cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/27268080
House Republican investigators accused President Joe Biden of engaging in “impeachable conduct” as part of a long-awaited report. It’s unlikely to change a reality the party has faced for months: They don’t have the votes to impeach him.
The 291-page report released Monday by the Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means committees comes roughly eight months after Republicans formalized their impeachment inquiry against the president. Their sweeping investigations, largely focused on the business deals of Biden’s family members, have gone on even longer, informally starting around the time they first took the House majority in January 2023.
Republicans on the committees are accusing Biden of two offenses they argue meet the bar for impeachable conduct: abuse of power and obstruction. They’re the same charges that House Democrats cited in the 2019 impeachment against then-President Donald Trump — an inquiry frequently mentioned in the House GOP report.
“The Constitution’s remedy for a President’s flagrant abuse of office is clear: impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate,” the committees write in the report, adding they are releasing the report to the House “for its evaluation and consideration of appropriate next steps.”
Reposting my comment here :
Republicans, explain how these are similar? Do you really consider a president using funds from the government to provide aid in exchange for a personal favour equivalent to a president allegedly being on the phone to a bank to get their sons a loan?
Remember - in the first case there were literally phone call recordings. In the second, there is no evidence beyond whats being alleged.
Both are “abuse of office”. You acquitted the first. Do you really feel the second is just as bad or worse than the first? Why?
A
A president of the united states called the leader of another foreign sovereign nation in an attempt to coerce said foreign nation to investigate a conspiracy theory about the president’s political opponent in exchange for 400million dollars in military aid to defend against a third foreign nation. A quid quo pro deal.
Said president instigated an attack on the capitol building in an attempt to overthrow democracy and prevent votes from being counted.
B
The sons of a president of the united states, while on the phone to … a bank? financial institution? some loan provider … put the president on the phone to exchange pleasantries. No alleged quid quo pro - even from the republican report from what I have seen.
Calling it now - not a single republican voter will provide a coherent response.
inb4 this post somehow breaks R2
Tribalism at the expense of the nation. What a sad, predictable, tragedy.
If the Democrats were smart, they would demand an immediate trial and impeach Biden. That would make Kamala the incumbent going into the election.
… how would that be beneficial to anyone?
Incumbents typically win elections. People wouldn’t be as uncertain about her. She could jump in and start pushing her policies. Since none of her policies could get implemented before election, nor the consequences of them, she would slide right into office.
… right. Im not even going to bother trying to unpack that complete nonsense.
It isn’t nonsense. If you don’t understand basic political theory, that is on you. It is well-known incumbents have a much better chance against a challenger.
Incumbents do have a better chance. But impeaching the current one to suddenly put a VP in, and then applying the same logic of “incumbent better” makes no sense.
She would be the incumbent at that point. The Democrats have a Biden problem. This would allow them to remove the problem and get Kamala some early attention.
If she goes through the normal cycle, she will most likely lose. Both sides have attacked her first policy discussions as horrible. That is only going to get worse as she starts to debate and push her agenda.
Except Biden isn’t running? How do they have a “Biden problem” if he isn’t even running for election?
Most likely lose
What are you basing that on?
This is an incredibly simplistic theory.
Would that limit her to a single term?
No. She would be eligible for two terms. I believe the total cap is ten years.
Thanks. I thought that was the case, but it’s been a very long time since I took US government classes. Heck, it’s been a very long time since I’ve been in school! Me old!
I am going off memory. I looked it up when Joe got elected, as I wasn’t sure if he would make it. I knew he had to make it through half his term for her to be eligible for two elections.
