‘Impeachable whatever’: GOP floats impeaching Biden for ... something

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
72,188
51,871
113
Republicans have been cuing up a potential impeachment of President Biden if they take back control of Congress in the 2022 election.
Now they just need to figure out what they might actually impeach him for.

Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-S.C.) interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” turned some heads this weekend when she was asked about a GOP House majority impeaching Biden next Congress. She replied: “I believe there’s a lot of pressure on Republicans to have that vote, to put that legislation forward, and to have that vote.” Mace cast herself as reluctant to vote for impeachment — she voted against Trump’s post-Jan. 6 impeachment despite roundly criticizing his actions — but left open the possibility.


One thing conspicuously missing from the conversation, though? A concrete discussion of what the grounds for impeachment would be. And that’s been a trend.






ADVERTISING

Back in January, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) mused about impeachment on his podcast. He suggested that it was more likely because Democrats “weaponized” impeachment against Donald Trump, saying, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Cruz’s comments got the most attention because he seemed to allow that the impeachment might not be properly founded — saying Biden could be impeached “whether it’s justified or not.” He was effectively acknowledging that such an action could boil down to mere political payback.

In his comments, he also acknowledged that it wasn’t clear what Biden might be impeached for. He cited the border crises as “probably the strongest grounds right now for impeachment,” but added that “there may be others.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) also spotlighted the border as a possible impeachment grounds in a March interview with the Washington Times, while calling for his party to discuss the possibility. The newspaper noted in its write-up of the interview, though, that Jordan suggested Republicans could focus impeachment on something else: “Mr. Jordan said the illegal immigration surge is ‘one of the issues’ that makes Mr. Biden a target for impeachment.”






The theory is often vague and doesn’t point to one specific action or policy, though some have focused on Biden ending Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy or not building the border wall. Rather, it points in a general way to Biden allegedly failing to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and to prevent border crossings, as arrests have reached historic highs.

A smattering of other issues have also been mentioned, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer perhaps most prominent among them. Shortly after the Jan. 6 insurrection, former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon suggested that Biden be impeached for “his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency.” (There is still zero evidence for this.)
Another is Hunter Biden and the former vice president’s work in Ukraine. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) raised this as a potential grounds for impeachment even before Biden won the Democratic nomination in 2016, and her comments echoed Cruz’s, suggesting it was quite possible without necessarily endorsing the move. The idea revolved around the elder Biden pushing for the removal of the Ukraine’s top prosecutor and in some way trying to help his son. (The conspiracy theory contended that Biden intervened to prevent the prosecutor from investigating his son’s business ties; in fact, the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, wasn’t actively investigating that, he was regarded in the West as being corrupt, and his ouster was in line with official U.S. policy.)






“I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” Ernst said at the time.

In one way, Ernst’s phrase — “impeachable whatever” — has proven apt. Last month, the Hill’s Mike Lillis reported that at least eight impeachment resolutions had been introduced against Biden: three on immigration, three on Afghanistan, one on the coronavirus pandemic eviction moratorium and one on Hunter Biden.
Now is about the time when some point out that Democrats too floated a bunch of potential impeachment grounds during the Trump administration. And that’s true. But such proposals were generally more responsive to an actual event, and were more specific. For example, there were calls during the Russia investigation, particularly for alleged obstructions of justice (for which Robert S. Mueller III found substantial evidence). There were calls after Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey, which was a historic instance of a president firing the man whose investigation threatened the president personally. One lawmaker cited Trump’s reaction to the tragedy in Charlottesville






One thing you’ll also notice if you comb through those efforts, though, is that they generally came from just a handful of Democratic lawmakers. When one of them forced votes, clear majorities of Democrats repeatedly voted against moving forward. Party leaders tried to tamp down the talk.

Ultimately, they relented and impeached Trump first when evidence was produced indicating that Trump rather blatantly tried to use foreign policy toward Ukraine for personal political gain. Then they pursued impeachment again when Trump supporters, acting on his false election conspiracy theories, launched a historic insurrection at the Capitol and Trump dithered in response to it.
Evaluating the substance of these impeachment efforts and comparing them to what Republicans are now floating for Biden is an admittedly subjective exercise. But a good metric is how even some Republicans reacted back then. A couple of them floated impeachment for Trump very shortly after Comey’s firing in May 2017. Amid the Ukraine impeachment, many Republicans raised serious concerns about what Trump had done, even as they ultimately voted nearly unanimously against impeachment and then voted to acquit him. The post-Jan. 6 insurrection resulted in even more Republicans denouncing Trump’s actions and inaction, a historic number of them voting to impeach and convict him, and even many who voted against conviction emphasizing that they had done so on a technicality (that Trump was no longer in office).


