killed).

Not when leftists tried to burn down a police station with people in it. Those riots killed a dozen people btw. Do we have two sets of laws, TiG?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
In his first year Biden proved to be the worst president we ever had.

He just hasn't.  He's not even in the same league as LBJ, Nixon, Andrew Jackson and several others.  He's the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.  He's a feeble, ineffective old man 

Fuck me.  It's like we watched stupid, batshit liberal morons have an idiotic hissy fit for four years about how the world was coming to an end because Trump was worse than Hitler and now Trump supporters are thinking "it's finally OUR turn".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.7    3 weeks ago
He just hasn't.  He's not even in the same league as LBJ, Nixon, Andrew Jackson and several others.  He's the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.  He's a feeble, ineffective old man 

You don't think so?

Let us take one issue: He has flooded the country with unvaccinated, unvetted illegal migrants AND he has 3 years to go.

No concerns?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
Yes I am.

She deserves exactly the same level of martyrdom as Heather Heyer, Anthony Huber, and anybody else who gets killed actively participating in an unlawful riot.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.9    3 weeks ago

But we don't generally kill rioters, especially from the left. You do remember 2020, when the current VP set up a fund to spring violent rioters from jail?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

Participate in that kind of activity and you put yourself at risk of getting shot (and killed).

This ⇡ language does not specify any political criteria.   Don’t read partisan bias when none is even hinted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Yes, that is the rational move for the GOP.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
Let us take one issue: He has flooded the country with unvaccinated, unvetted illegal migrants AND he has 3 years to go.No concerns?

No.  The math raises no cause for concern as of yet.

Several data points....

  • CPB interactions are up at the Mexican border, but that does not necessarily mean the number of illegals is rising.  Most illegals in America go back and forth multiple times a year.  So we don't know how many of these interactions are new immigrants and how many are returning.
  • We currently have fewer illegals than we did when W was president, and nobody seemed to panic then.  
  • Illegal immigration has been a standard element of life in Texas for far longer than the 30 years I've lived here.  Yet we are perenially among the top 3-4 state economies in the US.  
  • If every one of the 1.5 million-ish border interaction cases was unvaccinated and every one of them settled in Texas, they would represent less than 12% of the unvaccinated population of Texas alone.   Nationally they represent about 1% of the unvaccinated population.
  • The statistics are pretty clear that vaccinated people have nothing to fear from unvaccinated people, except clogged ICUs and high medical bills.  But we can say that about fat people.

It makes less than zero sense to proclaim some sort of "personal choice" protection for unvaccinated Americans and then pretend that unvaccinated Hondurans are somehow a problem. It's the kind of data interpretation I would expect from AOC. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
But we don't generally kill rioters, especially from the left. You do remember 2020, when the current VP set up a fund to spring violent rioters from jail?

I do remember that.

However I am old school in the sense that I don't think somebody else being a fucking idiot means I should now endorse idiocy.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.1.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.14    3 weeks ago
" when the current VP set up a fund to spring violent rioters from jail?"
I do remember that.

Claim: During protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, Kamala Harris donated money to a Minnesota nonprofit that helped protesters who were arrested get out of jail and break more laws.

Facts: While Harris expressed support for a nonprofit called the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which pays criminal bail and immigration bonds, and encouraged her supporters to donate to it during the protests over Floyd's death in the summer of 2020, Harris did not donate money to the nonprofit before, after, or during the protests, according to its records. Additionally, no evidence shows people who received bail or bond assistance from MFF for arrests during the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
1.1.16  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
she was part of an armed insurrection of our Capitol. 

First, those calling that an insurrection wouldn't know one if it was happening right next to them. She wasn't armed. In fact they couldn't find a firearm out of all of the rioters. If you are calling the rioters armed for the weapons they used- what the hell do you call the BLM and Antifa Brown shirts that rioted using molotov cocktails, concrete milk shakes, knives, baseball bats laced with nails and barbed wire, chains, and anything else they could come up with? 

Second, are you defending the might mental midget LEO that shot her? He had the worst vantage point to see her, there were two other guards there in far better position and neither of them fired. In fact both were shocked he fired. He also startled a swat team coming up from a different direction.

This is the same mighty mental midget that left his loaded firearm unattended in a bathroom. In other words he lost his damn loaded weapon! 

Lastly, if Babbitt were a minority you can damn well bet that he wouldn't have gotten off. But since she served in the military, is white, and on the right the left and media don't give a fuck about her.

murder ≡ " the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

You do know there are varying degrees of murder under the law right?

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/murder-and-homicide.htm#:~:text=Murder%20includes%20premeditated%20murder%20(first,First%2Ddegree%20murder .

Here are some examples of these common types of murder:
  • First-degree murder. A deliberate, premeditated killing is generally considered first-degree murder. Where the defendant planned the killing (as in a poisoning), she will usually be charged with first-degree murder. The Los Angeles district attorney charged O.J. Simpson with two first-degree murder counts in the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and another person. The district attorney brought the first-degree murder charges based on crime scene evidence, including a bloody glove, and on evidence that Simpson allegedly spied on his wife prior to the killings. Such evidence could have indicated a plan or premeditation to commit the crimes.
  • Second-degree murder. In the widely-reported shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the prosecutor in Seminole County, Florida, charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The reason that the prosecutor charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder is that Zimmerman shot Martin but there was no evidence that the killing was premeditated. To win a conviction of Zimmerman on the charge, the prosecutor needed to prove to the jury that Zimmerman intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on Martin.
  • Felony murder. Let's assume by way of example that Bonnie and Clyde rob a bank. Clyde shoots and kills the guard during a confrontation. Clyde is charged with first-degree murder. Bonnie is charged with felony murder because the guard died during Bonnie's participation as an accomplice in committing the dangerous felony of armed robbery . Now let's assume instead that Bonnie waits behind the wheel of the getaway car while Clyde robs the bank. After the robbery, Clyde jumps into the car and Bonnie speeds off, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian. Both Bonnie and Clyde are charged with felony murder because they accidentally killed the pedestrian while committing a dangerous felony.
  • Aggravating circumstances. Murder committed under certain circumstances, such as by laying in wait or targeting a person in a particular position, such as a police officer, judge, or firefighter, can lead to a more severe sentence, including the death penalty .

Second Degree Murder should cover it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.16    3 weeks ago
First, those calling that an insurrection wouldn't know one if it was happening right next to them.

The word is well-defined:

insurrection ☞ A violent uprising against an authority or government.   

Just use the English language as defined.

She wasn't armed.

So?   LOL.   Do you think, when people speak of the Capitol insurrection, that they are speaking of one woman?   The insurrection was executed by a group of people and as a group they were most certainly armed.   The fact that she was not armed does not mean she was not part of an insurrection.

Man, talking about bending over backwards to spin reality.

Second, are you defending the might mental midget LEO that shot her?

No, I am saying that killing a person is not necessarily murdering her.   The word 'murder' is well-defined.   Both DP and I have included the definition in this article.   Look it up for yourself.

You do know there are varying degrees of murder under the law right?

Well if you want to go to legal definitions of murder then you need a trial to adjudicate to one of those legal definitions.   That is, you need to find the killer guilty of a specific type of murder.

If you are speaking English and are not referring to a legal finding, use the English word with its English meaning.

To be crystal clear, nobody can say that Bobbitt was murdered.    The conditions do not justify the English word and no court of law has determined that a legally defined murder took place.   

