House Speaker McCarthy directs House panel to open Biden impeachment inquiry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhAHqn_jZpQ
https://i.imgur.com/rwKsUCn.png
Printable View
Good. Just in time for election season. Time for Republicans to take off the gloves and fight dirty just like the Dems did/are.
This will lead no where, and change nothing.
Nor did Trump’s two impeachments. They should do it anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Eh, I don’t think so, this probably won’t even get the 218 votes. At least Trump’s two impeachments had some Republican support, that was a major political win… this one will have zero Democratic support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
It will. You’ll see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Do I think Biden is guilty of being a corrupt scumbag mofo that took bribes for political favors? Yes. Do I think there is enough evidence to convince Democrats in Congress of the same? No. You reap what you sow, and I welcome all this information coming out into the public before the 2024 election.
Let’s make a bet, if he doesn’t get the 218, you need to go out and buy a football Jersey of the team you hate the most, and wear it for a day. I’ll do the same if he does get the 218Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
:D
Don't need any democrats to get 218 votes. I don't think it'll make it to the floor to be voted on, regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I’m aware, but I don’t think even the Republicans can get 218, as they all don’t support this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You’re probably right and it probably won’t even get to that anyways.
I respectfully decline your offer. I’m a man of my word and would never under any circumstances buy and/or wear an Eagles jersey. (Sorry Anebriated, but I suspect you understand and would say the same about the Cowboys.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I’ll counter with a gentleman’s handshake. If you are right I’ll give you credit and publicly post that I was wrong. You do the same if I am right. Deal?
Hahahahaha, deal!Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
The thought of buying a Steelers jersey and wearing it, made me want to vomit.
This is an impeachment inquiry.. not an impeachment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
You know, like a fair and unbiased determination before going to a full on impeachment or not doing so.
Are you sure you are aware? You seem confused by what an impeachment inquiry is and what an impeachment is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
I don’t think McCarthy would even entertain an impeachment inquiry if he did not intend to take it to a vote on the House floor AND be sure that he has the votes. He is in too much of a precarious position politically to have anything less than that outcome. Just my opinion of course..
He went for the impeachment inquiry because he was being stonewalled to get information. This inquiry grants him more access to this information to get to the bottom of the Biden Crime Syndicate affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
3 impeachment inquiries will result in 1 strongly worded letter.
edit: I expect there to be some new charges on Team Trump in retaliation like the true Banana Republic we are.
Exactly. Once the inquiry is underway and it uncovers some new information, Trump will be indicted for something the next day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anebriated
Poor McCarthy, he was faced with Gaetz calling for Democrats to help him pass a motion to remove him the Speakership and so capitulated to hardliner nut jobs. I feel for him, his part of California is little more than defunct oil wells, the worst police brutality in the state and pistachios, so he doesn't have much to fall back on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Poor McCarthy... he knew what he was getting into when he ran for Speaker... he knows what he agreed to and he hasn't abided by his agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
He was hoping the Conservatives would just forget about it... but they didn't.
Good for Gaetz. Hold him to his agreement.
One thing the Conservatives got him to agree to is to bring term limits to the floor. Force these career politicians to vote one way or another... then we will know who the fuck to vote out.
Are you sure there was an actual agreement? If it was in writing, no copy has ever been released to the public. Even it was unwritten, the contents of the unwritten agreement have never been fully disclosed. Gaetz says that it was in writing but he lost his copy. Is that a credible claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Pretty sordid if some Speakership contract included initiating an impeachment inquiry by declaration and not by a house vote. In a democratic body, it's interesting that authoritarian powers are an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Simple non-partisan question: do you oppose bringing forward a bill of term limits for members of Congress to the floor for a vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
I’ll answer this question even though it was asked to someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I think one of two things should happen, term limits or an age cap, such as the age of retirement, for all public offices.
I would like to see a limit on years of service. 30 years max, both houses, comes out to an even number of terms and allows a full lifetime career if people want to elect people but prevents people from being fossilized in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
lol i think 65.. 2000 steps a day and knowing how the internet works still is only requirement
btw that is totally in jest, but it's not far from truth
We can work out the minor details, but I believe geriatric dinosaurs ruling us & the Capitol becoming an elderly care facility is a bipartisan issue.
