So When Do REPUBS IMPEACH BIDEN?

Words have meanings “”make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State…..””””. DC is not a state…. It is a district.

 

Every one of your comments, Dixon, was misinformation, whether or not you realize it.

#1. I have not seen this mentioned, in my research. I have asked a couple of you, making this claim-- e.g., Condor060, Bluesguy, RodB, and maybe Joe Knows-- to cite your supporting source, and no one, as far as I know, has provided the proof. That must make any sensible person, question the claim. From my information, the only Guard troops that Trump ever authorized (or offered), were 340, which were asked for, by the D.C. mayor. Can you cite your own source, for this information?

#2. This is an unclear statement. The only "pre-authorized" troops, were not authorized for the purpose of defending the Capitol. In fact, even though you just made, for the second time, the claim of Trump pre-authorizing troops, in your next quote, you seem to suggest that the President is not allowed to make troops ready, and available for use at the Capitol, w/out a request. But one inaccurate statement of yours, at a time.

The only forces I am aware of Trump authorizing, to reiterate what I just said, were not meant to defend the Capitol, but were provided, in response to the D.C. mayor's request. They were provided for controlling traffic and crowds (as in subway stations), in order to free up the Metro Police, for incidents that might require their response. And this was not "16,000," troops, but 340. So, that is your 2nd claim, which I am requesting you to back up, with a link. My own links are in posts #700 (last one, pg. 28,) and #702, I believe.

#3. Now that is a statement is false, though might contain a grain of truth:
A) While the President could not order military personnel to march on the Capitol-- for obvious reasons-- when it was not under attack, that does not mean he could not have stationed at least some troops, to be ready for speedy dispatch. Since this is exactly what the Acting Secretary of Defense, Miller, did do, on his own (though the Rapid Response Force, comprised only 40 Guardsmen), it seems unlikely that the President wouldn't have been able to do this.

B) If the Capitol is under attack, I also strongly doubt, the President-- Commander In Chief, of our armed forces, who is charged with protecting & defending our Constitution (and so, our government)-- is prohibited from sending troops to defend it; that just does not make sense. So, when the British were marching on Washington, had there been sufficient forces to defend the city, President Madison could not have sent troops to defend the Capitol, without a request? When the Capitol is under active attack, I believe that no request is necessary. So, if you are claiming that the Prez, in that case, is still hand-tied, w/out receiving a request for help, that would be the 4th point, I am challenging you, for which to provide a certifying source.

There is no reasonable excuse, for why this troop arrival, took so long. The biggest contributor to this, was the waiting for an empowered person to give the order-- clearly contradicting your claims of "pre-authorized" troops, at the ready.

 

You'd think words didn't have meaning from what you guys say.

 

These guys only care about one thing--letting their boy, Trump, escape criticism for sitting on his butt for more than three hours while the Capitol was under attack.

 

Not as many times as I have pointed out that it wasn't "impracticable" as the statute you keep quoting requires.

 

Didnt say it was. There also wasnt any "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages" until the capitol breach occurred. Sooooo cant imagine the relevance of your point other than as a foray into irrelevancy.

 

?????? "escape criticism"? Ive witnessed a year and 8 months of hyperventilated, overly dramatic criticism complete with theatrical productions from the Capitol building.

 

Note the combinations and assemblages don't have to be unlawful.

Yeah, sure--you don't like reality, so label it as a "foray into irrelevancy."

So typical of the Trump era.

 

Straw man time?

 

Odd thing to claim when the statute says they do have to be unlawful.

So typical of the left. We can see the reality of what the texts says. You are the one rejecting reality, and so thats what you accuse the right of doing.

 

Its a quote from your post, not a strawman.

 

I'm not on the left. You, on the other hand, are part of a radical right. I gave you legal opinions of what the clause means and the opinions don't agree at all with your interpretation.

Some relevant comments about Presidential power:

"Under the Insurrection Act, as currently written, Trump could very likely have prevented Congress from meeting to certify his defeat. He could have done worse. Indeed, his supporters in white nationalist groups hoped the Insurrection Act could convert them into Trump’s personal military force. Given how far he went to subvert the rule of law in January 2021, it’s almost surprising that Trump didn’t invoke the Insurrection Act."​

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/reform-insurrection-act

"Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends the Posse Comitatus rule and allows the president to deploy the military to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement. That might involve soldiers doing anything from enforcing a federal court order to suppressing an uprising against the government. Of course, not every domestic use of the military involves law enforcement activity. Other laws, such as the Stafford Act, allow the military to be used to respond to natural disasters, public health crises, and other similar events without waiving the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.