There is no real analog for Democrats raising such substantial concerns about Biden’s actions right now. (The nearest Democrats have come may have been in the summer of 2021, when they said they would investigate various aspects of the Afghanistan withdrawal.) Nor are the potential grounds Republicans have raised for impeachment nearly as specific. Which is probably why much of the impeachment talk right now focuses on the “we might” rather than the “here’s why we might.”

 
  • Haha
Reactions: DFSNOLE and torbee

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,156
19,534
113
Unfortunately incompetence isn't an impeachable offense. Being an asshole isn't either, but we already knew that.

The GOP should try concentrating on positive stuff rather than political retribution. Talk of impeachment just continues the downward political spiral.
 

torbee

HR King
Gold Member
Republicans have been cuing up a potential impeachment of President Biden if they take back control of Congress in the 2022 election.
Now they just need to figure out what they might actually impeach him for.

Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-S.C.) interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” turned some heads this weekend when she was asked about a GOP House majority impeaching Biden next Congress. She replied: “I believe there’s a lot of pressure on Republicans to have that vote, to put that legislation forward, and to have that vote.” Mace cast herself as reluctant to vote for impeachment — she voted against Trump’s post-Jan. 6 impeachment despite roundly criticizing his actions — but left open the possibility.


One thing conspicuously missing from the conversation, though? A concrete discussion of what the grounds for impeachment would be. And that’s been a trend.






ADVERTISING

Back in January, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) mused about impeachment on his podcast. He suggested that it was more likely because Democrats “weaponized” impeachment against Donald Trump, saying, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Cruz’s comments got the most attention because he seemed to allow that the impeachment might not be properly founded — saying Biden could be impeached “whether it’s justified or not.” He was effectively acknowledging that such an action could boil down to mere political payback.

In his comments, he also acknowledged that it wasn’t clear what Biden might be impeached for. He cited the border crises as “probably the strongest grounds right now for impeachment,” but added that “there may be others.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) also spotlighted the border as a possible impeachment grounds in a March interview with the Washington Times, while calling for his party to discuss the possibility. The newspaper noted in its write-up of the interview, though, that Jordan suggested Republicans could focus impeachment on something else: “Mr. Jordan said the illegal immigration surge is ‘one of the issues’ that makes Mr. Biden a target for impeachment.”






The theory is often vague and doesn’t point to one specific action or policy, though some have focused on Biden ending Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy or not building the border wall. Rather, it points in a general way to Biden allegedly failing to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and to prevent border crossings, as arrests have reached historic highs.

A smattering of other issues have also been mentioned, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer perhaps most prominent among them. Shortly after the Jan. 6 insurrection, former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon suggested that Biden be impeached for “his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency.” (There is still zero evidence for this.)
Another is Hunter Biden and the former vice president’s work in Ukraine. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) raised this as a potential grounds for impeachment even before Biden won the Democratic nomination in 2016, and her comments echoed Cruz’s, suggesting it was quite possible without necessarily endorsing the move. The idea revolved around the elder Biden pushing for the removal of the Ukraine’s top prosecutor and in some way trying to help his son. (The conspiracy theory contended that Biden intervened to prevent the prosecutor from investigating his son’s business ties; in fact, the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, wasn’t actively investigating that, he was regarded in the West as being corrupt, and his ouster was in line with official U.S. policy.)






“I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” Ernst said at the time.

In one way, Ernst’s phrase — “impeachable whatever” — has proven apt. Last month, the Hill’s Mike Lillis reported that at least eight impeachment resolutions had been introduced against Biden: three on immigration, three on Afghanistan, one on the coronavirus pandemic eviction moratorium and one on Hunter Biden.
Now is about the time when some point out that Democrats too floated a bunch of potential impeachment grounds during the Trump administration. And that’s true. But such proposals were generally more responsive to an actual event, and were more specific. For example, there were calls during the Russia investigation, particularly for alleged obstructions of justice (for which Robert S. Mueller III found substantial evidence). There were calls after Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey, which was a historic instance of a president firing the man whose investigation threatened the president personally. One lawmaker cited Trump’s reaction to the tragedy in Charlottesville






One thing you’ll also notice if you comb through those efforts, though, is that they generally came from just a handful of Democratic lawmakers. When one of them forced votes, clear majorities of Democrats repeatedly voted against moving forward. Party leaders tried to tamp down the talk.