Having an age cap is ageism. You can't do that legally in the US... nor should you. I know two 70 year olds.. one looks like he's 50 and is very active and you can tell his head is still working as intended.. the other one looks 80 and acts like Biden. Why should we tell them neither one is able to do the job when one of them clearly could?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Term limits is the easy answer.
30 years is entirely too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
4 terms in the House = 8 years
2 terms in the Senate = 12 years
These are reasonable terms of service... and if someone wanted to do both, that's 20 years of service.
I don’t disagree that legally term limits is the easy answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
We don’t call it ageism when our Constitution states the minimum age to serve in Congress is 30 and it’s 35 to be President. I work with someone that is 28 years old, has a MBA from a prestigious university, and is much more capable & responsible than the average person that’s a decade older than him. Why is it socially & legally acceptable to have a minimum age for public service but a discussion around a law or amendment for a maximum age is considered unacceptable behavior?
I would need to read the bill to know if I supported voting on it. Point me to it, and I will take the time to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I assume it will say that, upon approval of 2/3rds of each house of Congress, the Constitution will be amended to provide that each House member may serve a maximum of 3 terms and each Senator may serve a maximum of 2 terms. If the bill contains appropriate accounting for partial terms, then I would not oppose a vote on it.
There are already term limits on the President, of course. There are no term limits for the Supreme Court.
After approval by 2/3rds of each house of Congress, the constitutional amendment would then require approval by 3/4ths of the states. You know what would greatly improve its chances? Combine it with term limits for the Supreme Court. A single amendment covering the House, Senate and Supreme Court would have broader appeal, and a combined comprehensive amendment would be more consistent with the principle of limited citizen-driven government.
The thing about the courts (SCOTUS and the other federal courts) is those positions are appointed by POTUS & confirmed by Congress. The idea is that they serve a long period of time and interpret the law of the land, not public opinion. Our founders recognized they couldn’t perform well if they had to worry about reelection or short terms of service. I do realize that justices are flawed humans like the rest of us. I’d be ok with more judicial oversight but I can’t get on board with SCOTUS term limits at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Term limits are not the panacea people think they are. They will lead to a much more balkanized administrative state of "experts" than we have now despite what people think. It takes a lot of time and work to become an expert on something and in Congress, the people running things should develop some expertise in matters. I want the years in each house to be equal to alleviate whining about "equity".Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Both the House & Senate (Senate less so but still) has complete bumbling idiots that are incapable of being “experts” at anything, and yet those people continue to be elected for a lifetime of service. Is George Santos or AOC going to become experts at anything 20 years from now?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Edit: Trump is not an expert career politician. I don’t think you really believe that it requires a long period of service in politics to become effective at it. They do get better at campaigning though.
There will always be exceptions when you use age as a benchmark. Most people into their 30's are not as mature as say someone in their 40's or 50's with the same life experiences. Middle aged people tend to be more emotionally and intellectually mature and have had more life experiences for the added 10-20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Elected officials are able to get rid of these so called "experts" though.. they aren't permanent structures in our government.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
But when you become entrenched in politics, it's very, very difficult to get rid of you... and it becomes your seat until you die.
Public service shouldn't be a career where you just continue to gain power and money to the point you are too big to fail. You become beholden to too many entities and they in turn ensure your re-election every cycle.
We put term limits on the Presidency, on most governors, on most state house and senate.. on most elected posts with the obvious exception of the federal House and Senate. The only reason they aren't in place there is because the corrupt politicians won't vote against their own well being.
I'm even ok with grandfathering in all the pieces of shit in Congress right now.
We need to get term limits imposed if we are going to ever hope to drain the swamp.
The question is whether or not you support allowing Congress to vote on a term limit for the Supreme Court. Congress could vote on that issue on the same day they vote on term limits for members of Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
That is a pretty valid argument, why would the Constitution apply a minimum age threshold and not a maximum age threshold? Presumably the Framers considered an individual to have reached mental majority and stability in their thirties, and would die off before infirmity caused service issues given the average lifespan back then was 64-65 years. If there is a minimum threshold that isn't simply being an adult, then it bears to reason a maximum age for service should be written as a constitutional amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
In a thread about the Biden impeachment inquiry, it's a strange subtopic. Since it isn't a law, and Biden hasn't committed any crimes then it follows the inquiry should be dropped.
Biden is under investigation of committing crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Let the investigation continue.. the inquiry will get the investigators greater access to the information.