In theory, the Insurrection Act should be used only in a crisis that is truly beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to manage. However, the Insurrection Act fails to adequately define or limit when it may be used and instead gives the president significant power to decide when and where to deploy U.S. military forces domestically."​

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained

"But even though the DCNG is always under federal command, the Department of Justice has endorsedthe legal fiction that it can operate in non-federal status. That means the president can use the DCNG for domestic policing purposes at any time, without invoking the Insurrection Act or any other statutory authority.

President Trump took advantage of this loophole in June 2020, deploying Guard forces in D.C. to suppress overwhelmingly peaceful protests against the police killing of George Floyd. A future president could stage a similar end-run around the Posse Comitatus Act by using the DCNG to “enforce” federal election law, as he or she interprets it."​

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/putting-d-c-in-the-chain-of-command-congress-should-reform-the-dc-national-guards-outdated-and-dangerous-command-structure/

Do you get it now?

 

Interesting tweet from Senior Congressional Correspondent for Fox New

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1644414503919001610

 

no one is above the law.

 

And anyone can lie to the public, including elected officials, like Rep. Comer.

 

Issuing subpoenas is one of their powers. They can do so, all day, for all that means, in itself. Any subpoenas are only consequential, if the materials they yield, are of any significance. I am betting, based on this Committee's track record, that this will amount to a whole bunch of nothing. This does nothing more than insert the Committee's subject, into the news, for the foolish who keep on waiting for one of these teases, to lead somewhere. Before Comer even began the Committee work, he swore that he had the goods on President Biden, and was going to reveal it. It is nothing but hokum. I'm starting to get a little <EDITED>, that you don't yet seem to have caught on.

 

you don't yet seem to have caught on....... repeat after me..... January 6 Select Committee

 

This is a country of over 300 million people. One can find instances of people saying darned near darn near everything from that large number. The things that you cite, while undoubtedly uttered by some, were nowhere near being mainstream or taken seriously as an impending future direction.

Only a fool would have heard these outlier positions and believe they were going to happen. It looks like you are one of them, unless of course you are not being truthful about believing they were going to happen, in which case you would be a liar.

Which is it?


P.S. Intelligent, honest people understand that a vote for split government is a vote for gridlock, and control of the committees in whichever chamber is won. That about sums it up.

 

November 9th! You have got to be kidding me. You are responding to a post from FOUR MONTHS AGO, and you don't have the sense to explain what, specifically, we'd been talking about? Actually, we had not been discussing it; I had been talking with Straight Ahead. And that post on the 9th, didn't even explain what you are here referring to; I had to go back to my OP, and his post #2.

Just as inexplicable, is your apparently feeling safe enough, that these things won't pan out as Republicans had hoped, to finally come out swinging-- when my overall OP, has not been debunked at all. Just because Republicans have failed, does not mean that they hadn't tried. And I certainly had not predicted their success. Here, for example, are some quotes:

They issued a document, demanding that Biden do this-- so that was true. So much for your laughably baseless claims, that only a fool would have believed any of this; I guess it was only the fool who didn't take it seriously.

That idea had been put forth by Senator Lindsey Graham. Do you not consider him a credible source? LOL. Among the other things, included investigations into Democrats-- had you not heard about Rep. Comer's Committee, focused exclusively on investigating Pres. Biden? And you have no knowledge of Rep. Jim Jordan's, so called, "Weaponization of Government" Committee?

Tell you what: get caught up, in your knowledge, so that your post is not such a f'ing joke; then get back to me.

 

Sandy Shanks said: ↑
The Republican Party with the help of conservative judges selected by Republicans is moving rapidly to an autocratic government.

As an example, it wants to control the health of all pregnant women in the country.
****************************************************************************************************************************************************

The Republican Party is making huge mistakes that are guaranteed to cost them several vitally important elections, including the big one in 2024, several big ones, in fact.

