Republican Oversight Committee rejects Hunter Biden's request to give his testimony in public

[jross]

14 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Nope, nope, nope. You guys should really read up on impeachment.

What part of "legally" doing something or hypothetically doing some future non-impeachable thing, is impeachable?

 

This explains why the House could propose to impeach Biden for nonlegal reasons.

--------------

Article II, Section 4:

• The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump, Vol. I: Preliminary Proceedings, S. Doc. No. 116-18, 116th Cong. 416 (2020).

• In drafting the Impeachment Clause, the Framers adopted a standard flexible enough to reach the full range of potential Presidential misconduct: ‘‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’ 60 The decision to denote ‘‘Treason’’ and ‘‘Bribery’’ as impeachable conduct reflects the Founding-era concerns over foreign influence and corruption. But the Framers also recognized that ‘‘many great and dangerous offenses’’ could warrant impeachment and immediate removal of a President from office.61 These ‘‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ provided for by the Constitution need not be indictable criminal offenses. Rather, as Hamilton explained, impeachable offenses involve an ‘‘abuse or violation of some public trust’’ and are of ‘‘a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.’’ 62 The Framers thus understood that ‘‘high crimes and misdemeanors’’ would encompass acts committed by public officials that inflict severe harm on the constitutional order.63

Federalist Paper No. 65

• "Impeachments are of a nature which may, with peculiar propriety, be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
• "The prosecution of them will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or the other. In such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
• Discusses that it is difficult to remain neutral and that two branches should be used, like the British House of Commoners and House of Lords.  The House of Representatives has more electives and better represents the changing will of the population; thus, they make the impeachment accusation.  The Senate has fewer electives serving longer terms... so it is seen as a more deliberative and stable body to handle the trial.

[jross]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

You can admit it - this Congress is a clown show.

 

[Plasmodium]

I feel they can bring articles of impeachment for any reason, real or imagined.

[Offthemat]

9 hours ago, VakAttack said:

BTW i noticed a lot of our frequent commenters who were defending the refusal for public testimony blatantly ignored this from less than a month prior to Comer rejecting Hunter's offer to testify publicly.  Why the ignoring?

 

Well if you believe some of your cohorts, these new charges are just a ploy to protect Hunter.  So which is it?

 

And nobody is saying Hunter Biden shouldn't be investigated, that's a strawman.  Investigate away.  But the fruitless attempts to tie it to Joe so far appear to be just that: fruitless, but politically popular with the base.  Like I said, vibes-based politicking.

Maybe upon further review he realized that sussing out the hundreds of thousands of pages of records they’ve amassed on the Biden’s activities requires more than five minute, sporadic shots.

There are pros and cons, benefits and encumbrances, that will surely be exploited at every opportunity, as you know.  Also as you know, Joe doing things that benefit Hunter can still be bribery. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

35 minutes ago, jross said:

 

This explains why the House could propose to impeach Biden for nonlegal reasons.

--------------

Article II, Section 4:

• The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump, Vol. I: Preliminary Proceedings, S. Doc. No. 116-18, 116th Cong. 416 (2020).

• In drafting the Impeachment Clause, the Framers adopted a standard flexible enough to reach the full range of potential Presidential misconduct: ‘‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’ 60 The decision to denote ‘‘Treason’’ and ‘‘Bribery’’ as impeachable conduct reflects the Founding-era concerns over foreign influence and corruption. But the Framers also recognized that ‘‘many great and dangerous offenses’’ could warrant impeachment and immediate removal of a President from office.61 These ‘‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ provided for by the Constitution need not be indictable criminal offenses. Rather, as Hamilton explained, impeachable offenses involve an ‘‘abuse or violation of some public trust’’ and are of ‘‘a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.’’ 62 The Framers thus understood that ‘‘high crimes and misdemeanors’’ would encompass acts committed by public officials that inflict severe harm on the constitutional order.63

Federalist Paper No. 65

• "Impeachments are of a nature which may, with peculiar propriety, be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
• "The prosecution of them will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or the other. In such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
• Discusses that it is difficult to remain neutral and that two branches should be used, like the British House of Commoners and House of Lords.  The House of Representatives has more electives and better represents the changing will of the population; thus, they make the impeachment accusation.  The Senate has fewer electives serving longer terms... so it is seen as a more deliberative and stable body to handle the trial.

