US House's McCarthy opens long-shot impeachment probe of Biden

You don't seem to know the meaning of "admissible evidence" and your understanding of "evidence" is shaky, too.

 

Trump impeached Trump? Trump is launching an impeachment inquiry into Biden? This is all news to me.

 

Hmm. Do the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to impeachment trials?

Educate me oh fine lawyer.

 

At least you’re talking some sense with this post.
Imo most of the American public is beyond weary of the political, back-and-forth gamesmanship constantly on display By Both Sides in the House & Senate.
Also, I think most of the American public can recognize legitimate evidence of wrongdoing, and will support a legal remedy to those offenses, regardless of the party affiliation of the offender(s).

 

Edit/Corrections.

My prior answer was incorrect only as to as to the impeachment trial of a SITTING president. As @mrhansduck pointed out the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides over the trial of a sitting president. That's why Roberts presided over Trump I, but not Trump II.

Section III, Clause VI, US Constitution.

The following (and my prior answers applies to impeachment of everyone else, including a president who is no longer in office.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Good catch, @mrhansduck.

 

Are you fine with treating both Trump and Hunter Biden as the low-life lying scumbags that they both are? As a life-long Democrat, I have no love of the Biden family and their practices. He received my vote because he was "not Trump".

 

And are you aware of how she would rule on the admissibility of Hunter Biden’s statements?

If not, why did you question my knowledge of the term “admissibility?” You don’t even know what she would say.

But I think we can probably discern this is a classic fox watching the henhouse situation.

 

It's like what trumph wanted Zelenski to do. He didn't have to have anything, just say Biden was being investigated in order to hurt him. But this is ok in the pubs minds.

 

If you’re calling this election interference consider that maybe… just MAYBE… you’re missing the forest for the trees.

 

My personal view on these things is that both sides play a part. Each one feel justified in their actions based on the previous actions of the other side. And bit by bit the norms of political behavior get eroded.

If one wants to argue that this is entirely the democrats doing, you have to ignore a good deal of stuff from the other side, including what Trump did to himself.

 

If you want to just “both sides” this, I think the same can be said for the Biden impeachment inquiry. He doesn’t have to keep inviting Hunter to the White House.

He didn’t have to enable his son peddling his father’s influence by just pretending it isn’t happening and rewarding his son. If he wants to prop up Hunter using the power of his high office as both VP and President, he can go down with him too for all I care.

And for the record, no, I don’t think “both sides ing” this is fair. Democrats soiled the well as usual, and now they want to blame America or our body politic at large (or Trump) for soiling it.

 

So you don't think trying to dig something up through manipulation of a president of another country, to create doubt in voters minds of that candidate, is not election interference?

I bet you are all up in arms like 90% of Americans when you think about how crooked most politicians are, but this is ok.

 

Impeachment, weaponized. Trying to hold the entire government hostage with her best pal, Matt Gaetz.

"But on Aug. 31, Greene announced that she would not “vote to fund the government unless we have passed an impeachment inquiry.”

 

Perhaps we will not agree. I think it’s tricky to blame democrats for 100% impeaching Trump and blame democrats 100% for Republicans impeaching Biden.

It is going to open up a whole lot of cans of worms if we start putting the responsibility for all the actions of politician’s family on the politician himself. If Biden himself interfered with the Hunter investigation, I am right there with you that he deserves impeachment.

I think it is difficult for any of us to hold both sides to the same standards because the situations always differ and we tend to see our own sides in more favorable light. I’m a pragmatist in many ways, so for me it will be about the votes. If the republicans can get a bipartisan vote to impeach and convict, I will certainly deem the inquiry worthy, regardless of the charges. If only republicans vote to impeach, I am not sure how we will know if thats because of a democrat or Republican bias.

Either way, I think it’s a shame we went so many years without impeaching presidents (well, just Clinton since Nixon) to this moment where it seems unlikely any future presidents will come away without at least an attempt from the other side.

 

How many indictments does Trump have on him now?

You really don't see my point?

 

I agree on that end.

And there's rarely any case in politics where anyone is 100% at fault. Doesn't mean there isn't a party who is much more clearly on the wrong end of that. But Donald Trump by no means does himself any favors. I want to be clear about that.

 

Your whole point of view is from the position that Trump didn’t break the law when he most clearly did in several different ways and flagrantly.

 

One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that I have a far better idea how she will rule than you do. A gigantic difference of near biblical proportions. A difference so great the tools don't exist at this point in time to measure it. Think planet Jupiter versus atom difference...and multiply that. A difference so mind startling huge....

 

I think without your law degree, you're pretty much nothing... which means you're pretty much nothing.