In short, you are wrong.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.18  XXJefferson51  replied to  Snuffy @1.1    3 weeks ago

True.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.19  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
Tig wrote: "She was not murdered"

She was unarmed and no immediate threat to her killer

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.19    3 weeks ago

Look at the English meaning of the word 'murder': 

murder ≡ " the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

She was killed, not murdered.

And if you go legal, you need a court of law to determine murder.   That has not happened.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
She was killed, not murdered.

That is debatable.    One could argue the killer did have time to premeditate shooting her.    Regardless, I doubt it matters to her loved ones.    She is just as dead either way and 100% via the hand of that cop.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.21    3 weeks ago

Do you know this?    No.   So go with what is known.   She was killed.   To be considered murdered, additional hard facts must be provided.   Possibilities are not facts.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.22    3 weeks ago

I know it doesn’t matter to people who cared about her.    And that the cop has gotten away with killing her with no legal consequences at all.

More facts to chew on ......

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.24  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    3 weeks ago

Why you bitchin at Greg, he said nothing about murder!

She was unarmed and no immediate threat to her killer

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.24    3 weeks ago
I know it doesn’t matter to people who cared about her.  

Look at what he quoted goosie.   Follow the context.

And why do you call my comment 'bitching'?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.23    3 weeks ago
I know it doesn’t matter to people who cared about her.  

Of course not.   But that is not what we were talking about.

Don't know why this is so difficult to accept.   She was killed.   We have no facts that show she was murdered.   Why is there even a debate about something this obvious?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.14    3 weeks ago

No fighting fire with fire, huh?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.28  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.17    3 weeks ago
In short, you are wrong.

I don't think so.

The British government would be right to declare ever colonist revolt an insurrection, including the American revolution.

Nancy Pelosi is an evil human being.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.26    3 weeks ago

I’ve already pointed out a very clear position why above.    Honestly, it’s hard to see what isn’t clear about it

The person who shot her was never tried in a court of law for doing so.    So it will remain debatable if the shooting was premeditated or not.     Unless of course you can tell us here you are 100% sure it wasn’t premeditated, which you can’t.

Again, the really cogent part of this discussion is that she was killed.    She’s dead and the person that killed her gets away 100% scot-free.    That .... is messed up by most any standard but many here seem to think that it’s just fine.    

No justice, no peace except for Ashli and her loved ones I guess eh ......

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.30  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
And lest I forget, let us investigate the murder of Ashli Babbitt.

not murdered, suicide by cop, but I'd like to know why the coroner didn't have to fish at least 2 more hollow points out of her skull.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.31  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @1.1.30    3 weeks ago
not murdered, suicide by cop,

Considering she was part of an angry, violent mod storming the Capitol, I'd say the root cause was death by stupidity.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.17    3 weeks ago
"In short, you are wrong."

Ya!  You are correct.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.29    3 weeks ago
The person who shot her was never tried in a court of law for doing so.  

As I noted.   Thus one cannot use the legal definition of murder.   The point I made.

So it will remain debatable if the shooting was premeditated or not.    

Exactly, so it is presumptuous for anyone to call this murder, legal murder or colloquial definition of murder.   As I noted.

Again, the really cogent part of this discussion is that she was killed.

That has been my point Sparty.   She was killed!    When people leap presumptuously to 'murder', that is wrong.   You clearly know that is wrong so why are you even responding to me with a pretense of disagreement?   You clearly agree with the point I made:

The fact is that Babbitt was killed;  we have no basis for deeming it 'murder'.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.1.34  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.31    3 weeks ago
I'd say the root cause was death by stupidity.

I find it interesting how right wing conservatives often justify the shooting of unarmed black men who were fleeing police but are here outraged over a cop shooting a person who was literally breaking down a barrier to charge directly at the officers. Let's face it, if she had been a black BLM member doing the exact same thing but trying to go after conservative legislators after a BLM riot stormed the capital, every single one of these conservatives here would be praising the officer calling him a hero. Right wing conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.35  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    3 weeks ago

What kind of homicide should her unlawful killing be classified as?

2nd degree murder? Manslaughter?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.35    3 weeks ago

That is something that is decided in a court of law.    You do not get to decide and neither do I.

Deeming this a particular legal murder cannot be done outside of a court of law.   

And you cannot presume this is unlawful either by the same reasoning.

What we all can do is look at the facts and note that she was killed after illegally breaking and entering the Capitol. 

Here, you can even read the officer's account of what happened: 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
1.1.37  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
You do remember 2020, when the current VP set up a fund to spring violent rioters from jail?

Set up a fund?  What bullshit!!  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.39  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.37    3 weeks ago

So you are going to argue that she really didn't set it up? She just promoted it?

A charitable bail organization talked up by   Kamala Harris   is drawing scrutiny amid increased rioting and violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon.

In addition to Harris, Joe Biden's running mate on the Democratic ticket and a California senator,   Minnesota Freedom Fund   has attracted celebrity donors such as Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, Rob Delaney, Cynthia Nixon, and Don Cheadle. The group aims to steer donations to demonstrators arrested in Minneapolis during May riots following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died during his arrest by the Minneapolis Police Department.

washingtonexaminer.com/news/kamala-harris-pushed-bail-fund-that-helped-murder-and-rape-suspects-get-out-of-jail-while-awaiting-trial

And since you sought to distinguish between the two, let me add what Harris posted about it:

"Kamala Harris says that riots are not going to stop, ever, and to BEWARE. With a smile on her face," they read.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.40  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.31    3 weeks ago

Then we should of had thousands of dead violent people in 2020. How come we didn't?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.41  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.40    3 weeks ago

Maybe because no one took the extra step to deal with them? Why ask me?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.42  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.41    3 weeks ago
Why ask me?

Because you stated that those who are killed for protesting are "stupid."

Not what you said?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.43  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.42    3 weeks ago

Engaging in an insurrection against the government and storming the capitol is stupid. So no one should be surprised if insurrectionists ate shot. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
1.1.44  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.39    3 weeks ago

Please watch the video you posted.  The first thirty seconds are enough to tell you how disingenuous, or worse still, flat-out dishonest, you are being with your words in regard to what your links represent.  Did you think no one would click on the USA Today link and listen to it?    

She says, "After the murders of [lots of names], it's no wonder that people are taking to the streets, and I support them.  We must always support peaceful protests, and peaceful protesters.  We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence...

When you do things like this (which is a daily occurrence), it makes trusting your contributions on NT impossible, and it damages the integrity of NT when non-members are visiting.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
1.1.45  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.44    3 weeks ago
it damages the integrity of NT when non-members are visiting.

Like his comments are the only ones? Don't think so. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.46  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.44    3 weeks ago

I deal in facts. Harris supported those riots and did many here.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.47  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.45    3 weeks ago
Like his comments are the only ones?

Gee Jim...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.1.48  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.46    3 weeks ago
Harris supported those riots and did many here.

Bullshit. You equate supporting the peaceful protests which were by far the majority with supporting the few protests that turned violent even though Harris and those here condemned the violence and vandalism. Your narrative is just bullshit lies and partisan attacks on those you've already decided to hate regardless of our words and actions. I hear conservatives deflecting and defending the violence we saw last January 6th claiming it was no more violent than a tour of the capital, I've never heard such a defense of the rioters from anyone on the left here or elsewhere other than perhaps a handful of extremists on twitter.

