This isn't good for Biden

[Offthemat]

17 minutes ago, mspart said:

There are those that would dispute your assertion.  

I believe if the R's want to impeach, that will happen.   I believe in order to move the Ds in the Senate, there will have to be some ironclad evidence that the whole country can recognize and it would be suicide for a D Senator not to vote to convict, something on the order of Nixon.   They are not there yet as most of the evidence I have seen is circumstantial.  Nothing directly tying the President to anything like treason or corruption while President.   He obviously lied on the campaign trail and while President.   But that apparently is not reason for dismissal - See Bill Clinton. 

mspart

Not with any credibility.  
 

The treason was as vice president, the corruption spans the decade, and certainly includes the lying and coverup as president, the guidance of the DoG away from his son and toward his opponent.  Sheesh!  Can you imagine one or two suspicious activity reports?  Much less a hundred and fifty!  I don’t know if you’ve heard, but there is now evidence that the change in policy regarding the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor was instigated by biden; kerry and obama went along with him, but the State Dept and Europe issued documents praising Shokin and recommending that the loan go forward based on his accomplishments.  It was just plain old Joe protecting the company that was paying him and his son.  

[mspart]

11 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Not with any credibility.  
 

The treason was as vice president, the corruption spans the decade, and certainly includes the lying and coverup as president, the guidance of the DoG away from his son and toward his opponent.  Sheesh!  Can you imagine one or two suspicious activity reports?  Much less a hundred and fifty!  I don’t know if you’ve heard, but there is now evidence that the change in policy regarding the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor was instigated by biden; kerry and obama went along with him, but the State Dept and Europe issued documents praising Shokin and recommending that the loan go forward based on his accomplishments.  It was just plain old Joe protecting the company that was paying him and his son.  

I believe Joe has lied throughout.   Like I said, that is not an impeachable offense.   What he did while VP has no bearing on his High Crimes and Misdemeanor while President and I don't believe he can be impeached for that now.  Getting the DOJ to treat his son differently might be a corruption thing but that would have to be proved beyond a shadow of doubt and I have seen no evidence pointing to that.  It is possible the DOJ did that on their own initiative or it could have been directed.  I doubt it was directed by anything other than non-traceable verbal or non-verbal cues.   Certainly, nothing would have or should have been in a text or email.   That would be enough to impeach and the D's might have to go along with that at that point. 

But I don't think the House is to that point yet and the Senate is almost evenly divided and certainly there won't be 67 Senators going along with conviction.   That means some combination of the 48 Ds and 3 I's would have to vote for conviction assuming all 49 Rs do, and that is not a given.  

Fool's errand.   It will be looked upon by the left the same way the impeachment of Trump was looked upon by those on the right.  As a game and stupid waste of time. 

mspart

 

[ionel]

22 minutes ago, mspart said:

I believe Joe has lied throughout.   Like I said, that is not an impeachable offense.   What he did while VP has no bearing on his High Crimes and Misdemeanor while President and I don't believe he can be impeached for that now.  Getting the DOJ to treat his son differently might be a corruption thing but that would have to be proved beyond a shadow of doubt and I have seen no evidence pointing to that.  It is possible the DOJ did that on their own initiative or it could have been directed.  I doubt it was directed by anything other than non-traceable verbal or non-verbal cues.   Certainly, nothing would have or should have been in a text or email.   That would be enough to impeach and the D's might have to go along with that at that point. 

But I don't think the House is to that point yet and the Senate is almost evenly divided and certainly there won't be 67 Senators going along with conviction.   That means some combination of the 48 Ds and 3 I's would have to vote for conviction assuming all 49 Rs do, and that is not a given.  

Fool's errand.   It will be looked upon by the left the same way the impeachment of Trump was looked upon by those on the right.  As a game and stupid waste of time. 

mspart

 

Difference is Bill Clinton lied under oath.  Biden stumbles around and tells lies all the time but that's not impeachable.  The public is free to elect a buffoon and/or liar anytime they want, we've done it many times in the past.  There is a solution for buyers remorse, it comes around every 4 years.

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

I believe Joe has lied throughout.   Like I said, that is not an impeachable offense.   What he did while VP has no bearing on his High Crimes and Misdemeanor while President and I don't believe he can be impeached for that now.  Getting the DOJ to treat his son differently might be a corruption thing but that would have to be proved beyond a shadow of doubt and I have seen no evidence pointing to that.  It is possible the DOJ did that on their own initiative or it could have been directed.  I doubt it was directed by anything other than non-traceable verbal or non-verbal cues.   Certainly, nothing would have or should have been in a text or email.   That would be enough to impeach and the D's might have to go along with that at that point. 