I think it's hilarious that the Dems impeached a President over a phone conversation where nothing was illegal... but investigating Biden for money laundering.. this must stop!
The mainstream media reaction is hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
“McCarthy didn’t even bring it to a vote!” Neither did Pelosi on the first Trump impeachment inquiry and the second impeachment there wasn’t even an inquiry.
“There is absolutely no evidence!” Well there is $20 million wired from foreign sources to the Biden family, about 20+ shell companies laundering money, testimony that links Biden to influence peddling, and more.
“This is political weaponization!” LOLZ
Inaccurate. Republicans have alleged that Hunter Biden has committed crimes circa 2016 pedaling influence he doesn't have and have implicated, with no evidence, that President Biden may have benefited. House Republicans have submitted circumstantial evidence only as to Hunter, but still believe the President should be impeached due to his son's actions. No House hearings or commissions have thus far turned up evidence, but they wish to pull this political stunt anyhow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Look at you lying. The first impeachment inquiry came before a full vote of the House on 10/31/2019. The second did not have an inquiry, but the bipartisan articles of impeachment was passed by the House 01/13/2021 and Trump skated by with only three votes short of majority needed to convict under the articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Just like a said that the 2017 DC riots would mark the end of the peaceful transfer of power, I also said that the Democrats using impeachment as a weapon would result in impeachment becoming a common use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Go cry us a river, Democrats wanted to play ball this way.
LOL riots. A protest more likely on Trump's inauguration, so following the transfer of power. Unlike Trump's insurrection trying to use an armed invasion of the capital building to stop the certification of an election to stay in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
2017 was worse, Democrats torched and destroyed private business's. They literally terrorized American citizens because they lost an election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Now you're crying because the tables have been turned.
Can you please keep calling it an "armed insurrection" because it literally makes almost as much sense as just a plain "insurrection" and it really gives it the gravitas you need to keep making retarded people believe it wasn't all staged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Just a peaceful protest in Seran's tiny, tiny little mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/i...sts-rhk-01.jpg
https://www.denverpost.com/wp-conten...5354.jpg?w=620
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...Protest_01.jpg
It's weird to me that they don't see that the politically motivated destruction of private property is infinitely worse than Jan. 6th.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Despite how stupid he is, Seran knows. He's really just that much of a scumbag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
It's because the politicians told him that they must be protected above all else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
I just don't agree.
Are these even from Washington DC?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You seem to think an outgoing President trying to stay in power by invalidating tens of millions of votes through an organized armed invasion of Congress isn't a big deal. You're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Did MSNBC and CNN tell you it was so peaceful and this is causing your tiny little brain to keep stuttering?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Like I have said numerous times, all the chips were off the table when Democrats rioted during the 2017 inauguration. Democrats decided to terrorize private citizens for 4 years because they lost an election. At this point DC could burn to the ground and I wouldn't bat an eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I'll take that as a no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Are you really this fucking clueless?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Stop acting like you get your news from "multiple sources" while still being completely oblivious to the Inauguration Day DC riots.
This is 1 of 9942749820420 reasons why literally everyone thinks you're a giant retard.
Violent Anti-Trump Protests Try To Steal Spotlight On Inauguration Day | NBC Nightly News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr0i6piW_ak
Take special note of the burning cars, smashed windows, etc.
You stupid fuck.
Here's more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbnEiTsiqtA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJWEIs_yk20
This is the part of the thread where you'll shut the fuck up instead of acknowledging how dumb and clueless you are.
Yes, yes he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Hey, the DNC, MSNBC, CNN etc. are in fact, multiple sources . . .Quote:
Stop acting like you get your news from "multiple sources" while still being completely oblivious to the Inauguration Day DC riots.
The GOAT Retard Champion. I was wrong to think there ever could have been a serious challenger. For that mistake, I am sorry. Seran, you truly are the GOAT in this competition.Quote:
This is 1 of 9942749820420 reasons why literally everyone thinks you're a giant retard.
That would take self awareness so I eagerly wait the next, entertaining installment of "GOAT Retard simping for the Fascist Left"Quote:
Violent Anti-Trump Protests Try To Steal Spotlight On Inauguration Day | NBC Nightly News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr0i6piW_ak
Take special note of the burning cars, smashed windows, etc.
You stupid fuck.
Here's more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbnEiTsiqtA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJWEIs_yk20
This is the part of the thread where you'll shut the fuck up instead of acknowledging how dumb and clueless you are.