Ultimately, they relented and impeached Trump first when evidence was produced indicating that Trump rather blatantly tried to use foreign policy toward Ukraine for personal political gain. Then they pursued impeachment again when Trump supporters, acting on his false election conspiracy theories, launched a historic insurrection at the Capitol and Trump dithered in response to it.
Evaluating the substance of these impeachment efforts and comparing them to what Republicans are now floating for Biden is an admittedly subjective exercise. But a good metric is how even some Republicans reacted back then. A couple of them floated impeachment for Trump very shortly after Comey’s firing in May 2017. Amid the Ukraine impeachment, many Republicans raised serious concerns about what Trump had done, even as they ultimately voted nearly unanimously against impeachment and then voted to acquit him. The post-Jan. 6 insurrection resulted in even more Republicans denouncing Trump’s actions and inaction, a historic number of them voting to impeach and convict him, and even many who voted against conviction emphasizing that they had done so on a technicality (that Trump was no longer in office).


There is no real analog for Democrats raising such substantial concerns about Biden’s actions right now. (The nearest Democrats have come may have been in the summer of 2021, when they said they would investigate various aspects of the Afghanistan withdrawal.) Nor are the potential grounds Republicans have raised for impeachment nearly as specific. Which is probably why much of the impeachment talk right now focuses on the “we might” rather than the “here’s why we might.”

Joni Ernst is such an embarrassing dumbass and clown.
 

DogBoyRy

HR Legend
Jul 28, 2006
10,657
7,334
113
Republicans have been cuing up a potential impeachment of President Biden if they take back control of Congress in the 2022 election.
Now they just need to figure out what they might actually impeach him for.

Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-S.C.) interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” turned some heads this weekend when she was asked about a GOP House majority impeaching Biden next Congress. She replied: “I believe there’s a lot of pressure on Republicans to have that vote, to put that legislation forward, and to have that vote.” Mace cast herself as reluctant to vote for impeachment — she voted against Trump’s post-Jan. 6 impeachment despite roundly criticizing his actions — but left open the possibility.


One thing conspicuously missing from the conversation, though? A concrete discussion of what the grounds for impeachment would be. And that’s been a trend.






ADVERTISING

Back in January, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) mused about impeachment on his podcast. He suggested that it was more likely because Democrats “weaponized” impeachment against Donald Trump, saying, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Cruz’s comments got the most attention because he seemed to allow that the impeachment might not be properly founded — saying Biden could be impeached “whether it’s justified or not.” He was effectively acknowledging that such an action could boil down to mere political payback.

In his comments, he also acknowledged that it wasn’t clear what Biden might be impeached for. He cited the border crises as “probably the strongest grounds right now for impeachment,” but added that “there may be others.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) also spotlighted the border as a possible impeachment grounds in a March interview with the Washington Times, while calling for his party to discuss the possibility. The newspaper noted in its write-up of the interview, though, that Jordan suggested Republicans could focus impeachment on something else: “Mr. Jordan said the illegal immigration surge is ‘one of the issues’ that makes Mr. Biden a target for impeachment.”






The theory is often vague and doesn’t point to one specific action or policy, though some have focused on Biden ending Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy or not building the border wall. Rather, it points in a general way to Biden allegedly failing to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and to prevent border crossings, as arrests have reached historic highs.

A smattering of other issues have also been mentioned, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer perhaps most prominent among them. Shortly after the Jan. 6 insurrection, former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon suggested that Biden be impeached for “his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency.” (There is still zero evidence for this.)
Another is Hunter Biden and the former vice president’s work in Ukraine. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) raised this as a potential grounds for impeachment even before Biden won the Democratic nomination in 2016, and her comments echoed Cruz’s, suggesting it was quite possible without necessarily endorsing the move. The idea revolved around the elder Biden pushing for the removal of the Ukraine’s top prosecutor and in some way trying to help his son. (The conspiracy theory contended that Biden intervened to prevent the prosecutor from investigating his son’s business ties; in fact, the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, wasn’t actively investigating that, he was regarded in the West as being corrupt, and his ouster was in line with official U.S. policy.)






“I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” Ernst said at the time.

In one way, Ernst’s phrase — “impeachable whatever” — has proven apt. Last month, the Hill’s Mike Lillis reported that at least eight impeachment resolutions had been introduced against Biden: three on immigration, three on Afghanistan, one on the coronavirus pandemic eviction moratorium and one on Hunter Biden.
Now is about the time when some point out that Democrats too floated a bunch of potential impeachment grounds during the Trump administration. And that’s true. But such proposals were generally more responsive to an actual event, and were more specific. For example, there were calls during the Russia investigation, particularly for alleged obstructions of justice (for which Robert S. Mueller III found substantial evidence). There were calls after Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey, which was a historic instance of a president firing the man whose investigation threatened the president personally. One lawmaker cited Trump’s reaction to the tragedy in Charlottesville






One thing you’ll also notice if you comb through those efforts, though, is that they generally came from just a handful of Democratic lawmakers. When one of them forced votes, clear majorities of Democrats repeatedly voted against moving forward. Party leaders tried to tamp down the talk.

