Who thinks Biden should be impeached for dereliction of duty

[PaxNurgle]

1) conspiring with an unfriendly nation to get dirt on political opponents
2) refusing to concede an election in which he lost and creating an uprising at the capital seeking to overturn said election.

These are the two most glaring. And yes, these are treasonous. His many, many toxic policies and missteps while in office are too numerous to list here, and while none of these may be "impeachable" they are, nonetheless, far more serious than simply refusing to send troops to the southern border to stop unarmed civilians from crossing it.

 

[phrodeau]

What treason as defined by the constitution? Just curious.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Who thinks President Biden should be impeached, removed from office, tried for treason for dereliction of duty on our southern border?

No such thing.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Thank you.
Jan 6th- "Levying war against the United States." Armed protestors storming the capital trying to overturn a democratic election? Yes, that is levying war against the United States. Cut and dried RIGHT THERE.

Adhering to their enemies? Leveraging aid to Ukraine is thereby adhering to Russia, our enemy, in exchange for dirt on his political foe. That, too is treason.

Not adequately securing the southern border against unarmed migrants? Not treasonous, by any stretch of imagination, and therefore, not impeachable.

Case Closed.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

https://i.redd.it/yde7yz5mwrv91.jpg

 

[Bray123]

Should Biden be impeached for not having TFG imprisoned? It's certainly his duty, so that the US is protected from his treachery. Perhaps it's something we can all get behind.

 

[Veroe]

Who thinks President Biden should be impeached, removed from office, tried for treason for dereliction of duty on our southern border?

That's not a high crime or misdemeanor. Even if the situation was as bad as you think at the southern border. It's not enough to impeach a president.

 

[the_single_gal_unconfidential]

they're going to impeach him for pursuing charges against trump for stealing top secret documents and giving them to our enemies - namely putin.

 

[icanhelp1]

That's not a high crime or misdemeanor. Even if the situation was as bad as you think at the southern border. It's not enough to impeach a president.

Failure to defend our nation against enemies foreign or domestic is treasonous. 95 terrorist have been captured by border security and ice. Within 500,000 to 1,000,000 illegal migrant got aways I’m sure there’s the presence of other terrorist and drug mules crossing our board causing harm or leaving us vulnerable to the potential of another 911.

 

[ll74]

Failure to defend our nation against enemies foreign or domestic is treasonous. 95 terrorist have been captured by border security and ice. Within 500,000 to 1,000,000 illegal migrant got aways I’m sure there’s the presence of other terrorist and drug mules crossing our board causing harm or leaving us vulnerable to the potential of another 911.

If they were captured, wouldn't that be the job? How many were captured by 45?

What exactly is the threshold for deaths by domestic or foreign enemies before you can claim failure?

There were lots of drug mules for decades...why is Biden suddenly the problem?


Your case is a little thin there.

 

[Veroe]

^^^and it depends solely on classifying the people illegally crossing our border as an act of war rather than a law enforcement matter. Without that it doesn't constitute a high crime. Impeachment was made to be a rare occurrence not a political weapon against the other party.

 

[icanhelp1]

^^^and it depends solely on classifying the people illegally crossing our border as an act of war rather than a law enforcement matter. Without that it doesn't constitute a high crime. Impeachment was made to be a rare occurrence not a political weapon against the other party.

LMFAO Both of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachments were strictly political and strictly along party line, not what our forefathers had in mind. Impeachment is a political process, just ask Nancy. You can indict and impeach a ham sandwich.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

LMFAO Both of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachments were strictly political and strictly along party line, not what our forefathers had in mind. Impeachment is a political process, just ask Nancy. You can indict and impeach a ham sandwich.

The slave-owning rapists rolling over in their graves about Christian Nationalists being on SCOTUS?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

LMFAO Both of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachments were strictly political and strictly along party line, not what our forefathers had in mind. Impeachment is a political process, just ask Nancy. You can indict and impeach a ham sandwich.

*chuckles*
There is a difference between fact and opinion ican't.

Let see, back in 74 there was this "discovery" of 17 mins of tape. That little tidbit of conversation was enough to show Nixon the door,negating a vote on impeachment. No fucking party politics there. Nixon was guilty as sin....