But I don't think the House is to that point yet and the Senate is almost evenly divided and certainly there won't be 67 Senators going along with conviction.   That means some combination of the 48 Ds and 3 I's would have to vote for conviction assuming all 49 Rs do, and that is not a given.  

Fool's errand.   It will be looked upon by the left the same way the impeachment of Trump was looked upon by those on the right.  As a game and stupid waste of time. 

mspart

 

I think you are correlating impeachment to closely with criminal court.  That is a mistake, mainly because it is political inso far as political allies may not vote for conviction if they perceive that it won’t hurt them politically, and vice versa.  Also, treason is treason and there is no other qualification.  The danger is that the payments can be held against him to affect more policy decisions at any time, and suspicions abound, if not he could just plead that “hey!  That was a long time ago.”  That simply wouldn’t work.  No, now the committees can subpoena the personal bank records and anything else they need to show where and how the money was distributed.  Once the public is shown the evidence, if they manage to see it, they’ll be the ones to decide, whether through impeachment or election.  It should have happened a long time ago but nobody wanted Camela.

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I think you are correlating impeachment to closely with criminal court.  That is a mistake, mainly because it is political inso far as political allies may not vote for conviction if they perceive that it won’t hurt them politically, and vice versa.  Also, treason is treason and there is no other qualification.  The danger is that the payments can be held against him to affect more policy decisions at any time, and suspicions abound, if not he could just plead that “hey!  That was a long time ago.”  That simply wouldn’t work.  No, now the committees can subpoena the personal bank records and anything else they need to show where and how the money was distributed.  Once the public is shown the evidence, if they manage to see it, they’ll be the ones to decide, whether through impeachment or election.  It should have happened a long time ago but nobody wanted salad.

ftfy

[Offthemat]

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

ftfy

I need editing. 

[mspart]

18 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I think you are correlating impeachment to closely with criminal court.  That is a mistake, mainly because it is political inso far as political allies may not vote for conviction if they perceive that it won’t hurt them politically, and vice versa.  Also, treason is treason and there is no other qualification.  The danger is that the payments can be held against him to affect more policy decisions at any time, and suspicions abound, if not he could just plead that “hey!  That was a long time ago.”  That simply wouldn’t work.  No, now the committees can subpoena the personal bank records and anything else they need to show where and how the money was distributed.  Once the public is shown the evidence, if they manage to see it, they’ll be the ones to decide, whether through impeachment or election.  It should have happened a long time ago but nobody wanted Camela.

Well, I'm conflating it because the US citizen will conflate it.   Yes Impeachment is political.   But the "crime" must be proven beyond all unreasonable doubt to get a conviction.   No one in the Senate believed Clinton did not lie under oath.  But it did not rise to the level of egregiousness to convict. 

If the House does not present a fact filled and totally acquittal proof case, there is no turning around the D's and/or I's Senators to turn on Biden.   The evidence must be indisputable that he did something wrong while President, such that, no one can dismiss the facts.    That is the only way to make it happen.   It would have to incite the public to want Biden's head such that the Senators could not do otherwise than give it to them.  

I don't see this happening.   It will be a dog and pony show that will not do anything but waste time.  I don't disagree the investigation should continue, it should.   I think this is a  matter for DOJ to handle until it becomes clear that Biden did something wrong while President.   Who cares what he did before?  Unless "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has not time limit.   I assume these need to be done while he is President.   I think the public would see it similarly. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

And let's not pretend that impeachment votes or conviction votes, are based on the facts anymore.

They are purely cynical political calculations at this point. Whatever is deemed expediant, not right. If those two intersect, it is purely coincidental.

[mspart]

No they are not based on the facts.   Which is why the case has to be incontrovertible to get anyone to move from their position of acquit as a knee jerk reaction to convict.  

Again, I don't see that happening.   The only way it does is if Joe becomes more physically and mentally frail than he is now and they have to take some action if the cabinet doesn't.   Long odds on that one. 

Do I think he should be kicked out of office?   I surely don't want Kamala as President.   But that is a purely partisan reason.   I have not seen evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors while he has been President.   Lying just doesn't cut it anymore. 

mspart

[Ban Basketball]

Tell me where I missed this,  but if all of these allegations occurred while he was Vice President,  how is he potentially being impeached as the current President for "wrongdoings" from years prior?