I've said it dozens of times before and I'll say it again, those who committed acts of violence, vandalism or looting whether during a protest in 2020 or last January 6th should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why don't we hear that same sentiment expressed by those on the right about their fellow conservatives who attacked the capital?

The main difference between the Jan 6th attack on the capital and the VAST majority of protesters from 2020 was that 93% of those protests were legal and peaceful but right wing dipshits still try and paint every liberal and progressive as some angry violent ANTIFA or BLM member which is total bullshit as evidenced by the vast majority of those on the left condemning the violence, vandalism and looting.

The January 6th attack on the capital was neither legal nor peaceful and yet the perpetrators are being protected and defended by their fellow right wing conservatives who are constantly trying to downplay the violence, flip the narrative and excuse an attempted insurrection all because they happen to agree with those who attacked our government and constitutional process of transferring power.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
1.1.49  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.46    3 weeks ago
I deal in facts. Harris supported those riots and did many here.

Oh.  Brother.  Posting such a ridiculous statement has helped me see what you are all about.  Glad I could help you out with your comment count.  Your welcome.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.50  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.48    3 weeks ago
Bullshit. You equate supporting the peaceful protests which were by far the majority with supporting the few protests that turned violent even though Harris and those here condemned the violence and vandalism.

Now you have to set me straight, simply condemn the ones that were violent and demand accountability for those who did so much damage, injured so many cops and killed about a dozen people.

 Your narrative is just bullshit lies and partisan attacks on those you've already decided to hate regardless of our words and actions. 

If I wanted to hate them, I'd have a lot to hate them for.


I hear conservatives deflecting and defending the violence we saw last January 6th 

I don't. I hear many of them claiming that it was an act of terror. Ted Cruz actually went that far. I've never heard democrats condemn the rioters of 2020.


I've said it dozens of times before and I'll say it again, those who committed acts of violence, vandalism or looting whether during a protest in 2020 or last January 6th should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Nice to hear. Do you think they ever will be prosecuted?


 Why don't we hear that same sentiment expressed by those on the right about their fellow conservatives who attacked the capital?

We have. When will they get due process?


The main difference between the Jan 6th attack on the capital and the VAST majority of protesters from 2020 was that 93% of those protests were legal and peaceful but right wing dipshits still try and paint every liberal and progressive as some angry violent ANTIFA or BLM member which is total bullshit as evidenced by the vast majority of those on the left condemning the violence, vandalism and looting.

Oh stop with that 93% shit. They did far more damage and killed 12 people. Few were ever prosecuted. Police departments were defunded. The mayor of DC painted "Black Lives Matter" on on main street, the current VP sponsored a fund to get rioters out of jail and blue city mayors had the police stand down.


The January 6th attack on the capital was neither legal nor peaceful and yet the perpetrators are being protected and defended by their fellow right wing conservatives who are constantly trying to downplay the violence, flip the narrative and excuse an attempted insurrection all because they happen to agree with those who attacked our government and constitutional process of transferring power.

All of which is a lie. Over 700 have been arrested, many of whom have been in jail for most of a year awaiting trial. If you don't see the difference between the two things, you have your eyes closed.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.51  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.49    3 weeks ago
Glad I could help you out with your comment count.  Your welcome. 

Please don't. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.52  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.48    3 weeks ago

Oh ya, one more thing:

"On his final day in office, Jan. 20, 2001, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of a pair of radical leftists serving time for bombing the U.S. Capitol building, where a 1983 blast shattered the second floor of the Senate wing."



Does anyone even remember that?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.53  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.52    3 weeks ago
Does anyone even remember that?

Nope. The January 6th riot is such a world shattering tragedy that no one will even remember 9/11 occurred in a few years. World War 2 Will be considered a myth,

Only 1/6/21/ will have historical resonance.  Who can forget that day when nothing changed and no one who wasn't rioting died? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.54  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.53    3 weeks ago

Will they recall Trump saying "Go in peace?"

Or how about this:

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.54    3 weeks ago
Will they recall Trump saying "Go in peace?"

Do you not even recognize that Trump allowed the insurrection to take place for hours before taking action?   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.56  Tessylo  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.44    3 weeks ago
"She says, "After the murders of [lots of names], it's no wonder that people are taking to the streets, and I support them.  We must always support peaceful protests, and peaceful protesters.  We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence..."
What I and anyone with a lick of sense have been saying all along - Those looting and committing acts of violence - are the criminals - not the peaceful protesters - and so many of those criminals were right wing outside agitators I would bet about 99% of the time.  The ones who committed arson and acts of violence that is.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.57  Tessylo  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.44    3 weeks ago
" I deal in facts. Harris supported those riots and did many here."
jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif
We supported the peaceful protests/protesters, not the alt-right committing acts of violence and setting fires.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.58  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.55    3 weeks ago

I do. I also recognize that he asked for the guard prior to the rally.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.59  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.55    3 weeks ago
"Will they recall Trump saying "Go in peace?"
"Do you not even recognize that Trump allowed the insurrection to take place for hours before taking action?"   

For over 2-1/2 hours.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.60  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.58    3 weeks ago

I am watching you dismiss everything bad and cling to the very few words by Trump that were responsible.

As a sitting PotUS, Trump abused the authority and influence of his office against the nation because of a bruised ego:

  • suborned his V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act
  • coerced officials to lie about the vote counts
  • conspired to get state legislators to invalidate their certified votes
  • lied profusely and repeatedly to the American people claiming that their electoral system was a fraud and that their votes were disenfranchised
  • supported 61+ frivolous (utter bullshit) lawsuits 
  • worked his supporters up into an emotional frenzy and one result of this was the Capitol insurrection which he let occur for hours before stepping in to tell his supporters to leave

It sickens me to see people defend Trump's Big Lie con-job and Trump himself.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.61  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.60    3 weeks ago

I don't want to see you sick, but I do want a return to Trump policies. I'm confident that both of us might be happy in 2024.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.61    3 weeks ago
... but I do want a return to Trump policies.

Then here is my suggestion.   Stop trying to defend Trump.   Distance yourself and your party from that miserable lying narcissist and support DeSantis or whomever who would offer similar policies.

Defending Trump is an act of futility and doing so only further harms the credibility of the GOP.   Cut him loose.  Move on and start healing from the infection of the Trump parasite.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.63  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.33    3 weeks ago

Opinion do vary, as I have noted numerous times.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.64  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.63    3 weeks ago

This is not opinion, it is definitional.

The word ' murder ' is defined as:  " The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."   

Using the English word ' murder ' means premeditated and unlawful .   Unless you know the killing was premeditated and unlawful you are incorrect to call the killing murder.

The legal definition for ' murder ' requires adjudication by a court of law.   Given no such adjudication has taken place it is not possible to affix any of the legal definitions for murder to this killing.

Thus, fact, not opinion, the killing of Babbitt has not ( yet ) met the criteria for it to be called murder.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.65  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.64    3 weeks ago

Nope, still just your opinion.    Nothing more.

The why has already been explained at length here.   That you don’t accept that explanation or simply choose to ignore them is your issue not anyone else’s.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.65    3 weeks ago

I did not write the dictionaries which define English words nor did I define the legal system.   Amazing watching you actually dismiss the formal, authoritative definitions of the word in question.

You have no argument ... you just claim that opinions vary ... a mere platitude.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.67  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.66    3 weeks ago

Lol ..... you mean like how you accept the dictionary definition of faith?

”a firm belief in something for which there is no proof”

You’re the one with nothing but the ability to pick and choose when you see fit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.67    3 weeks ago
You’re the one with nothing but the ability to pick and choose when you see fit.