Ultimately, they relented and impeached Trump first when evidence was produced indicating that Trump rather blatantly tried to use foreign policy toward Ukraine for personal political gain. Then they pursued impeachment again when Trump supporters, acting on his false election conspiracy theories, launched a historic insurrection at the Capitol and Trump dithered in response to it.
Evaluating the substance of these impeachment efforts and comparing them to what Republicans are now floating for Biden is an admittedly subjective exercise. But a good metric is how even some Republicans reacted back then. A couple of them floated impeachment for Trump very shortly after Comey’s firing in May 2017. Amid the Ukraine impeachment, many Republicans raised serious concerns about what Trump had done, even as they ultimately voted nearly unanimously against impeachment and then voted to acquit him. The post-Jan. 6 insurrection resulted in even more Republicans denouncing Trump’s actions and inaction, a historic number of them voting to impeach and convict him, and even many who voted against conviction emphasizing that they had done so on a technicality (that Trump was no longer in office).


There is no real analog for Democrats raising such substantial concerns about Biden’s actions right now. (The nearest Democrats have come may have been in the summer of 2021, when they said they would investigate various aspects of the Afghanistan withdrawal.) Nor are the potential grounds Republicans have raised for impeachment nearly as specific. Which is probably why much of the impeachment talk right now focuses on the “we might” rather than the “here’s why we might.”

How about telling a foreign leader getting billions of aid to lie about his countries status?
Afgan ring a bell for anyone?
 

onlyTheObvious

HR Heisman
Jan 3, 2021
6,819
7,957
113
They dont stand for anything.
Disagree. Both parties stand for spending money they don’t have. I don’t care if the government passes a law that mails out cigarettes and beer. Just raise the money first.

in another decade or two, uncontrolled spending without the revenue is going to be THE REAL issue in this country. What the money was spent on to get us to that point and the mood of those not happy about the individual spending bills will be irrelevant.

we are all on a spaceship racing towards the sun Arguing over a pair of sunglasses. Nobody is addressing the issue that will destroy us.
 

JRHawk2003

HR Legend
Jul 9, 2003
45,508
16,333
113
Montrose
Disagree. Both parties stand for spending money they don’t have. I don’t care if the government passes a law that mails out cigarettes and beer. Just raise the money first.

in another decade or two, uncontrolled spending without the revenue is going to be THE REAL issue in this country. What the money was spent on to get us to that point and the mood of those not happy about the individual spending bills will be irrelevant.

we are all on a spaceship racing towards the sun Arguing over a pair of sunglasses. Nobody is addressing the issue that will destroy us.

What do they want to spend money on? Not Medicare
 

DogBoyRy

HR Legend
Jul 28, 2006
10,657
7,334
113
What was done in Afghanistan for which Biden could be impeached?

Your other suggestion here is just ridiculous, so don't even bother to try and describe how that would fit into the requirements for impeachment.
As it turned into a shitshow after the closure of bagram he told the president to lie about it’s status.
Biden was still dreaming of a 9/11 photo op as the afgan army was collapsing and our weapons were going to the taliban.
He told the guy to lie.
 

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
15,754
21,253
113
If they impeach Biden just because Trump was impeached .....

I really don't know how to finish the sentence.

1. Business as usual?
2. This country is a toy for politicians to play with?
3. Find a new country to live in?
4. Give up bourbon for cocaine?
 

torbee

HR King
Gold Member
As it turned into a shitshow after the closure of bagram he told the president to lie about it’s status.
Biden was still dreaming of a 9/11 photo op as the afgan army was collapsing and our weapons were going to the taliban.
He told the guy to lie.
You are alleging Biden may have told someone else to lie once, so you understand why he should be impeached.

Meantime, Trump lied more than 30K times as president, yet was the victim of an unfair witch hunt?

Seems legit, lol.