In 1998, there was this little problem with Bill not being exactly truthful about some questions he answered, leading to being charged with two counts, one lying under oath, and two obstruction of justice. No fucking party politics there either, Bill lied, although he did so in a very "truth distorting way". However at trial it was determined what he did was not "serious" (lie about Monica) enough to warrant conviction, on obstructing, it died on a tie vote. They did have a trial though, Clinton appeared and his acquittal was bipartisan.


With DJT ( your cocksucking buddy) he was impeached over the "perfect phone call" where he outright tried to blackmail Ukraine over already approved congressional spending. His impeachment vote was bipartisan, and at trial, the republican controlled Senate refused witness, and Trump never even appeared.....

"the trial saw no witnesses or documents being subpoenaed, as Republican senators rejected attempts to introduce subpoenas. On February 5, Trump was acquitted on both counts by the Senate, as neither count received 67 votes to convict. On Article I, abuse of power, the vote was 48 for conviction, 52 for acquittal"

So when I look at the two impeachments between Clinton and Trump, I only see partisan politics in Trumps. That you can't say's everything about you, and the lens you view American politics through.

Which is why you too have earned the title....

Dumbfuck American....

 

[icanhelp1]

The slave-owning rapists rolling over in their graves about Christian Nationalists being on SCOTUS?

**Christian Nationalist** LMFAO Way to sneak in the new commie progressive buzz words. YOU TRULY ARE ONE DUMB FUCK!!!

 

[Bray123]

'Will the commies please stop calling us nazis? We get awfully upset about it.'

 

[icanhelp1]

*chuckles*
There is a difference between fact and opinion ican't.

Let see, back in 74 there was this "discovery" of 17 mins of tape. That little tidbit of conversation was enough to show Nixon the door,negating a vote on impeachment. No fucking party politics there. Nixon was guilty as sin....

In 1998, there was this little problem with Bill not being exactly truthful about some questions he answered, leading to being charged with two counts, one lying under oath, and two obstruction of justice. No fucking party politics there either, Bill lied, although he did so in a very "truth distorting way". However at trial it was determined what he did was not "serious" (lie about Monica) enough to warrant conviction, on obstructing, it died on a tie vote. They did have a trial though, Clinton appeared and his acquittal was bipartisan.


With DJT ( your cocksucking buddy) he was impeached over the "perfect phone call" where he outright tried to blackmail Ukraine over already approved congressional spending. His impeachment vote was bipartisan, and at trial, the republican controlled Senate refused witness, and Trump never even appeared.....

"the trial saw no witnesses or documents being subpoenaed, as Republican senators rejected attempts to introduce subpoenas. On February 5, Trump was acquitted on both counts by the Senate, as neither count received 67 votes to convict. On Article I, abuse of power, the vote was 48 for conviction, 52 for acquittal"

So when I look at the two impeachments between Clinton and Trump, I only see partisan politics in Trumps. That you can't say's everything about you, and the lens you view American politics through.

Which is why you too have earned the title....

Dumbfuck American....

Both chambers conduct the process of impeachment and trial according to rules put forth by each chamber. Both impeachments were conducted by democrat run house majorities. Thank God for google, It escaped my memory that 10 pubs voted with democrats during the second impeachment, not exactly house majority of both parties vote.

Clinton lied to a grand jury, that's a felony.

Nixon resigned, was never impeached. Ford granted Nixon a full pardon before the possibility of an indictment.

The Senate is not required to interview witnesses, that's a house function, the house builds the case, the senate tries the case.

The first of Pelosi's impeachment was for abuse of power and obstruction of congress, both frivolous and without teeth, actually quite comical, Pelosi and her merry band of partisan hacks made fools of themselves and made a mockery of the impeachment process.

 

[ll74]

Both chambers conduct the process of impeachment and trial according to rules put forth by each chamber. Both impeachments were conducted by democrat run house majorities. Thank God for google, It escaped my memory that 10 pubs voted with democrats during the second impeachment, not exactly house majority of both parties vote.

Clinton lied to a grand jury, that's a felony.

Nixon resigned, was never impeached. Ford granted Nixon a full pardon before the possibility of an indictment.

The Senate is not required to interview witnesses, that's a house function, the house builds the case, the senate tries the case.

