Joe Biden

[MortalCaso 1,618]

Expose him for what? 

 

You can't be impeached for health issues. That requires the Vice President and Cabinet. Keep your conspiracies on Russia and Britain please. 

 

The debate on his mental capacity won't and can't lead to impeachment.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

25 minutes ago, MortalCaso said:

Expose him for what? 

 

You can't be impeached for health issues. That requires the Vice President and Cabinet. Keep your conspiracies on Russia and Britain please. 

 

The debate on his mental capacity won't be resolved with impeachment.

I mean he will be Impeached for some (made up) reason or another (Not health related)  but during the proceedings his health issues will end uo getting exposed and it will be unviable for him to carry on so he will resign. 

[MortalCaso 1,618]

Just now, The Old Crem said:

I mean he will be Impeached for some (made up) reason or another (Not health related)  but during the proceedings his health issues will end uo getting exposed and it will be unviable for him to carry on so he will resign. 

I'd like you to start placing bets with the wild stuff that spews out of your mouth.

 

Something tells me if there were stakes behind it, you would get suddenly quiet....

[lilham 752]

The Senate would have to then remove Biden, and I don't think they're interested in doing so.
Nixon resigned because the Senate was interested in doing so. The Supreme Court ruled against him. And his Cabinet and advisors weren't cooperating with him. He was drunk off his ass in meetings, and threatening to drop nukes. Everyone was pushing him out of office.

[ajlposh 549]

34 minutes ago, MortalCaso said:

Expose him for what? 

 

You can't be impeached for health issues. That requires the Vice President and Cabinet. Keep your conspiracies on Russia and Britain please. 

 

The debate on his mental capacity won't and can't lead to impeachment.

Well technically, they could.  Impeachment is a political process, and not a legal one. In order for the thought of impeachment to even come about, the majority of Congress has to agree about it.  It could be for any reason.  If someone wants to impeach him for drinking Pepsi instead of Coke, they could, it’s just a question of getting Congress to agree. In other words, could that impeach him for diminished mental capacity?  Yes. Will they?  Highly unlikely, but there’s still a slim chance.

 

Now, I’m no expert, so don’t take what I say as 100% gospel.  I could be getting some facts wrong, so somebody please feel free to correct me.

[MortalCaso 1,618]

2 minutes ago, ajlposh said:

Well technically, they could.  Impeachment is a political process, and not a legal one. In order for the thought of impeachment to even come about, the majority of Congress has to agree about it.  It could be for any reason.  If someone wants to impeach him for drinking Pepsi instead of Coke, they could, it’s just a question of getting Congress to agree. In other words, could that impeach him for diminished mental capacity?  Yes. Will they?  Highly unlikely, but there’s still a slim chance.

 

Now, I’m no expert, so don’t take what I say as 100% gospel.  I could be getting some facts wrong, so somebody please feel free to correct me.

There are 4 legal reasons for impeachment. As it is a legal and a political process, hence having lawyers involved.

 

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

 

You can spin the intent to fit one of the 4 reasons sure, but it must fit into one of those categories.

[lilham 752]

4 minutes ago, ajlposh said:

Well technically, they could.  Impeachment is a political process, and not a legal one. In order for the thought of impeachment to even come about, the majority of Congress has to agree about it.  It could be for any reason.  If someone wants to impeach him for drinking Pepsi instead of Coke, they could, it’s just a question of getting Congress to agree. In other words, could that impeach him for diminished mental capacity?  Yes. Will they?  Highly unlikely, but there’s still a slim chance.

 

Now, I’m no expert, so don’t take what I say as 100% gospel.  I could be getting some facts wrong, so somebody please feel free to correct me.

Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, treason, and bribery.
But Clinton's impeachment trial was a weird one because how was it any of those? So they definitely can shoehorn some issue onto Biden like that, but they're not going to have 2/3 of Senate agreeing.

[TQR 14,372]

27 minutes ago, MortalCaso said:

I'd like you to start placing bets with the wild stuff that spews out of your mouth.

 

Something tells me if there were stakes behind it, you would get suddenly quiet....

I’ve offered a proper bet a few times before. Never get a response, which Crem’s bank account will thank him for.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

41 minutes ago, lilham said:

The Senate would have to then remove Biden, and I don't think they're interested in doing so.
Nixon resigned because the Senate was interested in doing so. The Supreme Court ruled against him. And his Cabinet and advisors weren't cooperating with him. He was drunk off his ass in meetings, and threatening to drop nukes. Everyone was pushing him out of office.

They won’t but if evidence of Biden having dementia properly emerged I’m not sure he could remain as President. 

[arrowsmith 438]

55 minutes ago, lilham said:

Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, treason, and bribery.
But Clinton's impeachment trial was a weird one because how was it any of those? So they definitely can shoehorn some issue onto Biden like that, but they're not going to have 2/3 of Senate agreeing.

