• TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a lawyer, but even I know that in court (or hearings like this one) you never ask a person a question if you don’t know what they are going to say.

      So either the Republicans missed Legal Questioning 101 (and have never watched a Legal Eagle video) or their “evidence” is so flimsy that “there isn’t enough to impeach” was their best opening.

      • Chozo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m gonna go with the unmentioned third option, which is that this was all just a petty charade from the start. They knew there was nothing impeachable here, but they’re doing the bare minimum just to keep up appearances and rile up their base with the rallying cry of impeachment. They have no real intention of impeaching Biden, they just want their supporters to think they do.

        • This, so much this. Everything right niw, the Biden impeachment, the Trum court processes, the whole Speaker thing…

          They want to turn the country into a circus and mock and damage the institutions of democracy and law as much as possible while rallying up their base. They hope to be able to destroy the institutions eventually and replace them with an autocracy.

        • TechyDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, that too. They have a few tiny shreds of things which, if taken out of context and squinted at just right while ignoring all logic, might make conspiracy theorists declare a link, but even Republicans are admitting that this is far from what is needed to impeach.

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          No one really understands (or cares) what impeachment means, myself included.

          There was a big noise about it for Trump, and he was somehow tarnished by it but ultimately nothing happened.

          They can manufacture the same stink on biden without actually impeaching him.

          • saruwatarikooji@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Impeachment is saying and “proving” someone is guilty of a thing.

            The problem is, it’s entirely separate from the consequences… You can be impeached and also suffer nothing except for the knowledge that you are publicly guilty of what you did.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Impeachment is saying and “proving” someone is guilty of a thing.

              It’s more like an indictment of sorts. An investigation was done and it seems that a crime has been committed. It begins a trial in the Senate that determines whether it warrants punishment.

      • Davel23@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “There isn’t enough to impeach” implies that there actually is some evidence, instead of just GOP delusions.

        Edit: I should have been clearer. By saying this the way they did, they are sending the message to their audience that there is evidence, just not enough to convict. While there is no evidence at all.

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s not enough evidence to convict you of raping and murdering a dozen puppies yesterday.

        • SatanicNotMessianic
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. It’s delusions.

          “High crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t mean “serious crimes.” It doesn’t mean felonies. It’s the political equivalent of what we call “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.” That may be a literal crime, of course, like the multiple Hatch Act violations during the Trump administration. It could be the appearance of accepting bribes from foreign officials when they rent your real estate at exorbitant prices. It could be trying to overthrow an election. It could be strong-arming a foreign leader to manufacture dirt on your political opponent. There’s a lot of latitude there.

          High crimes means that a public official, in their capacity as a public official, betrayed the public trust.

          “High,” in the legal and common vocabulary of the 17th and 18th centuries of “high crimes,” is the activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that is not shared with ordinary persons. A high crime can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or demanding criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover an extensive range of crimes.

          What they’re saying is that they have bupkis. Zilch. Nada.

        • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, first off, a lawyer can find evidence for everything, even if it’s flimsy af.

          Chemtrails? Everyone sees the white dust from air planes.

          Flat earth? Well if earth is underneath me, and the ground is flat…

          So there might be some teeny tiny evidence for that, but obviously not enough for any solid case.

          Also consider the fact that “not enough evidence” can also mean none at all. That’s not mutually exclusive.

        • TechyDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh, there’s definitely no evidence, but when the Republicans are saying they “don’t have enough evidence” you know that they are reaching. They’re willing to accept wild leaps of logic based on the flimsiest of foundations, but even they are admitting that it isn’t enough for impeachment.

  • Nails@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    They know they can’t have Biden removed, it doesn’t matter. They’ve already succeeded in convincing their base and any who would swing their way that Biden is a criminal. Better vote Trump just to be safe…

    • Vanon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But their base already believed that, with no evidence. This is all just because they need to act like they’re doing “something”, and it’s much easier than actually governing and helping people (while simultaneously pleasing their corpo masters). The distilled base of angry, miserable, irrational, moron cultists enables it.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s barely enough to get Hunter in a court room. And they’ve probably created more legally actionable offenses trying to pursue it than actionable offenses exist against the president (actually almost certainly add the second number is almost certainly 0), but nobody will pursue those crimes because it might look like it’s politically motivated, just ignore the accusations from the right when you read the previous statement.

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nah, per the latest gun ruling they don’t even have that. Shall not be infringed is the only part of gun law that matters anymore.

    • _Sc00ter
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you claiming this article, about the democratic president impeachment, is a gop article? Yeah the GOP are involved, but it’s pretty disingenuous to say this is about the gop

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not according to mediabiasfactcheck.com

        Overall, we rate The Hill Least Biased based on balanced editorial positions and news reporting that is low-biased. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to previous opinion columns promoting unproven claims.

        • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I never claimed they were breitbart, just that they have a slant. Play a little jazz. Music isn’t just the notes you play, it’s also the notes you’re not playing. News bias is the same.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love how they are so desperate for narrative, then they are willing to admit that they don’t have one they just want him punished

    • _Sc00ter
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s smoke and mirrors. They want attention off trump and the House right now

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Jonathan Turley, a go-to witness for conservatives in Congress, at one point told lawmakers some of the details they’d gathered “really do gravitate in favor of the president.”

    “But I also believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”

    “The key here that the committee has to drill down on is whether they can establish a linkage with the influence peddling, which is a form of corruption, and the President whether he had knowledge, whether he participated, whether he encouraged it.

    “But without that type of nexus, then no, I don’t,” he added in response to whether he would back a vote to impeach President Biden.

    Later in the hearing, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) repeated portions of Turley’s testimony, saying, “Boy, that’s awkward.”

    There’s no reason why we should be talking about actual articles of impeachment until this investigation moves forward,” he added.


    The original article contains 326 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 53%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!