We keep hearing about this document that "proves" that Joe Biden accepted a $5,000,000 bribe exists. and will be revealed at some point. We've also heard some GOP lawmakers promising impeachment for this. As usual, I think I'm in more of a wait and see mode right now.
I've been consistent that I do not think that Biden should be impeached on some petty, political, bullshit charges. I still believe that. However, if there really was a bribe paid that is a completely different story. We already know that Joe used his influence to get the government of Ukraine to interfere in the prosecution of someone, this is pretty much undisputed. If it can be demonstrated that he took money for his influence, then he should answer for it.
It seems like this circumstance raises a question. "Can a POTUS be impeached while serving as POTUS for acts he engaged in while he was VPOTUS?". Much like the persecution of Trump, can one be impeached for acts engaged in prior to assuming the office currently held?
My first instinct is to think that impeachment should be reserved for acts engaged in while one is serving in the office they currently hold. The impeachment language is pretty vague, which probably precludes a definitive answer.
In this case, I personally think that Biden should be investigated by a special prosecutor and if appropriate pursued under criminal law rather than impeachment. Primarily because I don't think that getting removed from office with less than 2 years left in his term is adequate punishment for selling influence as VPOTUS.
Now for my hot take. Given the fact that it is likely that this trend of trying to prosecute one's political opponents for relatively minor offenses is likely to continue, I think it's time for a discussion of some sort of limited immunity for POTUS/VPOTUS. Obviously, things like rape/murder/bribery/manslaughter wouldn't be covered, but I think it'd be possible to come up with language around some of these "technical" crimes that would slow down this trend. For those of my readers on the right, I understand that this might let a DFL POTUS "get away" with something down the road, and I think I can live with that.
At the end of the day, after all of this, I still think it's best to wait until we get more details before rushing into impeachment.
Regarding the inevitable, "What about Trump and his classified documents?" questions, my positions stays the same. Under our current law, Trump's alleged misdeeds should be handled through the criminal justice system. Indict and try him and let the evidence speak for itself. Personally, I do not believe that it's possible to find an unbiased jury which seems to be a problem. I also find the existence of precedent for president's having wide latitude in classifying and declassifying documents to be a pretty big hurdle for the prosecution. My main point remains, that this is something that needs to be handled in criminal court, or immunized, not through impeachment.
14 comments:
"We keep hearing about this document that "proves" that Joe Biden accepted a $5,000,000 bribe exists. "
Indeed. "We" keep hearing all sorts of gossip and vague innuendo and unsupported slander. We've been hearing this rumor-mongering and Boy Crying Wolf from the GOP for decades now.
And how has it always turned out?
Nothing but empty rumors.
And so, we rational citizens strive to give up listening to childish partisan gossip and conspiracy theories. We certainly don't lend support to them by treating them as credible or repeating them.
We instead focus on those who have established themselves as corrupt.
Dan
Actually, what we keep hearing about the Biden bribery allegations is increasingly more detailed and specific. Now, because we haven't actually seen the entirety of these documents, I have couched my comments in skepticism for the time being.
"How has that turned out?"
There are multiple answers to this question, so here goes.
There have been stories about these allegations for years, and it's taken this long and extensive effort to pry these documents out of the hands of the FBI. So the answer, as of now, is that we'll have to see as more information becomes available.
But, let's contrast that with many of the allegations about Trump. The entire "Russiagate scandal" has been proven to be completely false, invented by the Clinton campaign, aided and abetted by the P-BO administration. So, it definitely seems to early to jump to conclusions about this situation.
If you want to live in a fantasy world where many of the allegations against Trump have not been proven false, you go right ahead. Honestly, if it was my guy, I'd be eager to see these things fully investigated and see exactly what is going on, rather than to pretend that Biden has absolutely zero corrupt background and the possibility that they guy took a massive bribe.
Trump is overtly, over-the-top corrupt, dishonest and entirely self-interested. The data is indisputable.
Disagreeing with obvious reality is not a good look for the modern GOP. What has become of rational, morally adept conservatives.? Y'all been broken by something.... I suspect it's your fear of being replaced, of being rendered irrelevant by your human religious traditions.
Dan
"Trump is overtly, over-the-top corrupt, dishonest and entirely self-interested. The data is indisputable."
While this may be True to some degree, it doesn't mitigate the reality that virtually every charge brought against him by the APL has been proven to be false.