Nice Federalist Papers call out. I own a copy.

A key phrase that you did not highlight above is " acts committed by public officials that inflict severe harm on the constitutional order" and I have not seen that here. There are certainly accusations of that in the many posts claiming that Joe Biden helped Hunter Biden in his business dealings in a way that is out of bounds while in elected office. Mitt Romney, having seen more of this than any of us here, does not see evidence supporting that stance. Maybe he is right. Comer and Jordan both keep saying or implying they have the evidence, but they have been saying that so long without producing any of it, that they no longer seem credible to me.

As for the turn this thread took yesterday where potentially impeachable offenses were replaced with arguments for impeachment that were things like, "look at all the illegal immigrants streaming over the border", there is just no way that subjective statement rises anywhere near the level of "sever harm on the constitutional order" even if it turns out to be true.

 

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Nice Federalist Papers call out. I own a copy.

A key phrase that you did not highlight above is " acts committed by public officials that inflict severe harm on the constitutional order" and I have not seen that here. There are certainly accusations of that in the many posts claiming that Joe Biden helped Hunter Biden in his business dealings in a way that is out of bounds while in elected office. Mitt Romney, having seen more of this than any of us here, does not see evidence supporting that stance. Maybe he is right. Comer and Jordan both keep saying or implying they have the evidence, but they have been saying that so long without producing any of it, that they no longer seem credible to me.

As for the turn this thread took yesterday where potentially impeachable offenses were replaced with arguments for impeachment that were things like, "look at all the illegal immigrants streaming over the border", there is just no way that subjective statement rises anywhere near the level of "sever harm on the constitutional order" even if it turns out to be true.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong , but weren't congressmen and senators calling for impeachment of President Trump before he even took the oath of office? Don't congressmen and senators know what are the impeachable offenses?  Were the Democrats going just on their dislike of President Trump and making it just political?

[jross]

PLAS: My question is - Does anybody care? (about Biden being impeached)

JROSS:  I care. (illegal immigration, affordable life, bad global management, swamp leader)

---

I made the list of reasons that I care; not a list for Biden to be impeached, but I understand the confusion if @Wrestleknownothing connected the list to Plas's last statement: ...they (GOP) would have already impeached him for Lord knows what.

---

Since the connection was made... I did some critical thinking on the case for illegal immigration...

The determination of what constitutes severe harm to the constitutional order depends on the subjectivity of legal, ethical, and political considerations...

I didn't know this until now... by a vote of 219 to 208, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to send H. Res. 503 – Articles of Impeachment against President Joe Biden – to the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees for their consideration.  Texas Congressman Chip Roy authored the resolution – H. Res. 529 – that sent Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert’s impeachment resolution against President Biden to the two committees.

Like with Clinton and Trump... any impeachment proposal by the people against Biden will be highly partisan.

...and fail in the Senate like they all do.

Edited December 12, 2023 by jross

[Wrestleknownothing]

7 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong , but weren't congressmen and senators calling for impeachment of President Trump before he even took the oath of office? Don't congressmen and senators know what are the impeachable offenses?  Were the Democrats going just on their dislike of President Trump and making it just political?

I believe you are wrong. The first legislators to call for impeachment came a few months after he fired Comey, claiming obstruction of justice.

[Paul158]

16 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I think this sums up the arguments for impeachment in this thread.

Isn't that exactly what Joe Biden and Mayorkas are doing ignoring the very laws of our country pertaining to the border. They are also ignoring the oaths of office they took .  

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Isn't that exactly what Joe Biden and Mayorkas are doing ignoring the very laws of our country pertaining to the border. They are also ignoring the oaths of office they took .  

We understand your personal feelings are dictating what you think should happen or what you think is happening in other places.

[Plasmodium]

When I say "Who Cares?", I mean which Democrats actually care.  I am aware that MAGA is going to impeach.  I feel democrats are resigned to that reality.  I wish they'd just dream something up and get it out of the way.