You reject the standard dictionary meaning of the English word ' faith ' too?    So do you ignore the formal meaning of words when inconvenient and just pick whatever meaning fits your needs?   

Also:   faith ≡ " Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.69  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.68    3 weeks ago

So you think I’m rejecting that “valid” definition, then you must know you are rejecting the valid definition I offered up as well.

Glad we got that cleared up.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.70  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.69    3 weeks ago

I have never rejected either.    I gave you the definition from Oxford because that is the one I offer (when appropriate).

Now since you compared the two and have now committed (surprise!) to the fact that they are equivalent, what is this utter nonsense from you that I do NOT accept the dictionary definition of faith?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.71  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.70    3 weeks ago

Bullshit, you rejected my definition in our “faith” debate we had some time ago.    Repeatedly actually.

I on the other hand have rejected nothing in that regard so I’ll thank you in advance to stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.71    3 weeks ago

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.   Why on Earth would I reject the dictionary definition of 'faith' when it directly supports my long-standing arguments?   What enjoyment do you get from spewing bullshit?

Faith not being based on proof (or even persuasive evidence) is fundamental to the distinction I make between it and science.

Hello?    jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.73  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.72    3 weeks ago

Lol ... there you go again with your classic look down your nose at your opponent snark.

Why would you do that?    Because you got cornered in that debate.    Belief in something that can’t be proven, destroys the “gotta prove it to believe it” mindset, so you rejected it.

Yeah, I remember it well so keep spewing your BS about how my comment is just BS.    Remember, I don’t care because I could care less what you think about the topic.    I gleaned that mindset from that debate.

So have at her.    This discussion with you is a waste of time ....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.73    3 weeks ago

You are clearly confused and are making half-baked accusations (no doubt to divert from your confusion over the definition of 'murder')

Belief in something that can’t be proven, destroys the “gotta prove it to believe it” mindset, so you rejected it.

More invented crap.    I have never argued that one must prove something to believe it.    That makes no sense.   People believe all sorts of stuff without proof.   My argument would be that belief without persuasive evidence is not a reliable path to truth.    Not that proof is required for people to believe things.   You are confused.

This discussion with you is a waste of time ....

Projection.   This started with your confusion over the word 'murder' and you diverted into this 'faith' nonsense.    And now you are simply inventing crap out of thin air.    A chickenshit tactic.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.75  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.74    3 weeks ago

Nah, you are way off base once again.    
The only debatable thing here in that regard is if you are in simple denial or just lying    Either way, I could care less ...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.75    3 weeks ago
Nah, you are way off base once again.

Yeah, your nuh'uh rebuttal is very persuasive.    96

The only debatable thing here in that regard is if you are in simple denial or just lying    Either way, I could care less ...

You suggesting that I am the one lying is more projection.   You invent positions for me that I would never hold and claim arguments that I would never make.   You will never find a comment from me that argues one must have proof to believe something .  

In short, if you actually believe the crap you are writing then you have no clue what you are talking about.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.77  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.39    3 weeks ago
And since you sought to distinguish between the two, let me add what Harris posted about it:
"Kamala Harris says that riots are not going to stop, ever, and to BEWARE. With a smile on her face," they read.

That is a blatant lie. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    3 weeks ago

This is probably why Max Rose is having a comeback. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2    3 weeks ago

It's probably why democrats are going to lose about 70 House seats in November.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago

Highly unlikely. Still won't get Biden removed...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

What's highly unlikely?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

... traitors winning elections.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

It already happened about a year ago.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
3  squiggy    3 weeks ago

If you step into the ring and the other guy starts punching himself in the face, ya just let him go. The real reason for Pelosi’s 1/6 celebration is a distraction from the left’s dismal performance. Let them lose all by themselves.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
3.1  Transyferous Rex  replied to  squiggy @3    3 weeks ago

Let them eat cake.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
3.2  squiggy  replied to  squiggy @3    3 weeks ago

… and a mere few hours later doesn’t AOC, the donkey on the couch, come along to reinforce the point.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

If you’ve sown the wind, you reap the whirlwinds 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @4    3 weeks ago
If you’ve sown the wind, you reap the whirlwinds 

Who was it that said that?   Was it Maj. Gen. Alexander Vandegrift?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 weeks ago

Paraphrased from the Old Testament ....... had to google the exact verse but it’s Hosea 8:7

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

That would make much more sense!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

Yeah, it’s very Old Testament.....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

I knew that, but I had to work the Marines into it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

Oorah

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
5  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago

It's not like the Republican's will have to resort to Democrat methods and use falsified warrants, documents and an illegal investigation to do it.  Biden's administration has given enough evidence to support an impeachment.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6  TᵢG    3 weeks ago
Addressing the possibility of a GOP-controlled House impeaching President Biden in 2023, House GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik told Just the News that "anything is on the table when we are in the majority."

Yeah the bar is so low now, impeachment is simply another political weapon.   What a bunch of irresponsible child-adults we continue to elect to Congress.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6    3 weeks ago

Yep...AOC and Omar being obvious examples

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    3 weeks ago

You recognize no GOP examples?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

I'll leave that to you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

Given your refusal to answer a simple question, the default is that you do not consider any GOP member of Congress to engage in child-adult behavior.  Only Ds, never Rs.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
Only Ds, never Rs.  

Which displays a clear bias.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6    3 weeks ago
Yeah the bar is so low now

And you can thank Nancy Pelosi. That will be her legacy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2    3 weeks ago

Her bar was lowered by the Clinton impeachment.   

Will this bar lowering continue or will the GOP show integrity?   This seed suggests the GOP is willing to play in the same mud pile.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.1    3 weeks ago
Her bar was lowered by the Clinton impeachment.   

Oh, that was it? How about all of them?


Will this bar lowering continue or will the GOP show integrity? 

Should we have conducted the trials at Nuremberg?   Didn't the democrats try to prosecute their political enemies?


This seed suggests the GOP is willing to play in the same mud pile.

Sadly, that's where we are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.1    3 weeks ago
"Will this bar lowering continue or will the GOP show integrity?"

Not possible

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.2    3 weeks ago
Oh, that was it? How about all of them?

Clinton's impeachment was the first Impeachment since Johnson and the first one of modern times.   So what are the 'all of them' you are referring to?   If you are including the Trump impeachments then you missed my point since Clinton's impeachment is what I noted as lowering the bar for subsequent impeachments.

Should we have conducted the trials at Nuremberg?

We are talking about presidential impeachments and you leap to Nuremberg??  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.4    3 weeks ago
Clinton's impeachment was the first Impeachment since Johnson and the first one of modern times.   So what are the 'all of them' you are referring to?   If you are including the Trump impeachments then you missed my point since Clinton's impeachment is what I noted as lowering the bar for subsequent impeachments.

What I'm saying is that they were all mostly political. If you want to book mark Clinton as being the first of modern times, that's fine. That being said, the Republicans didn't have a plan to impeach him as soon as they took control of the House, did they?  That is what makes the two faux Trump impeachments an all time low.


We are talking about presidential impeachments and you leap to Nuremberg??

An extreme analogy perhaps, but then again the democrats were hard rulers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.5    3 weeks ago
What I'm saying is that they were all mostly political.

Well of course they were.

If you want to book mark Clinton as being the first of modern times, that's fine.

That was my point.   The Clinton impeachment was the logical beginning of the modern view / usage of impeachment.