"Disagreeing with obvious reality is not a good look for the modern GOP."
It's not a good look for anyone, especially as you ignore the reality of the false charges leveled against trump by his political foes in the DFL.
"What has become of rational, morally adept conservatives.?"
We've not gone anywhere, we've just realized that the GOP isn't necessarily representative of principled conservatives.
"Y'all been broken by something.... I suspect it's your fear of being replaced, of being rendered irrelevant by your human religious traditions."
Not at all. This is just you making more bullshit up.
But hey, you keep on with pretending that the falsehoods perpetrated by the Clinton campaign haven't been proven to be bullshit.
As an aside: APL, DFL...? Why don't you just say "the left" or the Democrats, or whatever it is you want to actually say rather than these unknown-to-most acronymns? If it weren't a given what the GOP was, I'd write the Republicans, but that's a known thing.
"virtually every charge brought against him by "the APL" has been proven false..."
Well, depending on what you mean by APL, this claim is, itself, a rather stupidly false claim.
He IS corrupt, the data shows.
He HAS used tax laws and litigation and other tools to cheat people he owes out of money.
He HAS been sexist, abusive of women. He's almost certainly sexually assaulted or molested women, given his own words and the MANY women who've made credible accusations. Those have not been "proven false" and if that's what you're trying to suggest, that just makes you a rapist/pervert enabler.
He HAS made a crazy number of false claims on a nearly daily basis.
He DID/HAS been cozy with Russians and he's had people in his orbit arrested for that collaboration with the Russians.
He DID attempt to overthrow the free election. He DID makes abundantly stupidly false claims that the election was stolen. He DID repeatedly, methodically seek to discredit the free press, the Justice Department, police departments, the FBI, various judges and juries, and various election officials in his attempts to undermine trust in the election process. All of this is known and demonstrated.
So, I don't know what you're imagining that he's been accused of that has been "proven false..." but that's just a dumb claim. At the VERY BEST, you MIGHT say - if you were too naive and gullible for an adult to be - that he hasn't been PROVEN in every case to have committed crimes, but that's not the same as saying the claims have been proven false.
You recognize the difference, right?
Your "false charges" claim is, itself, a false charge, or at best, a partisan and unproven false charge in defense of a known corrupt pervert con man.
As to suggesting that the modern GOP has NOT been broken, the evidence is there. The LARGE majority of the GOP still supports the worst (one of the worst and most corrupt) presidents in US history. He is a man who has done things that, if it were a Democrat who'd done them, they would be screaming for his arrest. Don't deny that. Hell, Trump and his allies WERE screaming "lock her up" for unproven charges of a similar nature against H Clinton. The overt sexual perversions of this creep would NEVER have been supported by my parents' generation of conservatives (or by me, as a young conservative man). Mike Pence can't make a single bit of gain against the pervert king that the GOP has gone all in for. And not only that, it's the conservative RELIGIOUS RIGHT types who are the ones largely supporting him. That would never have happened 25 years ago. The GOP is broken by their own standards, such as they are.
You aren't seriously suggesting that the HUGE support enjoyed by Trump by mainstream religious conservative Republicans is not a sign that the GOP is broken, are you?
You can't be taken as credible and make that suggestion.
the falsehoods perpetrated by the Clinton campaign
And here, I can't even begin to guess what "falsehoods" you are speaking of. That's precisely part of the problem.
Is it that the Clintons were responsible for killing Vince Foster?
Is it that the Clintons are part of a cabal of pedophile abusers operating out of a pizza joint (which of course, is much more like Trump than the Clintons)?
That she/he/they "hate" the US?
That they sold secrets to the enemies of the US?
Praytell, WHICH "falsehoods" do you support the Clintons "perpetrated..."?
That's the problem when you cry wolf and conspiracy theory for so long... we can't even begin to keep track of which sick fantasies you're speaking of or take you seriously in make the vague claim. Indeed, vague stupidly false claims are part of the brokenness of the modern GOP/rightwing evangelical mindset.
"Trump is overtly, over-the-top corrupt, dishonest and entirely self-interested. The data is indisputable. "
Maybe if we're really, really good, Dan will provide for us this "indisputable data". Maybe if we're really, really lucky, Dan will stop lying like a rotting dead animal on the side of the road.
Which do you think is more likely? Any wagers?