You seem to be operating under the popular error that President Clinton was impeached for getting a bj from an intern. He was not. He was impeached for lying about it - during a deposition. Like it or not that’s perjury which is in fact a crime. Whether he ought to have been impeached for committing said crime is a different question. If President Biden is in fact impaired that does not fall under the umbrella of impeachment. That’s why we have the 25th amendment, to rectify this oversight. 

[lilham 752]

Just now, arrowsmith said:

You seem to be operating under the popular error that President Clinton was impeached for getting a bj from an intern. He was not. He was impeached for lying about it - during a deposition. Like it or not that’s perjury which is in fact a crime. Whether he ought to have been impeached for committing said crime is a different question. If President Biden is in fact impaired that does not fall under the umbrella of impeachment. That’s why we have the 25th amendment, to rectify this oversight. 

It's not perjury. Perjury is lying about a material fact. What does any of that have to do with a real estate deal?

[arrowsmith 438]

Just now, lilham said:

It's not perjury. Perjury is lying about a material fact. What does any of that have to do with a real estate deal?

A person being deposed is at their leisure to refuse to answer a question during a deposition and he ought to have. It would have saved us a lot of grief. They are not entitled to lie when asked a question they find untoward. Still perjury. Still a crime. 
 

 

[lilham 752]

9 minutes ago, arrowsmith said:

A person being deposed is at their leisure to refuse to answer a question during a deposition and he ought to have. It would have saved us a lot of grief. They are not entitled to lie when asked a question they find untoward. Still perjury. Still a crime. 
 

 

It's not perjury. It's not even agreed upon whether he lied, because the definition they provided him didn't fit the situation.
I'm aware that he should have refused to answer.

Perjury means (a) knowingly (b) making a false statement (c) about material facts (d) while under oath. It’s not perjury if you honestly believe what you’re saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you’re under oath about.

[arrowsmith 438]

12 minutes ago, lilham said:

It's not perjury. It's not even agreed upon whether he lied, because the definition they provided him didn't fit the situation.
I'm aware that he should have refused to answer.

Perjury means (a) knowingly (b) making a false statement (c) about material facts (d) while under oath. It’s not perjury if you honestly believe what you’re saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you’re under oath about.

You’re rather proving the point aren’t you? You made the point that impeaching President Biden for no reason at all would be akin to the impeachment of President Clinton. I disagreed and pointed out that the House of Representatives had ample reason to indict him. The facts of the case were such that he was acquitted during his trial. They are not comparable. 

[arrowsmith 438]

35 minutes ago, lilham said:

It's not perjury. Perjury is lying about a material fact. What does any of that have to do with a real estate deal?

Also he lied during a deposition involving his civil suit regarding Paula Jones, not Whitewater. Her attorneys were attempting to show a pattern of abusive sexual behavior toward subordinates. Seems material to me. 

[lilham 752]

Starr Report was open-ended, but its origins were in the Whitewater deal. If the Republicans gain control of the House, there will be an endless open impeachment investigation against Biden to find anything, much like what happened with Clinton. The House needs a simple majority to impeach. It will fall along party lines. To remove, the Senate would need 2/3. As far as we all know, Biden is not in a position where the Senate would remove him. So even if the House found anything on Biden, much like Clinton, I don't see him being convicted of high crimes, misdemeanors, treason, or bribery. Nixon had a lot of that though, so he resigned to avoid it.

[lilham 752]

32 minutes ago, arrowsmith said:

Also he lied during a deposition involving his civil suit regarding Paula Jones, not Whitewater. Her attorneys were attempting to show a pattern of abusive sexual behavior toward subordinates. Seems material to me. 

It violates the Federal Rules of Evidence. Starr also was charged for violating legal ethics.

From wiki:
Because Starr's office allegedly leaked portions to press about sexual details that were mentioned in his report, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver and was charged for violating legal ethics by presenting information irrelevant to an investigation as evidence of legal wrongdoing. Also, it is unclear whether Starr had the legal authority to ask Clinton questions about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, as the OIC was convened solely to investigate Whitewater and Paula Jones' claim that Clinton sexually harassed her. Questioning about a sexual relationship void of assault appears to be both irrelevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as a whole and under Rule 413, which allows questioning about separate allegations of sexual assault (which was never asserted about Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton).

The report was also criticized for exaggerating what the legal definition of perjury is, accusing Clinton of committing perjury after only one witness claimed he did so and saying that Clinton lied when he said he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky in terms described by Paula Jones' attorneys. Two of the three parts of the definition of "sexual relations" described by Jones' attorneys during her lawsuit had been ruled out by presiding Judge Susan Webber Wright as "too broad" and legally unacceptable.

 

I agree he just shouldn't have answered the question. The Starr Report was smut.

[arrowsmith 438]

3 minutes ago, lilham said:

It violates the Federal Rules of Evidence. Starr also was charged for violating legal ethics.

