Biden impeachment

[Anonymous]

The Republicans have a 10 seat majority in the House. How come all these committees have five or six more Republicans than Democrats? Is that the way it normally works, small majority in the House, big majority on committees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the pattern:

-Democrats make unprecedented rule change
-Republicans warn of consequences if Democrats lose
-Democrats lose
-Republicans operate under new rule
-Democrats complain
-Media dutifully screams hypocrisy

See: filibuster, committee ousters, and now impeachment

what change are you referring to in this case? honest question i have not read all the prior 12 pages

Yea, Dems change the rules to benefit them. Then when not in power, they complain about it being unfair.




Harry Reid changed the rules for Judges from 60 votes needed to 50 in order to get Democratic nominees through. Republicans warned him that if went with the “nuclear” option then when they see in power, they would do the exact same thing confirming Republican Judges. I guess the Dems never thought there would be another a Republican president?

See Below:


Eight years later in 2013, it would be Harry Reid and a Democratic majority that would do away with the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court. Despite warnings from the minority that it was a decision they would live to regret, Reid and the Democrats deployed the nuclear option anyway.

Their day of reckoning came on Jan. 20, 2017, with a Republican president and Senate in control of judicial nominations. For the past four years, President Donald Trump and Republicans have done their constitutional duty in nominating and confirming federal judges, including now three Supreme Court nominations. But don’t blame Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blame Harry Reid who put politics ahead of principle and opened the door for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and soon Amy Coney Barrett.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans have a 10 seat majority in the House. How come all these committees have five or six more Republicans than Democrats? Is that the way it normally works, small majority in the House, big majority on committees?

Yes. works both ways

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m gonna post this once, and you guys can keep arguing back and forth.


This is an Impeachment Inquiry!, not an Impeachment!

What is the difference, the Inquiry gives congress more power to investigate the executive branch that it did before. It specifically now allows congress to demand bank records and other sources of information where before, they had no right to ask. If gives congress more power to “Investigate” potential wrongdoings. It does not necessarily mean there will be an Impeachment, but could if bank records or other items are found on Biden. If no crimes were found to be committed, no impeachment would then follow.

Make sense?


https://time.com/6313320/mccarthy-launches-house-impeachment-inquiry-biden/#

No, it doesn’t make sense. There’s no special impeachment inquiry subpoena that is more powerful than a congressional subpoena. And the House already has all of the bank records they sought.

Since you did not read the article, here is the sort that NOW gives congress subpoena powers to request more bank record and other documents. Up until this point, they did not subpoena powers. Did that Help? Maybe read the article.




Here is the highlight.


A formal impeachment inquiry provides Congress with its apex of power, giving the legislative body more discretion to dig into Biden’s family finances. Investigators could, for example, issue subpoenas for the bank records of Biden and his relatives. The mechanism could also put Biden in a bind should he refuse to comply with any of the subpoenas, according to Michael Conway, an attorney who served as counsel for the House Judiciary Committee’s 1974 impeachment into Nixon. If Biden doesn’t comply with the inquiry, that in itself is an impeachable offense. Indeed, one of the three articles of impeachment considered against Nixon was for defying the inquiry, which sought to obtain his infamous White House tape recordings.

They already have all of the bank records and other records, and tax forms. There is nothing else to subpoena.

Not entirely accurate. According to this August 9 memo from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability staff: "The Committee has not yet subpoenaed bank records of members of the Biden family."

And, as noted by a PP, there are outstanding requests with the National Archives.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Third-Bank-Records-Memorandum_Redacted.pdf

Then why don;t the subpoena those and see what the facts are before going to the impeachment route? Seems like they are putting the cart before the horse.

And hiding parts of the horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the pattern:

-Democrats make unprecedented rule change
-Republicans warn of consequences if Democrats lose
-Democrats lose
-Republicans operate under new rule
-Democrats complain
-Media dutifully screams hypocrisy

See: filibuster, committee ousters, and now impeachment

what change are you referring to in this case? honest question i have not read all the prior 12 pages

Yea, Dems change the rules to benefit them. Then when not in power, they complain about it being unfair.