Mistake number one, their party's leader and leading candidate for the 2024 Presidential election, Donald Trump.

Trump has been indicted in New York for various crimes. He faces far more serious indictments such as inciting insurrection as President on Jan. 6, 2021, obstruction as it relates to the theft of hundreds of pages of classified documents, and interfering in a state's election (Georgia.

A Republican President (Trump) chose three conservative judges on the Supreme Court for the expressed purpose of nullifying Roe vs. Wade. To the delight of Republicans everywhere, the Supreme Court did exactly that, creating chaos throughout the country. All of sudden, due to the expressed purpose of the Republican Party, thousands of American women are not getting the care they need, and hundreds of confusing state laws are in place.

A Texas federal judge appointed by a Republican (Trump again) ruled Friday evening to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, virtually banning the sale of abortion pills across the country. For now, the impact on hundreds of thousands of patients who use the medication both for abortions and treating miscarriages is on hold. The drug was approved twenty years ago after four years of intense research conducted by scientists and doctors. In the opinion of the Republican judge, the drug was not safe.

If FDA-approved drugs are at the mercy of every federal judge in the country, the result would be mega-chaos. It is what the Republican Party wants.

Just how dumb are Republicans?

They just made martyrs of two black male lawmakers in Tennessee. That was on Friday.

Today, one of them, Justin Jones, was reinstated by Nashville's Metro Council. The reinstatement of the other, Justin Pearson, is soon to follow. In the end, all the Republicans did was embarrass themselves -- mightily. They are being laughed at ... by Republicans.

Sometimes, it just takes one dumb Republican.

Republicans in Alabama and a Republican Senator from that state want to weaken the U.S. military's comment structure.
Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville has single-handedly blocked the nominations to protest new Pentagon policies ensuring service members have access to reproductive health care following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Since the Republicans are committing mass political suicide, the Democrats do not have much to worry bout in 2024, or 2026, or 2028 or ... well, you get the point.

There are serious doubts the forum's Republicans will have anything to say. How do you defend stupidity?

 

-The thread was at top of list today. Truthfully, I did not look at the date. But your comment is as foolish and/or dishonest now as it was then, so the response is just as accurate now as it was then.

-"They" issued a document ? Heavens to Murgatroyd not "they"? Are you being serious with that?

-The claim from Graham the best you have is "the idea had been put forth"? That is silly. Nobody ever thought they were going to pass a national abortion policy, ESPECIALLY with a Democrat president and a near even Senate which is far from 60 needed.Utterly preposterous! You cant really act as if you thought that was going to happen, not with a straight face at least.

Nothing you have said changes what I said even remotely.

This is a country of over 300 million people. One can find instances of people saying darned near darn near everything from that large number. The things that you cite, while undoubtedly uttered by some, were nowhere near being mainstream or taken seriously as an impending future direction.

Only a fool would have heard these outlier positions and believe they were going to happen. It looks like you are one of them, unless of course you are not being truthful about believing they were going to happen, in which case you would be a liar.

Which is it?


P.S. Intelligent, honest people understand that a vote for split government is a vote for gridlock, and control of the committees in whichever chamber is won. That about sums it up.

 

Speaker McCarthy, for god's sake! I told you you to come back after you had a clue, about the subject. I do not have time to waste, dealing with the rude comments of such an asshat.

 

Without first exacting deep cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

Absolute nonsense. How about you provide a link to the actual text of what it that Mcarthy purportedly said, and lets see how honest your characterization is of his actual words? I can tell with the qualifiers you tried slipping in there that don't match up with the bombastic statement of exacting deep cuts that you are clearly playing fast and loose with what was actually said. A cut in cost if living allowance is in no way "exacting a deep cut" as you claim.

Just provide the real text and let people decide for themselves. What you have said so far is contradictory rubbish, and the reality is not the ominous tripe that you are trying to pass it off as being.

 

they have to wait for Biden to do something impeachable first

 

Coming to a theater near you... get your jabs in now my liberal friend..... the fat lady is just getting to her vocal warmup and has yet to sing....

""I don’t think anybody realized that Joe Biden is in fact involved in a lot of these.”"

https://rumble.com/v1v7exi-rep-comer-joe-biden-is-involved-in-a-lot-of-hunter-bidens-crimes.html