"And here, I can't even begin to guess what "falsehoods" you are speaking of. That's precisely part of the problem."
Because everything revolves around you and your ability to comprehend.
"Is it that the Clintons were responsible for killing Vince Foster?"
Did the Clinton campaign use this accusation against Trump? If not, then no.
"Is it that the Clintons are part of a cabal of pedophile abusers operating out of a pizza joint (which of course, is much more like Trump than the Clintons)?"
Well, since the entire Trump/Pizza/pedophile charge was one of those charges proven to be false, then yes. Now Bill Clinton's close ties with Epstein have pretty much been ignored by y'all, but that's another issue.
"That she/he/they "hate" the US?"
No idea what you are talking about.
"That they sold secrets to the enemies of the US?"
Again, unless the Clinton campaign made this charge against Trump, I fail to see the relevance.
"Praytell, WHICH "falsehoods" do you support the Clintons "perpetrated..."?"
As I've mentioned previously, the entirety of the "Russiagate/Steele dossier/Pizzagate" claims.
"That's the problem when you cry wolf and conspiracy theory for so long... we can't even begin to keep track of which sick fantasies you're speaking of or take you seriously in make the vague claim. Indeed, vague stupidly false claims are part of the brokenness of the modern GOP/rightwing evangelical mindset."
This might be True, had I not specifically mentioned the specific lies previously, and if we hadn't just had independent confirmation that these claims were false. But you keep living in your fantasy world, where everything is always blamed on your personal bogymen.
"As an aside: APL, DFL...? Why don't you just say "the left" or the Democrats, or whatever it is you want to actually say rather than these unknown-to-most acronymns? If it weren't a given what the GOP was, I'd write the Republicans, but that's a known thing."
1. I don't do things to cater to your whims, or your memory problems.
2. I did a post about my use of the APL (American Political Left) acronym. The point is that it's more specific than the terms you suggest.
3. If I can type less, I will.
"Well, depending on what you mean by APL, this claim is, itself, a rather stupidly false claim."
Well, since I defined APL a while back and have been using it exactly as I defined it, the answer should be fairly clear. As per the recent news reports, claim after claim that the APL/Clinton campaign made against Trump has been demonstrated to be false.
"He IS corrupt, the data shows."
Again, with these bullshit "the data shows" claims, with no data provided. As I said earlier, I have no doubt that Trump is corrupt to some degree.
"He HAS used tax laws and litigation and other tools to cheat people he owes out of money."
What an interesting fantasy life you have. The notion that using 100% legal provisions of the tax code, 100% legally, is somehow "cheating" or "corrupt". You may not like these tax code provisions, but they exist and are used by people of all political stripes. You just choose to ignore anyone but Trump, and to ignore the fact that Clinton, P-BO, and Biden haven't bothered to change the laws.
"He HAS been sexist, abusive of women. He's almost certainly sexually assaulted or molested women, given his own words and the MANY women who've made credible accusations. Those have not been "proven false" and if that's what you're trying to suggest, that just makes you a rapist/pervert enabler."
Again, this has been one of my problems with Trump since he first ran for POTUS. However, one cannot ignore the fact that a civil court (with a lower standard of proof than a criminal court) refused to find him liable for rape. This ignores the "credible accusations" made against Biden, as well as his long documented history of lies, plagiarism, and sexual assault.
"He HAS made a crazy number of false claims on a nearly daily basis."
So.
"He DID/HAS been cozy with Russians and he's had people in his orbit arrested for that collaboration with the Russians."
Biden has been cozy with the Ukrainians, and the Chinese.
"He DID attempt to overthrow the free election. He DID makes abundantly stupidly false claims that the election was stolen. He DID repeatedly, methodically seek to discredit the free press, the Justice Department, police departments, the FBI, various judges and juries, and various election officials in his attempts to undermine trust in the election process. All of this is known and demonstrated."
If you say so.
"So, I don't know what you're imagining that he's been accused of that has been "proven false..." but that's just a dumb claim. At the VERY BEST, you MIGHT say - if you were too naive and gullible for an adult to be - that he hasn't been PROVEN in every case to have committed crimes, but that's not the same as saying the claims have been proven false."
"Russiagate/Steele dossier/pizzagate". The things I've specifically mentioned, and the things that originated with the Clinton campaign. "
"You recognize the difference, right?"