[headshuck]

I think it’s noteworthy that democrats have finally accepted that there are crimes. Now it’s just a timing issue.

[Ban Basketball]

10 minutes ago, headshuck said:

I think it’s noteworthy that democrats have finally accepted that there are crimes. Now it’s just a timing issue.

My understanding is that they have been acknowledging that for Hunter regarding weapons and taxes,  but not Joe. That's at least from what I've heard people say. 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[Ban Basketball]

23 hours ago, ionel said:

Difference is Bill Clinton "lied under oath. "

FIFY.  Most honest legal scholars say otherwise. 

And this is coming from someone who thinks the Clintons are weasels. 

[Plasmodium]

50 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

FIFY.  Most honest legal scholars say otherwise. 

And this is coming from someone who thinks the Clintons are weasels. 

Depends on what your definition of "lie" is?  This day and age, he would be in the clear. He would have said "F### You!  5th!". Then he would said "Same Answer" over 400 times.

[Ban Basketball]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Depends on what your definition of "lie" is?  This day and age, he would be in the clear. He would have said "F### You!  5th!". Then he would said "Same Answer" over 400 times.

.  

Or, he may have been coached to not fall into a perjury trap. 

[Offthemat]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

No they are not based on the facts.   Which is why the case has to be incontrovertible to get anyone to move from their position of acquit as a knee jerk reaction to convict.  

Again, I don't see that happening.   The only way it does is if Joe becomes more physically and mentally frail than he is now and they have to take some action if the cabinet doesn't.   Long odds on that one. 

Do I think he should be kicked out of office?   I surely don't want Kamala as President.   But that is a purely partisan reason.   I have not seen evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors while he has been President.   Lying just doesn't cut it anymore. 

mspart

If Joe took a bribe when he was VP, when can he no longer be blackmailed for it?  The Ukrainian who says he paid the bribe also claims to have a couple of recorded phone conversations with him.  Fifteen with Hunter. 

[Ban Basketball]

15 hours ago, Offthemat said:

If Joe took a bribe when he was VP, when can he no longer be blackmailed for it?  The Ukrainian who says he paid the bribe also claims to have a couple of recorded phone conversations with him.  Fifteen with Hunter. 

As always,  and as usual,  false. 

Keep in mind that your "news" sources aren't interested in imparting truth to you.  They're deliberately trying ( and greatly succeeding) to keep you angry and uninformed.   

Why? So you'll vote against your own interests. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

[mspart]

What chances are there for Biden to be convicted?   What is the purpose of doing an impeachment and not getting a conviction?   What would it take to get 67 senators to vote for conviction? 

I'm looking at this with what I am saying.   I don't think there is much to gain to impeach and not get a conviction.   It is just a show trial and could likely be frowned up by the electorate in this election season.  

mspart

[Offthemat]

16 minutes ago, mspart said:

What chances are there for Biden to be convicted?   What is the purpose of doing an impeachment and not getting a conviction?   What would it take to get 67 senators to vote for conviction? 

I'm looking at this with what I am saying.   I don't think there is much to gain to impeach and not get a conviction.   It is just a show trial and could likely be frowned up by the electorate in this election season.  

mspart

What would your vote be?

[ionel]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-indictment-gun-charges.html

https://www.wsj.com/politics/hunter-biden-indicted-on-gun-charges-5d6bdcaf

[Offthemat]

5 minutes ago, ionel said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-indictment-gun-charges.html

https://www.wsj.com/politics/hunter-biden-indicted-on-gun-charges-5d6bdcaf

So I’m slow.  

[Offthemat]

Biden keeps illegals in cages  

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Offthemat

[ionel]

28 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Biden keeps illegals in cages  

 

 

C'mon Man, those aren't cages, its a fresh air ventilated tiny home condo with a wrap around picture window.  The same thing Obama used, only Trump used cages.  

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

What would your vote be?

That's not the question.   The question is how will the 48 D senators vote?   How I would vote in immaterial, it's how they will vote.   I maintain they will vote to acquit unless, and only unless, incontrovertible evidence is presented and it has to be so hard that the public will be up in arms over it.    I just don't see that happening. 

mspart

[headshuck]

Why isn’t AOC there doing another photo shoot?