From wiki:
Because Starr's office allegedly leaked portions to press about sexual details that were mentioned in his report, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver and was charged for violating legal ethics by presenting information irrelevant to an investigation as evidence of legal wrongdoing. Also, it is unclear whether Starr had the legal authority to ask Clinton questions about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, as the OIC was convened solely to investigate Whitewater and Paula Jones' claim that Clinton sexually harassed her. Questioning about a sexual relationship void of assault appears to be both irrelevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as a whole and under Rule 413, which allows questioning about separate allegations of sexual assault (which was never asserted about Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton).

The report was also criticized for exaggerating what the legal definition of perjury is, accusing Clinton of committing perjury after only one witness claimed he did so and saying that Clinton lied when he said he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky in terms described by Paula Jones' attorneys. Two of the three parts of the definition of "sexual relations" described by Jones' attorneys during her lawsuit had been ruled out by presiding Judge Susan Webber Wright as "too broad" and legally unacceptable.

 

I agree he just shouldn't have answered the question. The Starr Report was smut.

I don’t disagree with you. What you seem to be implying, and what I took issue with, was you equating the Clinton impeachment with a theoretical Biden impeachment. President Clinton was a genuine sexual predator who, if he had been a CEO, would have been removed for such an egregious abuse of power. I don’t think the lie rose to the level of impeachment but it was not an entirely trumped up witch hunt as a Biden impeachment would likely be. 

[lilham 752]

1 minute ago, arrowsmith said:

I don’t disagree with you. What you seem to be implying, and what I took issue with, was you equating the Clinton impeachment with a theoretical Biden impeachment. President Clinton was a genuine sexual predator who, if he had been a CEO, would have been removed for such an egregious abuse of power. I don’t think the lie rose to the level of impeachment but it was not an entirely trumped up witch hunt as a Biden impeachment would likely be. 

I see what point you're trying to make now.
I'm surprised that Obama wasn't impeached, but Former Speaker Boehner does say he regrets the Clinton impeachment so that could be why.
“In my view, Republicans impeached him for one reason and one reason only — because it was strenuously recommended to us by one Tom DeLay,” Boehner writes, according to the Times. “Tom believed that impeaching Clinton would win us all these House seats, would be a big win politically, and he convinced enough of the membership and the G.O.P. base that this was true.”
So my position wasn't that he was impeached for a blowjob, but rather he was impeached because he was a Democrat and that is why I equate the two.
I don't think the GOP really cared about sexual affairs at all, besides how embarrassing it was. And they already tried to accuse Biden of it during the election, when that Putin fangirl accused him of rape.

[arrowsmith 438]

4 minutes ago, lilham said:

I see what point you're trying to make now.
I'm surprised that Obama wasn't impeached, but Former Speaker Boehner does say he regrets the Clinton impeachment so that could be why.
“In my view, Republicans impeached him for one reason and one reason only — because it was strenuously recommended to us by one Tom DeLay,” Boehner writes, according to the Times. “Tom believed that impeaching Clinton would win us all these House seats, would be a big win politically, and he convinced enough of the membership and the G.O.P. base that this was true.”
So my position wasn't that he was impeached for a blowjob, but rather he was impeached because he was a Democrat and that is why I equate the two.
I don't think the GOP really cared about sexual affairs at all, besides how embarrassing it was. And they already tried to accuse Biden of it during the election, when that Putin fangirl accused him of rape.

I take your point. I merely struggle with the implication that because he was impeached for political reasons means that he really didn’t do anything wrong. As someone who lived through it I always thought there was plenty of blame to go around. The Republicans were over zealous and partisan, but the president was arrogant and morally corrupt. The late 90s were an unfortunate time to be politically aware. 

[lilham 752]

Just now, arrowsmith said:

I take your point. I merely struggle with the implication that because he was impeached for political reasons means that he really didn’t do anything wrong. As someone who lived through it I always thought there was plenty of blame to go around. The Republicans were over zealous and partisan, but the president was arrogant and morally corrupt. The late 90s were an unfortunate time to be politically aware. 

I don't support any adultery, whether rape or consensual. He should have taken his position more seriously. The affairs and that impeachment made America vulnerable to terrorism: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-08-23-1998235021-story.html "Clinton's airstrike motives questioned. Many wonder if attack was meant to distract from Lewinsky matter." That's how people viewed his attacks on Al Qaeda in 1998.

 

[roaming_comrade 471]

First serving US President in his 80s today.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

He looks like he stuttering and not quite with him in the clip of him phoning the American team at the World Cup. 

[TQR 14,372]

4 hours ago, The Old Crem said:

He looks like he stuttering and not quite with him in the clip of him phoning the American team at the World Cup. 

Can’t have sounded any worse than your English here.

[Windsor 2,233]

On 20/11/2022 at 20:02, roaming_comrade said:

First serving US President in his 80s today.

 

So he's clearly healthier than all those other Presidents who died much younger. 

 

Today of all days, we remember Kennedy died in 1963 aged only 46 years.