The first of Pelosi's impeachment was for abuse of power and obstruction of congress, both frivolous and without teeth, actually quite comical, Pelosi and her merry band of partisan hacks made fools of themselves and made a mockery of the impeachment process.

Technically neither chamber is required to do anything except what they want to do. It doesn't mean they shouldn't.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Both chambers conduct the process of impeachment and trial according to rules put forth by each chamber.

No shit Sherlock, did I ask for an explanation of the process...no I did not....

Both impeachments were conducted by democrat run house majorities.

So what? Given Nixon was a Republican and Clinton a Democrat, that kind of just reinforces my point...duh

Thank God for google, It escaped my memory that 10 pubs voted with democrats during the second impeachment, not exactly house majority of both parties vote.

So? Define bipartisan? Is it just one member of the opposite party voting with or 100% voting with....*chuckles*.

Clinton lied to a grand jury, that's a felony.

Well that was a point in debate, wasn't it. He said he did not have sexual relations. By that, he implied intercourse. When Monica engaged in oral sex. So not a lie,more a deflection.

Nixon resigned, was never impeached. Ford granted Nixon a full pardon before the possibility of an indictment.

Again you dumbfuck,I didn't ask for a history lesson, I already said he resigned, and why.

The Senate is not required to interview witnesses, that's a house function, the house builds the case, the senate tries the case.

What the fuck are you talking about. A trial has witness.......read your post in bold your Dumbfuck American.....

The first of Pelosi's impeachment was for abuse of power and obstruction of congress, both frivolous and without teeth, actually quite comical,

Only to Dumbfuck Americans such as yourself.

Pelosi and her merry band of partisan hacks made fools of themselves and made a mockery of the impeachment process.

I repeat myself, only to Dumbfuck Americans like you....

 

[LukSkyFokker]

**Christian Nationalist** LMFAO Way to sneak in the new commie progressive buzz words. YOU TRULY ARE ONE DUMB FUCK!!!

Way to completely miss the point, as usual, DUMB FUCK. LMFAO!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Way to completely miss the point, as usual, DUMB FUCK. LMFAO!

Ican't makes BB and AJ look very intellectual in comparison.....*chuckles*

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Ican't makes BB and AJ look very intellectual in comparison.....*chuckles*

Funny how TDS works both ways.

 

[Veroe]

LMFAO Both of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachments were strictly political and strictly along party line, not what our forefathers had in mind. Impeachment is a political process, just ask Nancy. You can indict and impeach a ham sandwich.

Yeah and I don't like it there too. Impeachment has become more and more a regular and ultimately a petty partisan maneuver since Clinton, and it's only going to get way worse. I don't like it. I wish we could stop it, but I think the train's already off the rails on it.

 

[JohnEBbad]

Impeachment, death, removal by 25th.

These are simply not viable options.

Those roads lead to Kamala.


*shudder*

 

[Veroe]

Impeachment, death, removal by 25th.

These are simply not viable options.

Those roads lead to Kamala.


*shudder*

Good point. If you're impeaching Biden on his handling of the southern border. You'll get president Kamala Harris. Who I doubt you have much faith in to turn the situation down there around...so impeach her and that will give you President Nancy Pelosi. The best way to change the handling of the border isn't through impeachment its at the ballot box.

 

[ffish1]

I think the border is a legit reason to do it. Biden declaring Covid as still being a national emergency gave them that ammo. His son's dealings-and his involvement in them is another reason.

It would be interesting to see how MSNBC spins it into completely fabricated reasons when there's plenty of evidence, especially seeing some dems are now complaining about the border.

End of the day though....does anyone really want Harris in his place?

Wait, yes, the dems do.

A red wave in the mid terms gives the Dems the out to not have to remove him, they can say the mean republicans did it. But if they maintain control, I do think we're going to see them have to remove him for health reasons.

I told my wife the sad thing is if the GOP does win and tries it, that there will be some democratic support for it(AOC will be first in line to do it), which is sad to see, but they were using him from day one, and that would just prove it.

Democrats really shot themselves in the foot with Biden.

After the abortion abomination I thought "no way will Republucans win next election",
even after the Aphghanistan retreat clusterfuck
but now I'm absolutely convinced that they will.

as far as international debacles are concerned, the latest is that Biden proposed in UN another military intervention --in Haiti--, but no country wanted to support him. rofl