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, jross said:

PLAS: My question is - Does anybody care? (about Biden being impeached)

JROSS:  I care. (illegal immigration, affordable life, bad global management, swamp leader)

---

I made the list of reasons that I care; not a list for Biden to be impeached, but I understand the confusion if @Wrestleknownothing connected the list to Plas's last statement: ...they (GOP) would have already impeached him for Lord knows what.

---

Since the connection was made... I did some critical thinking on the case for illegal immigration...

The determination of what constitutes severe harm to the constitutional order depends on the subjectivity of legal, ethical, and political considerations...

I didn't know this until now... by a vote of 219 to 208, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to send H. Res. 503 – Articles of Impeachment against President Joe Biden – to the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees for their consideration.  Texas Congressman Chip Roy authored the resolution – H. Res. 529 – that sent Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert’s impeachment resolution against President Biden to the two committees.

Like with Clinton and Trump... any impeachment proposal by the people against Biden will be highly partisan.

...and fail in the Senate like they all do.

This one hasn't even been taken up by the Republican controlled House, never mind made it to the Senate. It has sat in committee for the past three months because Boebert is such a nut job that her own party does not take her seriously.

[Offthemat]

22 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

When I say "Who Cares?", I mean which Democrats actually care.  I am aware that MAGA is going to impeach.  I feel democrats are resigned to that reality.  I wish they'd just dream something up and get it out of the way.

Few and far between, but Tulsi and RFK Jr. fit.  But they don’t have a vote. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Offthemat

[Offthemat]

25 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

We understand your personal feelings are dictating what you think should happen or what you think is happening in other places.

Projection 

[VakAttack]

4 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Projection 

He literally said "it doesn't matter to me what the law says, to me it's impeachable."  Every accusation you throw out there is a confession.

[Offthemat]

Just now, VakAttack said:

He literally said "it doesn't matter to me what the law says, to me it's impeachable."  Every accusation you throw out there is a confession.

It is impeachable, whether you like it or not. 

[VakAttack]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It is impeachable, whether you like it or not. 

I know you want it to be.

[jross]

51 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

This one hasn't even been taken up by the Republican controlled House, never mind made it to the Senate. It has sat in committee for the past three months because Boebert is such a nut job that her own party does not take her seriously.

To this, I agree.  

There are not enough nut jobs to have a strong enough majority.

Unlike the nut job ratio that existed against Trump and Clinton.

[mspart]

This is an interesting article regarding efforts to get rid of Trump. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469504-the-curious-timeline-for-taking-down-trump/

mspart

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

He literally said "it doesn't matter to me what the law says, to me it's impeachable."  Every accusation you throw out there is a confession.

President by his very actions is ignoring the law . He is also ignoring the oath he took to be president. Mayorkas by his very actions is ignoring the law. Mayorkas is also violating his oath he took to be the head of DHS.

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

He literally said "it doesn't matter to me what the law says, to me it's impeachable."  Every accusation you throw out there is a confession.

So President Biden and Mayorkas are saying by their own actions that they don't care what the law says. They are saying to the citizens of America to hell with you. The laws don't apply to them/

Edited December 12, 2023 by Paul158
missed a word

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

He literally said "it doesn't matter to me what the law says, to me it's impeachable."  Every accusation you throw out there is a confession.

Ok. We know you are a lawyer . Do you personally think what is going on at the border is lawful (legal) ? Do you also think everything is just fine at the border? 

[VakAttack]

6 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

President by his very actions is ignoring the law . He is also ignoring the oath he took to be president. Mayorkas by his very actions is ignoring the law. Mayorkas is also violating his oath he took to be the head of DHS.

These are, of course, not facts but your feelings on the matter.  But if you want to go down that route, former president Trump should have been impeached dozens and dozens of times for ACTUALLY violating/ignoring the Hatch Act and, more importantly, the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution.

[Offthemat]

I would impeach him for his habitual disrobing in front of female SS agents.  What is it with this family and their contempt for wearing clothes?

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, Paul158 said:

Ok. We know you are a lawyer . Do you personally think what is going on at the border is lawful (legal) ? Do you also think everything is just fine at the border? 

You're going to have to be more specific on what your concern is.