 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,532
12,879
113
Disagree. Both parties stand for spending money they don’t have. I don’t care if the government passes a law that mails out cigarettes and beer. Just raise the money first.

in another decade or two, uncontrolled spending without the revenue is going to be THE REAL issue in this country. What the money was spent on to get us to that point and the mood of those not happy about the individual spending bills will be irrelevant.

we are all on a spaceship racing towards the sun Arguing over a pair of sunglasses. Nobody is addressing the issue that will destroy us.
You can disagree with the premise all you want, but Democrats have consistently pushed tax increases to pay for an agenda. Republicans push increased spending with decreased taxes. There’s a difference.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
97,147
126,940
113
President Kevin McCarthy.

Bask in that glow.
1. Gym Jordan will murder McCarthy if it gives him the chance to move up a peg. Assuming McCarthy is the Speaker, which is a big if even if the GOP wins the nomination.
2. There is a mechanism in place to replace a VP. It doesn't automatically go to the Speaker if the President and Vice President move on for whatever reason. It would be very dicey for a GOP Congress to hold open the VP spot.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,156
19,534
113
You can disagree with the premise all you want, but Democrats have consistently pushed tax increases to pay for an agenda. Republicans push increased spending with decreased taxes. There’s a difference.
You are partially correct. I'd disagree with taxing to support spending, sort of. Dems do push taxes to support spending, but almost always spend way more than the extra taxes they take in.
 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,532
12,879
113
You are partially correct. I'd disagree with taxing to support spending, sort of. Dems do push taxes to support spending, but almost always spend way more than the extra taxes they take in.
And I won’t disagree. That’s a significant difference from a party who pushes tax cuts and increased spending while calling themselves the party of financial responsibility.
 
Nov 28, 2010
79,686
32,891
113
Maryland
1. Gym Jordan will murder McCarthy if it gives him the chance to move up a peg. Assuming McCarthy is the Speaker, which is a big if even if the GOP wins the nomination.
2. There is a mechanism in place to replace a VP. It doesn't automatically go to the Speaker if the President and Vice President move on for whatever reason. It would be very dicey for a GOP Congress to hold open the VP spot.
Yep. Our fascist party needs to get rid of Biden and Harris together or in quick succession for McCarthy to take over.

Shouldn't be hard. Ram the impeachments through the House. It doesn't matter what the charges are. Then ram the trial and convictions through the Senate.

But how, you ask?

They don't need to have actual bases for those acts, they just need to do them. That's how bad American democracy has gotten.
 

onlyTheObvious

HR Heisman
Jan 3, 2021
6,819
7,957
113
You can disagree with the premise all you want, but Democrats have consistently pushed tax increases to pay for an agenda. Republicans push increased spending with decreased taxes. There’s a difference.
Who had taxes increased to pay for loan forgiveness ?

the last round of Covid?

I want the taxes increased first or in concert with the spending.

saying you will is frankly weak shit.

biden will beat trumps debt records. Trump beat Obama’s.

we are well on our way.
 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,532
12,879
113
Who had taxes increased to pay for loan forgiveness ?

the last round of Covid?

I want the taxes increased first or in concert with the spending.

saying you will is frankly weak shit.

biden will beat trumps debt records. Trump beat Obama’s.

we are well on our way.
Democrats pushed for a tax increase on the wealthy to pay for infrastructure etc. Loan forgiveness the money is already spent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Huey Grey

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2013
49,303
71,590
113
I just want to point out that the Rs impeached Clinton over a blow job. Did we impeach Bush as payback? Nope. We saved impeachment for real problems like Trump leading a coup.

This is just more proof that Rs are petty and irresponsible.
 

onlyTheObvious

HR Heisman
Jan 3, 2021
6,819
7,957
113
I just want to point out that the Rs impeached Clinton over a blow job. Did we impeach Bush as payback? Nope. We saved impeachment for real problems like Trump leading a coup.

This is just more proof that Rs are petty and irresponsible.
It was lying under oath. But you know that.

if you can’t handle the LEGAL fact stop posting.

seems that people were worried foreign powers could use that info to black mail him.

hmmm. Sound familiar ?

spewing talking points that are obviously half truths if not outright lies makes you look like a dumbass.

It’s like a red neck saying the FBI is after trump for having photocopy paper in his house.
 
Last edited:

McLovin32

HR Legend
Feb 1, 2008
33,591
53,817
113
Why do dems seem to do things that bite themselves in the rear down the road (ala judicial filibuster)?
Coming from someone that votes for the party that's ball deep in on the Trump Train and just overturned Roe v Wade, this is freaking rich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD

TonyTheTiger.1865

HR All-American
Sep 23, 2011
2,705
3,521
113
I hope not. This endless impeachment of sitting presidents is fvcking ridiculous. The left is as guilty if not more so than anyone. You don't like who the people elected, impeach them.
 

Latest posts