You should just assume your question was a dumb one and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I know this shattered your world view.. and I'm sorry to yet again point out how dumb and naive you are.
We've posted video and pics from the DC riot numerous times over the past 6 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Also
Minneapolis still hasn't rebuilt after the destruction caused by Democrat rioters, that Democrat politicians bailed out, the majority of which were black owned business's.
But my precious government building!
What world view is it you think you're shattering? Your own I'm guessing, since your ilk are the ones so desperately trying to whatabout your orange messiah's attempted coup on January 6th. You just lost sleep at night trying to convince yourself all of those federal laws he and hundreds of supporters broke in storming the capital was a tour. That those federal officers and secret service members trying to desperately protect their charges from a mob hell bent on taking their lives were in fact bypassing their tour and breaking through tours to offer protection. That in the history of the United States, only one other time did someone try and proclaim themselves President when another was elected, and Jefferson Davis was slapped into chains and imprisoned until tried for treason after the Civil War. So if you're comfortable with knowing you are comparing treason to protests, I suggest you leave the Untied States, because you don't belong here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
So weird how you ignore the posts with videos of the actual Inauguration Day DC riots you keep denying happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
It's because you're a steaming piece of shit and a pedo.
We don't care about politicians in Washington when Democrats are burning down private property. The fact that you prioritize politicians over the people is everything we need to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Also
Not a single dime of the 90 million dollars raised by BLM has gone to the rebuilding of the communities they burnt to the ground.
You asked if those pics were from DC... as if you were oblivious that there was any rioting there in Jan '17.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
There was. Millions of dollars in damage to private property.
Some notes on your retardation paragraph du jour:
1) The only ones who believe that ZOMGJAN6TH was a "coup" either is too retarded to know what a coup is or is tired of getting laughed at for calling it an armed insurrection.
2) I never called what happened on 1/6 a "tour".. I simply said that this was our government and our media at work to portray something that wasn't what they said it was. Release all the January 6th tapes.. what are we waiting for? Release all the evidence.
3) Taking their lives.. with no firearms? Please stop being so dramatic and retarded... it's embarrassing for your father.. unless he too is a limp wristed little pussy like you.
4) You were lied to multiple times in the past 7 years.. and even when the truth came out.. you still stuck by those lies. Is it because you are embarrassed for being so easily manipulated? You should be used to that.. being a barely functional retard. The Democrats rely on that level of stupidity to get what they want.. if only everyone was as dumb as you are.. the Democrats would rule the world!
5) Please stop being the dumbest person in every single thread you post in.
Lol, hundreds of people charged, multiple seditious conspiracy convictions later and the far right is still fruitlessly trying to play it down. Imagine being so dumb to believe a lack of firearms means harm couldn't be done by the hundreds who invaded the Capital on Trump's request. Guess all those people that died as a result of January 6th were meaningless to the would be rebels.
19 people died in just 2 weeks of BLM riots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
"Arson, vandalism, and looting that occurred between May 26 and June 8 caused approximately $1–2 billion in damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history, and surpassing the record set during the 1992 Los Angeles riots."
And Democrat politicians were bailing these terrorists out of jail.
But my Jan. 6th!
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I'm curious if you get off on making dumb whataboutism claims or if you just really think that two events are so mutually inclusive that you can't consider sedition on behalf of a sitting President, without also considering a completely unrelated events that had nothing to do with said attempted coup? I'll you a hint, one is state/local jurisdiction, while the other (sedition) is a federal crime. Moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
No one died on 1/6th due to those "rebels" who "invaded" for a "coup" and an "armed insurrection".... but one woman who was unarmed was shot in the face. Does that count?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Your mental retardation is a shining example of how the teachers union and the Dept of Education has destroyed the education in America.
We are churning out the dumbest people on the planet.
This didn't age so well for Kevin McCarthy. In 2019 he felt impeachment inquiries shouldn't occur without a full bipartisan vote or be used for political purposes, but here he is unilaterally opening an impeachment inquiry of a sitting President for something his son did.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...5e7_video.html
It's not a "whataboutism" when the first acts of violence were Democrats rioting in 2017. They attacked federal buildings, they torched police departments, they torched churches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I think we'll start in chronological order.
https://media.tenor.com/EfDA5DfgTV4A...y-cry-much.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Cope and seethe and shit your pants harder noob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran