Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, told NBC News’ Kristen Welker on Sunday that according to lawyers hired by Congress, “at this point, there’s not a specific crime that’s been committed” by President Joe Biden in the impeachment probe against him.
“Our guy did bad things, we do bad things, so ipso facto, Biden is doing bad things.”
They want to imprint on the minds of their “poorly educated” base that Biden has some sort of connection to some sort of crime. Go down the list of dirty tricks - Republicans are using all of them.
More like, “if we can accuse your guy of doing bad things, our guy(s) can do whatever they want and it’s even.”
Its the only situation where they believe in equality
Not really, they want to get away with it while punishing Dems.
In case you need to be reminded, the point here is diluting the impact of conversations about “charges” so that they can say things like, “Biden charges didn’t mean anything just like trump charges don’t, America isn’t interested in wasting time on this, let’s move on”
Part of what fascism does is BREAK language.
God this shitty red team needs to just deliver their report and go home.
And yeah, talking to fascists like they’re people is playing into their shit.
I would say they still failed significantly, they wanted to at least get an impeachment in to be able to say that even trumps impeachments didnt really mean much either.
They may still be able to pivot as you indicated, but the fact that the impeachment process hasn’t been minimized is a win for our country in my opinion.
Haven’t they tried to impeach a whole lot of people, just to make “an impeachment” somewhah normal?
War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength!
Breaking News! The GOP is full of shit and has been for decades. They have no policies, just bullshit.
The GOP will continue dragging out this investigation anyway, until they either find some actual dirt or create an artificial precedent that all presidents are under continuous investigation, thus discrediting any future impeachment procedure against their guy. Either way, It’s a win.
This didn’t work the first time with Clinton.
It’s not “revenge” for impeaching Trump, it’s revenge for Nixon. The Whitewater investigation didn’t find anything until Monica Lewinsky. She actually wasn’t even working at the White House when the investigation started.
The investigation wasn’t even about her, it was about real estate I believe. They just wanted whatever they could get on him and he made the mistake of lying about something embarrassing which then became the issue… Not to defend him, lying is lying especially if there are laws against it in those situations.
So naturally the Republicans now go to “purgery trap! Purgery trap!” When impeachment is aimed at them because they know what they would do…
She actually wasn’t even working at the White House when the investigation started.
Is this actually true? This is the first time I’ve ever heard this, would be shocking if so.
It surprises you that Republicans don’t investigate in good faith? Ken Starr was the Whitewater investigator who continued the investigation after the previous one left. He was appointed a year before Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White House.
This is why Clinton’s approval ratings went up after he was convicted of “perjury” for misleading an investigation into his private life. Should he have done it? No. Did the American public care? Hell no.
With the assistance of a family connection, Lewinsky secured an unpaid summer White House internship in the office of White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta. Lewinsky moved to Washington, D.C. and took up the position in July 1995.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky
In August 1994, Republican Kenneth Starr[39] was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Republican Robert B. Fiske, who had been specially appointed by US attorney general Janet Reno, prior to the re-enactment of the Independent Counsel law.
It surprises you that Republicans don’t investigate in good faith?
No, just the timing.
She actually wasn’t even working at the White House when the investigation started.
I wonder what the bill is so far?
It’s easy money for Republican lawyers and it confuses the cult base about the real criminal trying to avoid a trial.
This contrasts so well with the other candidate.
Look you have known knowns and known unknowns - that is, things that you know that you don’t know - but then you have unknown unknowns - things that you don’t know that you don’t know.
Source: https://youtu.be/2msQwpzatQc
Ah the ol’ Rummy Defense.
If you ask plato’s socrates, there’s also things that you don’t know that you know. I think, at least. Philosophy class was hard, but this just unlocked a memory lol.
TOTAL EXONERATION !!!
They will do literally everything but acknowledge their guy’s huge laundry list of crimes
You’d think we’d have at least acknowledged the problems with impeachment after Clinton got impeached for saying a BJ wasn’t sex…
But that would require Dems to fix a problem with our government rather than ignore it as soon as it’s not an immediate issue.
Our political system is fucked and we need a better one.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I’m old enough to remember:
Depends what your definition of “is” is
My point is we’ve known the impeachment system was fucked for 30 years. And the only times Dems complain about it, is when a Dem president is facing impeachment.
When anyone can tell Republicans will keep abusing it, and it doesn’t actually do enough to hold republicans accountable.
It’s political theater that does nothing.
Just another example of how our political system sucks, but no one in political power wants to change anything.
Clinton was impeached for perjury, which is a bit different. I don’t think he should have been impeached, but Clinton did actually lie under oath about the affair.
Trump’s crimes are significantly more serious, and numerous, and the GOP will forever be responsible for refusing to vote to convict.
He didn’t technically lie— not by congress’s definition of “sex” given. But they said he lied anyway and impeached him all the same.
I want to stress that I could not care less about Clinton’s sexual relationships. It was a bullshit partisan witch hunt, and everyone involved was a piece of shit.
But Clinton did lie about the nature of his relationship and his conduct. He should never have been asked the questions, and the entire investigation was a waste of time, but Clinton was under oath when he lied.
Perjury requires that the lie be material to the case, and I think you could argue that none of the testimony was material to any legitimate investigation. So if you want to say it wasn’t perjury, I won’t argue with you.
But his defense (and it seems like your argument, too) was to quibble over rhe words “sexual” and “is,” because he wasn’t at the time of the deposition engaged in coitus. “It wasn’t sexual on my part because she only touched my penis with her mouth” is a stupid fucking argument. “The nature of our relationship is strictly profession because we have stopped fooling around” is also a stupid fucking argument. Those were both lies, and I think it’s absurd to defend them given that we’ve survived four years of President Trump, and we’re staring down the barrel of a potential second term of that shitbag.
Our leaders are not perfect. They’re not even good people. Most of them are dipshits, panderers, and crooks. Trump is worse than any of them, and represents an existential threat to the Republic. It’s good to acknowledge their flaws and criticize the leaders we support, because unwavering support is how you get Trump in the first place.
You can argue that he was dishonest, sure, and that he’s a slimebag, but he didn’t, by the definition set up by congress themselves, lie to congress. He out-lawyered them and out-maneuvered them, yet they smeared him and impeached him anyway. Because that’s what they set out to do, and not even the facts were going to stop them.
He was dishonest but he didn’t lie? I think you’re being dishonest with yourself.
There is no law that differentiates between a lie and dishonesty. He did not outmanoeuvre or out-lawyer anybody. He convinced five Republican Senators from Northeastern states to vote not guilty on both the perjury charge and the obstruction of justice charge. Do you really think that it was because they were persuaded by his legal arguments? Or is it more likely that polling in Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island indicated that the voters there opposed conviction?
His statements were false, he knew they were false, and he was under oath. It’s not “high crimes and misdemeanors” and I agree with your assessment of the intent of the GOP investigating him. I didn’t think he should have been impeached at all, much less convicted, and I wrote a letter to my Senator, Arlen Spector, telling him as much. I’m not delusional enough to think that my letter persuaded the Senator to vote “not proved” but I would guess it was probably about as persuasive as Clinton’s bullshit defense.
The republicans set a very narrow definition for the word “sex”, and by their definition, he didn’t lie.
Now you can post as many walls of text expressing your dissatisfaction with that, but it doesn’t change the facts.
There’s three problems with that argument, and I don’t want to bore you with text so I’ll keep this short.
-
This isn’t true.
-
Even if it were true, that definition of “sex” wasn’t relevant to the statements he made on TV.
-
I don’t believe his version of events.
In other words, Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.
For more detail
- Two of the three criteria for sex were sticken by the judge during the deposition for being overly broad. The remaining narrow criteria was, verbatim,
- Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
The definition says “any person” not just Lewinsky. She had contact with his genitals, so they were engaged in sex. To suggest that she was engaged in sex and he was not is a lie.
-
Outside the deposition where that overly narrow definition of sex was relevant, he looked into a camera on TV and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He did have sexual relations with that woman. That was a lie.
-
Lewinsky claimed Clinton groped her during their encounters. That is, by the narrow definition, sex. He said he didn’t touch her at all, and she just sucked his dick. Have you ever had your dick sucked, or sucked a dick? His version of events does not ring true, and given the conflicting testimonies, I’m not inclined to believe the guy that I know is a liar.
You’re right that facts don’t change. Clinton did lie about his extramarital affairs. Denying facts is something conservatives do. Don’t be like conservatives.
-
“It wasn’t sexual on my part because she only touched my penis with her mouth” is a stupid fucking argument.
then the people asking the question should have defined it such that oral sex counted. You don’t get to choose one meaning when you ask the question and then another meaning when you report the answer. Bill Clinton is a piece of shit but they asked if he put his penis in her vagina and he said “no” because he didn’t.
Clinton did actually lie under oath about the affair.
He didn’t, though. They asked if he had sex, he asked them what sex was, they told him, and he hadn’t had sex based on that definition. They purposely equivocated on their definition of sex so that they could accuse him of lying.
You are right, but the rest is so reeking of some sort of new whataboutism.
Oh no a blowjob. Thag is awful. Lets pardon dictator wannabie trying to demolish the westen world BTW.
But well thats what the GOP is trying to do, water the donald impeachments (in plural please) out as just another normal things when it isn’t.
Oh I agree completely. It was a partisan shitshow, and nothing compared to the crimes Trump has committed and continues to commit.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, told NBC News’ Kristen Welker on Sunday that according to lawyers hired by Congress, “at this point, there’s not a specific crime that’s been committed” by President Joe Biden in the impeachment probe against him.
The White House has repeatedly denied these claims, with President Biden saying that the impeachment inquiry against him is a “baseless political stunt.”
Bacon told Welker on Meet the Press: “When I talked to the lawyers on the committee staff, they say at this point there’s not a specific crime that’s been committed.”
"Why continue to waste millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money if we’re going to impeach because you believe you’ve shown he’s committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Ian Sams called the invitation for the president to testify a “sad stunt at the end of a dead impeachment.”
Meanwhile, Biden, the Democratic incumbent, is leading a reelection campaign against former President Donald Trump, who is the presumed 2024 Republican Presidential nominee.
The original article contains 675 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m just adding this comment for engagement.
Any Finns here would appreciate me joking about how my vote was the 609th? Not because of 69, but because of 609_uu
Shocker! /s
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