Harry Reid changed the rules for Judges from 60 votes needed to 50 in order to get Democratic nominees through. Republicans warned him that if went with the “nuclear” option then when they see in power, they would do the exact same thing confirming Republican Judges. I guess the Dems never thought there would be another a Republican president?

See Below:


Eight years later in 2013, it would be Harry Reid and a Democratic majority that would do away with the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court. Despite warnings from the minority that it was a decision they would live to regret, Reid and the Democrats deployed the nuclear option anyway.

Their day of reckoning came on Jan. 20, 2017, with a Republican president and Senate in control of judicial nominations. For the past four years, President Donald Trump and Republicans have done their constitutional duty in nominating and confirming federal judges, including now three Supreme Court nominations. But don’t blame Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blame Harry Reid who put politics ahead of principle and opened the door for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and soon Amy Coney Barrett.

Reid’s error was limiting the change to nominations and budget reconciliation instead of eliminating the filibuster entirely. Judges and tax cuts are the only things Republicans care about. The filibuster is more useful to Republican obstructionists than to Democratic reformers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans have a 10 seat majority in the House. How come all these committees have five or six more Republicans than Democrats? Is that the way it normally works, small majority in the House, big majority on committees?

Not every committee but the major ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the pattern:

-Democrats make unprecedented rule change
-Republicans warn of consequences if Democrats lose
-Democrats lose
-Republicans operate under new rule
-Democrats complain
-Media dutifully screams hypocrisy

See: filibuster, committee ousters, and now impeachment

what change are you referring to in this case? honest question i have not read all the prior 12 pages

Yea, Dems change the rules to benefit them. Then when not in power, they complain about it being unfair.




Harry Reid changed the rules for Judges from 60 votes needed to 50 in order to get Democratic nominees through. Republicans warned him that if went with the “nuclear” option then when they see in power, they would do the exact same thing confirming Republican Judges. I guess the Dems never thought there would be another a Republican president?

See Below:


Eight years later in 2013, it would be Harry Reid and a Democratic majority that would do away with the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court. Despite warnings from the minority that it was a decision they would live to regret, Reid and the Democrats deployed the nuclear option anyway.

Their day of reckoning came on Jan. 20, 2017, with a Republican president and Senate in control of judicial nominations. For the past four years, President Donald Trump and Republicans have done their constitutional duty in nominating and confirming federal judges, including now three Supreme Court nominations. But don’t blame Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blame Harry Reid who put politics ahead of principle and opened the door for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and soon Amy Coney Barrett.

Context is important. The GOP was not allowing ANY nominees to move forward to the point that the republican chief justice complained that the judiciary branch was going to ground to a halt. The GOP FORCED Reid into this move as he acquiesced to the Chief Justice calls to get the judiciary branch staffed. It's almost like it was a set up to cause the very effect that it made 20 years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


And hiding parts of the horse.

Wow, the GOP narrative falls apart just hours after the action. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The writing’s on the wall folks.

What does it say, bot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the pattern:

-Democrats make unprecedented rule change
-Republicans warn of consequences if Democrats lose
-Democrats lose
-Republicans operate under new rule
-Democrats complain
-Media dutifully screams hypocrisy

See: filibuster, committee ousters, and now impeachment

Kevin said TEN DAYS AGO that he wouldn’t open an impeachment without a vote like Nancy did. That’s what’s ridiculous here.

[Anonymous]

Figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the pattern:

-Democrats make unprecedented rule change
-Republicans warn of consequences if Democrats lose
-Democrats lose
-Republicans operate under new rule
-Democrats complain
-Media dutifully screams hypocrisy

See: filibuster, committee ousters, and now impeachment

Kevin said TEN DAYS AGO that he wouldn’t open an impeachment without a vote like Nancy did. That’s what’s ridiculous here.

Once again with video:

[Anonymous]

Because he doesn't have the votes on the floor to force an impeachment inquiry. He also doesn't have facts and evidence, which is why he doesn't have the votes.

He also traded impeachment for a budget extension, but the MAGAs went back on their agreement.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The upper house, they called it...