That being said, the Republicans didn't have a plan to impeach him as soon as they took control of the House, did they?   That is what makes the two faux Trump impeachments an all time low.

Yeah, the bar continues to be lowered;  as I noted.     Now, will the GOP continue this trend?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.6    3 weeks ago
Now, will the GOP continue this trend?

Would there be any legitimacy in impeaching Biden or Garland?  

How do you feel about Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution?

How about an investigation of Hunter Biden?  To me that would be the way to go. There is a lot there and the media, the current AG and the president have hidden all of this from us. There is supposed to be an ongoing investigation that we never hear about. I think Hunter Biden is not only fair game, but I think it would be the right thing to do.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.6    3 weeks ago

None of us voted for Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden didn't do anything that needs to be investigated.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.8    3 weeks ago

That doesn't mean he should have a get out of jail card.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
6.2.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.9    3 weeks ago

Weird. I didn't see TiG mention anything about Hunter Biden.................

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.10    3 weeks ago

There are certain things that are indefensible.

It's what writers call "the pregnant pause."  There will be silence on Hunter now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.7    3 weeks ago
Would there be any legitimacy in impeaching Biden or Garland?  

On what grounds would you support impeachment of Biden?

How do you feel about Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution?

What?   Context would be helpful.

How about an investigation of Hunter Biden? 

I do not care.   One of many low priority issues.   I prefer focusing on securing our border,  ensuring the infrastructure legislation is effectively executed, getting people vaccinated, etc.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.12    3 weeks ago
On what grounds would you support impeachment of Biden?

There would only be one: As I said Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution. You have heard of it?

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.13    3 weeks ago
You have heard of it?

Why are you resorting to snark?   Your question was vague (incomplete).

You think that is grounds to impeach Biden??   Looks then like you will be all in on the next round of purely partisan abuse of impeachment.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
6.2.15  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.4    3 weeks ago

Clinton perjured himself in front of a Grand Jury; and he tried to influence witnesses to bear false testimony- which was obstruction. 

I guess some have much higher standards for what is an impeachable offense; and that the laws shouldn't apply to everyone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.15    3 weeks ago
Clinton perjured himself in front of a Grand Jury; and he tried to influence witnesses to bear false testimony- which was obstruction. 

I would not impeach a PotUS for this level of perjury.   I would also not impeach a PotUS for this level of alleged obstruction.   The bar is too low for removal from office.  Censure would be more appropriate.

Note also that the Clinton impeachment was a party-line vote.   It was partisan.   The only guilty votes came from the GOP (with some crossing over to vote not guilty).

I guess some have much higher standards for what is an impeachable offense; and that the laws shouldn't apply to everyone.

I think my standards are much higher than yours and mine have nothing to do with the party of the PotUS.   Can you say the same?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.17  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.18  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.14    3 weeks ago
Why are you resorting to snark?

I'm not. There are those who may not be familiar with Article 4 of the US Constitution.


You think that is grounds to impeach Biden??  

Allowing millions (and it will be millions by 2024) to enter the country illegally?  One could easily make such a case and it would be more than Pelosi had in two impeachments. One could also make the case that he lied about and benefited from Hunter's dealings with the Chinese. That would be another avenue for impeachment.


  Looks then like you will be all in on the next round of purely partisan abuse of impeachment.

Not really. You took us down this road of hypotheticals after I merely asked: "Would there be any legitimacy in impeaching Biden or Garland?"

You know, it seems like yesterday when I tuned in to Morning Joe, right after the 2016 election, and I heard David Ignatius call the next election (the 2018 midterms) the "impeachment election."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.18    3 weeks ago
There are those who may not be familiar with Article 4 of the US Constitution.

Yes, Vic, I have 'heard of' Article 4, Section 4 of the CotUS.

Allowing millions (and it will be millions by 2024) to enter the country illegally?

One does not impeach a PotUS for policy / lack of focus / etc. no matter how much one disagrees with it.    And on this issue you and I agree but this is not something over which you impeach a PotUS.   Stop reaching for impeachment at every turn.   Congress should act and put legislation on Biden's desk.   Congress should raise a stink about this before Congress engages in impeachment.   And only turn to impeachment as a last resort when something qualifies at the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.   Finally, if the people disapprove (as they should over the issue of illegal immigration and border security) then they should not reelect Biden.

One could easily make such a case and it would be more than Pelosi had in two impeachments.

Pelosi's first impeachment should not be a standard for presidential impeachment.   The first could have been legit if the House had the means to make a much stronger case but they simply did not have sufficient hard evidence and should have gone for censure instead.   The second, however, might be legit if it was to remove Trump from office based on his abuse of authority/influence (e.g. suborning his V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act as V.P.) during his Big Lie con job.  [I personally find his nation-harming actions sufficient to disqualify him from continuing to hold the office of PotUS.]  But since he was going to be out of office before the trial, he should have been censured (or equivalent).

One could also make the case that he lied about and benefited from Hunter's dealings with the Chinese. That would be another avenue for impeachment.

Lying in itself is not an impeachable offense.   Lying under oath (depending upon the lie) could be.   Remember, we are talking about high crimes and misdemeanors like bribery and treason.   The facts matter.   Persuasive evidence matters.   Removing a sitting PotUS was never supposed to be easy;  it was a last resort to rid the nation of someone using the office for gross criminal activities.

Not really. You took us down this road of hypotheticals after I merely asked: "Would there be any legitimacy in impeaching Biden or Garland?"

What hypotheticals??   I responded to your comments.   Also, even if I had used hypotheticals, how is that a problem?   I am walking the path you set!

You know, it seems like yesterday when I tuned in to Morning Joe, right after the 2016 election, and I heard David Ignatius call the next election (the 2018 midterms) the "impeachment election."

It disturbs me greatly that there are so many irresponsible partisans who constantly have impeachment on the tip of their tongues.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.16    3 weeks ago
I would not impeach a PotUS for this level of perjury.

How much perjury and witness tampering is acceptable in the Chief law enforcement officer of the US?

Note also that the Clinton impeachment was a party-line vote. 

Democrats voted to impeach Clinton.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.20    3 weeks ago
How much perjury and witness tampering is acceptable in the Chief law enforcement officer of the US?

It always depends on the specifics.   I am not going to attempt to define specific rules for impeachment (much less in a comment).

Democrats voted to impeach Clinton.

5 for articles of impeachment;  0 for conviction.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.2.22  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.19    3 weeks ago

It was so much on the tips of Democrat tongues that they that tried and failed twice to get rid of Trump. It was totally biased political partisanship

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.22    3 weeks ago

Yeah, so are you going to use the argument that 'they did it so I get to do it'?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.19    3 weeks ago
One does not impeach a PotUS for policy / lack of focus / etc. no matter how much one disagrees with it. 

No president has a right to a policy that contradicts the Constitution. Biden opened the borders and allowed an invasion of the US. 


Stop reaching for impeachment at every turn. 

How ironic that you'd say that to me!


Congress should raise a stink about this before Congress engages in impeachment.  

The democratic congress is going to pass legislation bolstering Article 4?


Finally, if the people disapprove (as they should over the issue of illegal immigration and border security) then they should not reelect Biden.

One could argue that they shouldn't have voted for him in the first place.


The second, however, might be legit if it was to remove Trump from office based on his abuse of authority/influence (e.g. suborning his V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act as V.P.) during his Big Lie con job

Might have?  He was no longer President.  Maybe Pelosi can just keep impeaching him forever...or should I say until the midterms.


What hypotheticals??   I responded to your comments.   Also, even if I had used hypotheticals, how is that a problem?   I am walking the path you set!

I posed a question and you have me making a case for impeachment. I think we can agree on one thing - the bar is now low enough to impeach anyone. If the next congress impeached Biden & Harris & Garland, I'd have no problem with it.


It disturbs me greatly that there are so many irresponsible partisans who constantly have impeachment on the tip of their tongues.

I'm not sure you are talking about Ignatius (you left that vague, maybe for a reason), but I do know that on the heels of the 2016 election, Ignatius called it perfectly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.24    3 weeks ago
No president has a right to a policy that contradicts the Constitution. Biden opened the borders and allowed an invasion of the US. 

The problem is that your extreme partisan exaggeration is not reality.   Biden has failed to properly secure the borders.   The borders are not wide open as your exaggeration suggests and the word 'invasion' is purely emotive.   Rational minds thinking soundly would laugh at the suggestion that this is an impeachable offense.

How ironic that you'd say that to me!

I never called for the impeachment of Trump thus no irony.   Don't make shit up.

One could argue that they shouldn't have voted for him in the first place.

Biden was elected because Trump was and is a weak candidate.   And for obvious reasons.   In spite of generally good times while PotUS and policies that pleased his base, Trump is known by too many for what he is and what he is should never sit in the Oval office.

Might have?  He was no longer President. 

Calm down and read what I wrote.   I also stated: "But since he was going to be out of office before the trial, he should have been censured (or equivalent)."  

... the bar is now low enough to impeach anyone. If the next congress impeached Biden & Harris & Garland, I'd have no problem with it.

Utterly irresponsible partisan 'thinking'.   The bar should be raised, not further abused.

I'm not sure you are talking about Ignatius

I am speaking in general.   That is why my language was general.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.25    3 weeks ago
Rational minds thinking soundly

Rational minds thinking soundly would admit that the southern border is wide open and it is not due to failure, but by design.


I never called for the impeachment of Trump thus no irony.  

But you did say: The second might be legit if it was to remove Trump from office based on his abuse of authority/influence. Why would you even consider such a hypothetical. He was out of office, yet he got impeached. I thought for sure you would recognize what was wrong with that. BTW, the irony I was referring to was the 4 years of calling for impeachment by democrats. The fact that you suddenly recognize that impeachment is not a good tool for political differences is quite a realization. When did you fist come to that conclusion?


Biden was elected because Trump was and is a weak candidate. 

Biden was elected because the democrats made a calculated gamble in early 2020. They were going to blame those covid deaths (you know the daily death count that we don't see anymore) on Trump. That combined with Trump going along with Fauci's idea of shutting down the economy sealed his fate. Jane Fonda had it right - Covid was God's gift to the left.


I also stated: "But since he was going to be out of office before the trial, he should have been censured (or equivalent)."  

Why?  For not telling the crowd to go home?



Utterly irresponsible partisan 'thinking'.   The bar should be raised, not further abused.

When I hear you tell the lefties the same thing, I'll grant you the elusive "non-partisan status."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.26    3 weeks ago
Rational minds thinking soundly would admit that the southern border is wide open and it is not due to failure, but by design.

That is irrational.  The border is absolutely NOT wide open.   It needs to be tightened but wide open is a ridiculous, emotive exaggeration.   Nobody should believe people who exaggerate.   We agree that Biden should be doing more to tighten the border especially in a pandemic, but I reject your emotive exaggerations.

But you did say: The second might be legit if it was to remove Trump from office based on his abuse of authority/influence.

Because as a sitting PotUS he abused the authority of his office to suborn his V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act, coerced officials to lie about the vote counts, conspired to get state legislators to invalidate their certified votes, lied profusely and repeatedly to the American people claiming that their electoral system was a fraud and that their votes were disenfranchised, supported 61+ frivolous (utter bullshit) lawsuits and worked his supporters up into an emotional frenzy and one result of this was the Capitol insurrection which he let occur before stepping in to tell his supporters to leave.

Do you just dismiss all of this as nothing?    You do not see how a sitting PotUS was seeking to undermine the system of government over which he presided??

Why would you even consider such a hypothetical. He was out of office, yet he got impeached.

Good grief man, for the second time, read what people write:

TiG @6.2.19 ☞ The second, however, might be legit if it was to remove Trump from office based on his abuse of authority/influence (e.g. suborning his V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act as V.P.) during his Big Lie con job.  [I personally find his nation-harming actions sufficient to disqualify him from continuing to hold the office of PotUS.]  But since he was going to be out of office before the trial, he should have been censured (or equivalent).

Hello?   See the part in blue?

Biden was elected because the democrats made a calculated gamble in early 2020.

Bottom line, Vic, however bad you consider Biden to be, Trump lost against the candidate.   Trump did not lose because of a sterling candidate on the D side.   He lost because he was and is a lousy candidate on the R side.

I'll grant you the elusive "non-partisan status."

I never supported the Trump impeachments.   You are grasping at straws.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.28  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.27    3 weeks ago
That is irrational.  The border is absolutely NOT wide open. 

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but here you go:

"Fox News applied for permission to fly the drone over the Del Rio bridge and it was granted by the same FAA that banned them. The head of the FAA is answerable to Pothole Pete Buttigieg. The Texas DPS gave Fox reporter Bill Melugin a ride in their helicopter, allowing him to get the same border shots the drone had access to.

The FAA received a lot of blowback and looked dangerously partisan.

Biden went on vacation during this so he doesn’t have to answer a single question. These numbers equal a significant number of Texas towns. We are no longer America and will have no say over our nation in the future. These are the people who will vote with totalitarian Democrats and determine our future.

Thousands of people are showing up every day and this is only one location. This is happening throughout our borders.

Another 10,000 have almost reached Del Rio and 11,000 are currently under the Del Rio bridge. Taxis are dropping migrants off!"




I believe that was back in September. You can look at the films yourself. There is plenty of information on this crisis.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.29  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.27    3 weeks ago
Do you just dismiss all of this as nothing?    You do not see how a sitting PotUS was seeking to undermine the system of government over which he presided?

Don't you recall what he said at the rally?

How about "Go in Peace?" or "Make your voices heard peacefully?"

I will concede on point. He should have told them to go home once the thin security line was breached. That being said to blame him for the riot is a bit of a stretch.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.28    3 weeks ago

Wide open means the border is not stopping illegal immigrants.    Not only are you trying to indict Biden on a ridiculous allegation, but you apparently think that the entire border patrol force is sitting on its collective ass doing nothing.

Like I noted, your exaggeration is ridiculous:  

US Customs and Border Protection agents apprehended more than 173,000 illegal immigrants at the southern border last month, an increase of more than 5 percent after three consecutive months of decline, the agency announced Friday. The number of apprehensions had gradually dropped after topping out at 213,593 arrests in July, the highest in a single month for at least 21 years. However, the totals remain massive compared to past years. 

And I will remind you that I am disappointed with Biden's handling of the border. But I am not going to write over-the-top emotive language. I will try to stick with the facts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.29    3 weeks ago
Don't you recall what he said at the rally?How about "Go in Peace?" or "Make your voices heard peacefully?"I will concede on point. He should have told them to go home once the thin security line was breached. That being said to blame him for the riot is a bit of a stretch.

You ignore all of the facts and come up with a sound bite.   So in your mind, one responsible statement from Trump nullifies all other irresponsible statements and all other irresponsible acts?

There is no reasoning with such blind bias.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.32  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.30    3 weeks ago
Wide open means the border is not stopping illegal immigrants. 

Correct.


Not only are you trying to indict Biden on a ridiculous allegation, but you apparently think that the entire border patrol force is sitting on its collective ass doing nothing.

They have been overwhelmed:



And as I now note, your refusal to admit the obvious is telling.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.31    3 weeks ago
There is no reasoning with such blind bias.

Nope. Just like we all know what the Jan 6th committee is about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.32    3 weeks ago
... your refusal to admit the obvious is telling.

What am I supposed to admit?   That the border in insufficiently secured?   I stated that upfront.  That concept is where we agree.

We disagree in the absurd, emotive, hyperbolic language that you use to describe it.   Your language paints an absurd partisan fantasy.

Get a grip.   Biden is not sufficiently securing the border.   That is not an impeachable offense.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.35  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.34    3 weeks ago
Biden is not doing enough to secure the border.

Biden has never tried. Don't you recall the little campaigning he did in 2020?

Let me refresh your memory:

 Biden promised to reverse President Trump’s strict immigration and border policies, which together with emergency travel restrictions because of the pandemic helped drive illegal-immigration levels to historic lows. 

Specifically, Biden has said he would stop construction on the border wall, reinstate DACA, ­boost the number of refugees and make it easier for migrants to claim asylum. On asylum seekers, Biden promised to end Team Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program, which ­requires Central Americans seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases are adjudicated. The goal of the program was to prevent asylum seekers from absconding before their court date.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.35    3 weeks ago

I do not need your refresher, Vic.   I objected to your hyperbolic description of a wide-open border.   That is factually false and ridiculous.   Just more over-the-top partisan crap.

We agree that Biden should be doing more to secure the border.   I am not going to waste time squabbling over what language should be used to properly gauge the exact shade of gray in effect.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.37  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.36    3 weeks ago

In that case ... Have a good one

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Quiet
7  Right Down the Center    3 weeks ago

I think the 25th amendment may be in order more than an impeachment.  But then we have Kamala. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Right Down the Center @7    3 weeks ago
This seed suggests the GOP is willing to play in the same mud pile.

Bernie Sanders just said that in the 2024 DNC primary, old Joe will face a challenge

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

Ashli Babbitt wasn't murdered.  She was traitor scum who got what she deserved.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8    3 weeks ago

She was murdered by the most reckless officer on the Capitol police force.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
8.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    3 weeks ago
She was murdered

Murder: noun - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

So clearly, by definition, she was not murdered. I suppose if right wing white conservative Christians want to fabricate their own definitions for words that already have them, then in their alternate universe it could be "murder" which I'm sure they define as "killing any right wing white conservative Christian for any reason". Mentally ill persons often rationalize and fabricate definitions to twist facts to suit their needs and make their dementia seem more rational, but they're only fooling themselves.

As for the seed, these right wing conservative morons are having to fabricate and redefine "high crimes and misdemeanors" in order to attack Biden.

"there's a chance a Republican-led House would move to impeach Biden, specifically for his handling of the southern border crisis."

"The PresidentVice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, TreasonBribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article II section 4 of US constitution

Clearly, unless you are completely mentally unhinged, Biden is not guilty of any sort of "TreasonBribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" so this debate over impeachment is laughable.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
8.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.1    3 weeks ago

Again, there are several degrees of murder- which the left seem to forget constantly.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/murder-and-homicide.htm#:~:text=Murder%20includes%20premeditated%20murder%20(first,First%2Ddegree%20murder   .

Here are some examples of these common types of murder:
  • First-degree murder.   A deliberate, premeditated killing is generally considered first-degree murder. Where the defendant planned the killing (as in a poisoning), she will usually be charged with first-degree murder. The Los Angeles district attorney charged O.J. Simpson with two first-degree murder counts in the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and another person. The district attorney brought the first-degree murder charges based on crime scene evidence, including a bloody glove, and on evidence that Simpson allegedly spied on his wife prior to the killings. Such evidence could have indicated a plan or premeditation to commit the crimes.
  • Second-degree murder.   In the widely-reported shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the prosecutor in Seminole County, Florida, charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The reason that the prosecutor charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder is that Zimmerman shot Martin but there was no evidence that the killing was premeditated. To win a conviction of Zimmerman on the charge, the prosecutor needed to prove to the jury that Zimmerman intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on Martin.
  • Felony murder.   Let's assume by way of example that Bonnie and Clyde rob a bank. Clyde shoots and kills the guard during a confrontation. Clyde is charged with first-degree murder. Bonnie is charged with   felony murder   because the guard died during Bonnie's participation as an accomplice in committing the dangerous felony of   armed robbery   . Now let's assume instead that Bonnie waits behind the wheel of the getaway car while Clyde robs the bank. After the robbery, Clyde jumps into the car and Bonnie speeds off, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian. Both Bonnie and Clyde are charged with felony murder because they accidentally killed the pedestrian while committing a dangerous felony.
  • Aggravating circumstances.   Murder committed under certain circumstances, such as by laying in wait or targeting a person in a particular position, such as a police officer, judge, or firefighter, can lead to a more severe sentence, including the   death penalty   .

Second Degree Murder should cover it. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
8.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.1    3 weeks ago
"The PresidentVice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, TreasonBribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article II section 4 of US constitution Clearly, unless you are completely mentally unhinged, Biden is not guilty of any sort of "TreasonBribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" so this debate over impeachment is laughable.

Not enforcing US Immigration Laws; ignoring Supreme Court ruling on the renter moratorium; ignoring Federal Court ruling on reimplementing "Stay in Mexico"; trying to enforce an un-Constitutional vaccine mandate; and abandoning US citizens in Afghanistan. There is plenty to impeach Biden over.

Also, Hunter Biden's lap top. That should prove to be a very interesting investigation. Especially when all of those associated with the Bidens are forced to testify under oath. All it takes is one time Hunter paying his father off; and that is an impeachable offense.

Democrats have lowered the standards for impeachment to nothing- now they have to live with them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.2    3 weeks ago
Second Degree Murder should cover it. 

If you want to go to legal definitions of murder then you need a trial to adjudicate to one of those legal definitions.   That is, you need to find the killer guilty of a specific type of murder.

If you are speaking English and are not referring to a legal finding, use the English word with its English meaning.

No court of law has determined that this was murder so your legal definition does not apply.   And the English definition for murder does not apply either.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
8.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.2    3 weeks ago
Second Degree Murder should cover it. 

Except for the "in the line of duty" component by an identifiable officer who gave a legal order to stop

Clearly showed is weapon and intention to defend that doorway.

That officer was well aware of the radio traffic of other officers 

retreating from different positions and requesting ambulances for the hundred wounded officers...

His worse nightmare, her worse decision.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.5    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @8.1.6    3 weeks ago

"too bad there wasn't some maga collateral damage in that same hallway."

Ya!  Really!  Save us taxpayers some money on some trials.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
8.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.5    3 weeks ago
Except for the "in the line of duty" component by an identifiable officer who gave a legal order to stop

Since the beginning of 2005 (through June 24, 2019), there have been 104 nonfederal sworn law
enforcement officers with the general powers of arrest (e.g., police officers, deputy sheriffs, state
troopers, etc.) who have been arrested for murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting
where the officer shot and killed someone at incidents throughout the United States. Of those 104
officers, to date only 35 have been convicted of a crime resulting from the on-duty shooting (15 by guilty
plea, 20 by jury trial, and none convicted by a bench trial).
In the cases where an officer has been convicted, it is often for a lesser offense. Only 4 officers have
been convicted of murder (there were four officers whose murder convictions were overturned, but the
officers were later convicted of federal crimes arising out of the same incident). The 4 officers convicted
of murder received incarceration sentences that ranged from 81 months to 192 months in prison, with
an average length prison sentence of 150.75 months. As to the other officers, 9 were convicted of
manslaughter, 4 were convicted of voluntary manslaughter, 5 were convicted of involuntary
manslaughter, 2 were convicted of official misconduct, 2 were convicted of reckless homicide, 3 were
convicted of negligent homicide, 5 were convicted of federal criminal deprivation of civil rights (including
the four officers whose murder convictions were overturned), and one was convicted of reckless
discharge of a firearm. The 18 officers convicted of manslaughter received incarceration sentences that
ranged from zero months to 480 months in prison, with an average sentence of 78.5 months in prison.

So an officer can be guilty of murder while acting in the line of duty.

Clearly showed is weapon and intention to defend that doorway.

Doesn't excused firing upon a clearly unarmed individual- that two other officers had a much clearer line of sight on; and did not deem a threat.

That officer was well aware of the radio traffic of other officers retreating from different positions and requesting ambulances for the hundred wounded officers...

So scared rabbit fired on an unarmed individual that didn't pose him any threat. Some people shouldn't be LEO's. He is clearly one of them.

His worse nightmare, her worse decision.

DOJ never charge him; so how can it be his worst nightmare? He got away with murder. As for her worst decision we will remind everyone of that every time someone on the left ignores an order from an LEO; and commits suicide by cop.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
8.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.8    3 weeks ago

every "castle defense" law has been found to be legal

so fuck off with your examples.

Defending the Capitol building during official government business is the ultimate 'castle defense' by a 'castle

defender" specifically hired to defend the castle and the House Reps and Senators lives without regard to politics.

.

My brother shot and killed an intruder in his house and went through the whole trial, bore the whole legal cost

and was found innocent.  The burglars family sued for civil damages. It's been a money pit of a nightmare

It's the gift that keeps on giving /s

.

One of my childhood friends from North Philly did the same thing but the guy he shot on his second floor

didn't die. 

He made it out of the house and down the driveway to the street, public property.

My friend dragged him back into the house.

The police charged the culprit with burglary, felon in possession of a firearm etc.

They charged my friend with attempted murder and obstruction and tampering with evidence,

He is black and spent 90 some days in jail before a black judge dismissed the charges.

Lt Byrd did his job, stopped the mob with one shot and started the de-escalation of the

"Occupation of the Capitol". Turns out that changing the results of the election wasn't worth 

more than Ashlie's life. They all lost interest after that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.9    3 weeks ago
"Lt Byrd did his job, stopped the mob with one shot and started the de-escalation of the

"Occupation of the Capitol". Turns out that changing the results of the election wasn't worth 

more than Ashlie's life. They all lost interest after that."

Yeah, what a bunch of patriots!  After she struggled so hard to get through that broken window with the help from the rest of whatshisnames' incited domestic terrorist mob .  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

Ashli Babbitt is traitor scum and was not murdered.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @9    3 weeks ago

A traitor to whom?

The FBI investigated mightily, but nobody got charged with treason or sedition.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    3 weeks ago

Plus she was murdered by a keystone kapital kop .....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

One that famously left his gun in a restroom. When it happened DC pundits were already speculating that it was him.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    3 weeks ago
A traitor to whom?

The oath she took upon completion of basic training when she promised to defend the Constitution against all 

enemies, foreign and domestic and every time she apparently recited it by rote every time she was promoted

or er-upped in her 14 years in the Air Force.

She failed her fellow Americans by her decisions and she failed herself in the delusions of "patriotism" in 2021.

RIP Ashlie Babbit. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    3 weeks ago
One that famously left his gun in a restroom. When it happened DC pundits were already speculating that it was him.

 NO more relevant than Ashlie attacking her most recent husbands' former wife and her SUV is it?

Another fine example of character assassination after the fact, right? jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.3    3 weeks ago

Oh, she is a traitor to an oath she took?  Show me where that oath prohibits her right to protest?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.4    3 weeks ago
NO more relevant than Ashlie attacking her most recent husbands' former wife a

That's not going to get a rogue cop off the hook. He shot & killed an unarmed woman. He needs to be held accountable. I'm hoping the next President will do so.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.5    3 weeks ago
Show me where that oath prohibits her right to protest?

Her right to peacefully protest ended when she illegally entered the Capitol building through whatever window or door the mob smashed in.  She was trespassing and participating in the further destruction of public property when she tested that officer's resolve.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.6    3 weeks ago
That's not going to get a rogue cop off the hook.

Says who? You?

He shot & killed an unarmed woman.

You seem hung up on her gender.

He needs to be held accountable.

He was investigated and cleared.

I'm hoping the next President will do so.

Mob vengeance? Really?  By order of an authoritarian POTUS.  God help us all...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.7    3 weeks ago

Yes trespassing. She was murdered for that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.8    3 weeks ago
He was investigated and cleared.

By whom?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
9.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.10    3 weeks ago
By whom?

" A review “determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy,” the Capitol Police said in a statement. The department said an officer can use deadly force if they “reasonably” believe it is “in the defense of human life” or “of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”

trespassing. She was murdered for that.

No, she wasn't. She was killed after having trespassed and vandalizing capital property and refusing to obey the commands of a law enforcement officer to retreat and instead continued to try and breach the barrier which would put those the officer was trying to protect in immediate danger of serious physical injury or death. What conservatives seem desperate to ignore and overlook is that even if Babbitt was unarmed, by her continued attempt to break through and breach the barrier she was putting those behind the barrier in danger not just from herself but from the mob outside in the halls with flag poles, mace, zip ties and threats of hanging elected officials. That is why she was shot and killed after multiple warnings and plenty of time to retreat.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
9.1.12  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.11    3 weeks ago

she was putting those behind the barrier in danger not just from herself but from the mob outside in the halls with flag poles, mace, zip ties and threats of hanging elected officials.

Since that bullet persuaded the sleaze mob to go away, rwnj’s here would like you to believe that they were only pretending to enter a restricted space when they repeatedly bashed the door in on camera.  They weren’t really serious.  In fact, it was just shocking that the armed agent couldn’t discern how peaceful they actually were and chose to fire on them.  Shocking I tell you!

The level of gaslighting here on NT has reached epic proportions.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

The traitorous bitch got exactly what was coming to her.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @10    3 weeks ago

You keep saying treason. Where is the charge?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
11  Hal A. Lujah    3 weeks ago

Republicans are probably preparing to posthumously impeach every dead RINO that doesn’t meet their current definition of conservative, starting with Ronald Reagan.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11    3 weeks ago

I think they are going to accept every bit of that incoming red wave!

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
11.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1    3 weeks ago

You must be so proud to welcome QAnon into your fold.  It’s not every day that a movement has the opportunity to lower the IQ of a political party overnight.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11.1.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted, taunting]

[deleted, sweeping generalization]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11    3 weeks ago

True, that is if they follow the Democrat template from the last five years.

 
 

Who is online

Krishna
CB
Nowhere Man
Tacos!


47 visitors