Yes, I do recognize the difference between speaking of specific actions of the Clinton campaign that have been proven to be false, and a bunch of recycled, vague, bullshit that is primarily from his private life. Remember what Clinton claimed?
"As to suggesting that the modern GOP has NOT been broken, the evidence is there."
I never suggested this, you simply chose to invent this bullshit and attribute it to me.
"The LARGE majority of the GOP still supports the worst (one of the worst and most corrupt) presidents in US history. He is a man who has done things that, if it were a Democrat who'd done them, they would be screaming for his arrest."
Oh bullshit. Y'all have never once "screamed for the arrest" of any of your politicians who've engaged in corruption. Hell, Hillary had more classified documents/emails that Trump and y'all nominated her for president.
"You aren't seriously suggesting that the HUGE support enjoyed by Trump by mainstream religious conservative Republicans is not a sign that the GOP is broken, are you?"
No, I'm not suggesting that at all.
"You can't be taken as credible and make that suggestion."
Fortunately, I never actually made that suggestion, it's just you making shit up and pretending like I said it.
What I need to note at this point is that Dan has taken a post about the hypothetical impeachment of Biden based on what is purported to be convincing evidence that he took bribes while in elected office, and turned it into a litany of his repetitious TDS talking points. The notion that "Trump did bad stuff." somehow mitigates the alleged/known actions of Biden is simply childish.
"The other guy did..." is not an excuse.
FYI, we're going to have some elections soon in which we'll find out of Dan's fantasies about the GOP represent reality. I think the problem with his claims about "the GOP" supporting Trump don't take into account the reality that an general election is a binary choice, and his assumption that "conservatives" should take actions that would help the DFL candidate indicate some level of "support" for Trump.
Dan hates Trump because despite his flaws, Trump is clearly a better man that Dan will ever be. Dan's a manifestation of evil. Trump's just a bad boy.
Art,
I think you're following Dan down his rabbit trail rather than dealing with the point of the post.
In all honesty, saying that Trump is a better man than Biden, is kind of like comparing vomiting to diarrhea. You could argue that one is better (read less bad) than the other, but neither of them is anyone's first choice.
I think that this use of the DOL against one's political rival sets a horrendous precedent, and is likely to become more common. I will note, that most of Trump's "sins" are not from his actions in office, while most of Biden's "sins" are. If one buys the Clinton excuse (private life "sins" don't count), then this does suggest that Biden is "worse".
I do kind of like what Ramaswamyis proposing. One way to somewhat nullify Biden's ploy is to commit to pardoning Trump if elected. No matter what anyone says, Biden controls the DOJ and this wouldn't be going forward without his approval or encouragement.
I think that one other possibility is that when each POTUS takes office they sign a pardon for their predecessor for any acts engaged in during their administration. If something like this is going to work, it has to be bipartisan, and it has to be universal.
Actually, Trump made himself the first choice of many by 2020. Indeed, he was the first choice of many in 2016, which was why he won the primary and then the general. Now, I would admit that if one could pick anyone beyond those who were running, Trump might not rank so highly. But that's not how it works.
BTW, I was comparing Trump to Dan over whom Trump is clearly the better man. But since you brought it up, I think I can say the same regarding a comparison to Biden. One needn't be perfect, indeed even great, to be better. He's clearly better than Biden in a host of ways, and that's accounting for all of Trump's observable flaws. It's just a fact.
This use of federal law enforcement against one's political foes is clearly an example of that fact. I don't recall any case where Trump sought to do any such thing.
The problem with comparing private lives of politicians is that Trump wasn't a politician until recently. Had politics been a real ambition of his all his life, he may have lived his sordid life more discreetly...like a real politician does. Plus, don't forget how the media will aid those it favors by not reporting ever little thing...such as a drug addict son, an affair which led to a second marriage, an assault on a staffer, etc.
But when I speak of Trump being president...yeah...even easier to pick who the better man is.
I also agree with Vivek, and all GOP candidates should be saying the same thing. But no, I don't agree it should be an automatic practice of newly elected presidents. If Trump was actually guilty of wrongdoing, he should be held accountable and made to pay his debt. That's not the case here, so any guilty verdict will be the result of partisan attacks, not true guilt. Thus, a pardon wouldn't go far enough. His conviction should be tossed as the travesty it is. Pardons are for guilty people, not innocent people.
Post a Comment