When the pubs take over Congress in 2023, for what will they impeach Biden?

[Chillicothe]

"I do appreciate your admission of the Obama administration breaking the law."

I know, I know, we are all busy. And perhaps the good poster "J-Mac" didn't see the query (see post #57) to explain himself with his assertion about an "admission".....and also, "breaking the law".

We want to think that he has a busy productive life and simply hasn't gotten around to it yet.

But the query remains: What are you talking about poster "J-Mac"?

 

[j-mac]

I know, I know, we are all busy. And perhaps the good poster "J-Mac" didn't see the query (see post #57) to explain himself with his assertion about an "admission".....and also, "breaking the law".

We want to think that he has a busy productive life and simply hasn't gotten around to it yet.

But the query remains: What are you talking about poster "J-Mac"?

You're right I am busy.

And, when you talk of Biden as VP doing the work of the United States when he threatened another country with withholding Congressionally appropriated funds, then either show where congress demanded that, or it is an admission that Biden was breaking the law.

 

[Chillicothe]

Here's what Politifacts says about the Biden threat to withhold money from Ukraine:

"What did Joe Biden urge the Ukrainian government to do?

"Biden proudly recounted a threat he made to withhold aid unless Shokin was sacked. Biden said the incumbent prosecutor was failing to aggressively pursue allegations of corruption in Ukraine.

During an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations on Jan. 23, 2018, Biden made the following remarks, which at points were accompanied by laughter from the audience:

"I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro) Poroshenko and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t. ...

" I said, you’re not getting the billion. ... I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money."

Shokin’s ouster came in March 2016, when he was stripped of his position by a wide margin in the legislature.

 

[Chillicothe]

Also from Politifact:

"Biden was hardly alone in calling for Shokin’s ouster. Western leaders and institutions were largely united in seeking Shokin’s removal, arguing that he was not pursuing corruption cases aggressively.

For instance, in early 2016, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde said that "it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue" unless corruption prosecutions accelerate.

Steven Pifer is a career foreign service officer who was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton and deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs under President George W. Bush. Pifer told PolitiFact that "virtually everyone" he knew in the U.S. government and virtually all non-governmental experts on Ukraine "felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired. As far as I can recall, they all concurred with the vice president telling Poroshenko that the U.S. government would not extend the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine until Shokin was removed from office."

Anders Åslund, a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank in Washington, agreed that criticism of Shokin was widespread

Shokin "failed to prosecute anybody of significance, protecting both the Yanukovych circle and the Poroshenko group," Åslund told PolitiFact in May.

 

[j-mac]

Also from Politifact:

"Biden was hardly alone in calling for Shokin’s ouster. Western leaders and institutions were largely united in seeking Shokin’s removal, arguing that he was not pursuing corruption cases aggressively.

For instance, in early 2016, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde said that "it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue" unless corruption prosecutions accelerate.

Steven Pifer is a career foreign service officer who was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton and deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs under President George W. Bush. Pifer told PolitiFact that "virtually everyone" he knew in the U.S. government and virtually all non-governmental experts on Ukraine "felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired. As far as I can recall, they all concurred with the vice president telling Poroshenko that the U.S. government would not extend the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine until Shokin was removed from office."

Anders Åslund, a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank in Washington, agreed that criticism of Shokin was widespread

Shokin "failed to prosecute anybody of significance, protecting both the Yanukovych circle and the Poroshenko group," Åslund told PolitiFact in May.

I don't care if the entire administration, and all the Leftists in the world wanted Shokin out. If Biden, or Obama didn't have Congressional approval to threaten appropriated funds, they broke the law.

 

[Chillicothe]

Here's what Vox offered in one of their "Explainer" pieces in September of 2019:

"Meanwhile, the UK and Ukraine continued to investigate Zlochevsky and other Yanukovych officials, often with the support of the US. But eventually, British investigators began to grow frustrated with what they characterized as a lack of cooperation from their Ukrainian counterparts, saying needed documents weren’t being provided.

The US became increasingly involved in the issue, and by December 2014, had sent a letter warning the new government would be forced to face unpleasant consequences if it didn’t do more to aid the UK. That threat went unheeded, and by 2015, British officials were forced to release the frozen funds, which Zlochevsky immediately moved to Cyprus, according to Bloomberg.

The part of the story that involves Joe Biden directly centers on the ouster of Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin.

In February 2015, Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, and promised critics of his country’s anti-corruption efforts at home, in the US, and at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that a clean-up was on the way. And he claimed Burisma was in his sights.

But Shokin’s deputy, Vitaly Kasko, told Bloomberg that the promise was empty rhetoric. According to Kasko, their office did nothing to pursue its investigation into Zlochevsky throughout 2015, and the office was ineffective at reining in corruption generally, leading him to resign in frustration.

Shokin has disputed Kasko’s narrative, but the manner in which he was running his office also concerned the US ambassador to Ukraine, who said publicly in September 2015 that the office was “subverting” the UK’s investigation.

Concern at the embassy mounted, and by 2016, officials there began suggesting the Obama administration push for the prosecutor general’s ouster. In particular, the embassy suggested that $1 billion in loan guarantees the country hoped to receive from the US in order to stay solvent should be tied to a tougher anti-corruption strategy that involved removing officials seen as blocking progress, namely Shokin.

It wasn’t just the US that wanted Shokin gone, either — many other Western European officials, including the IMF’s then-managing director Christine Lagarde, also insisted Ukraine was doing far too little about corruption.

So in March 2016, Biden says he told the Ukrainian government that their loan guarantees would be cut off unless they removed Shokin. He told the story at a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours,” Biden told his audience. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

But though Biden may have taken credit for it, this was hardly his unique idea. “Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”

The people of Ukraine wanted Shokin gone as well, and demonstrated for his removal around the time of Biden’s threat. Shortly after that demonstration, Shokin was dismissed."

 

[Chillicothe]

"If Biden, or Obama didn't have Congressional approval to threaten appropriated funds, they broke the law."

Ummm, no they didn't.
It was US Government policy.
And Joe Biden was the deliverer of that message about policy to Ukraine.

Whereas, and in contradistinction......Don Trump in secret attempted to leverage Ukraine by withholding arms for his own personal benefit. No government policy or approval by Congress whatsoever.

 

[j-mac]

Ummm, no they didn't.
It was US Government policy.
And Joe Biden was the deliverer of that message about policy to Ukraine.

Whereas, and in contradistinction......Don Trump in secret attempted to leverage Ukraine by withholding arms for his own personal benefit. No government policy or approval by Congress whatsoever.

Well, then it won't be hard for you to post this policy...

 

[Orangecat]

Phone calls?

 

[Chillicothe]

appreciate your admission of the Obama administration breaking the law.

they broke the law.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, lemme offer a micro-tutorial good poster "J-Mac", if I may.

It was your avatar that initially stated the law was broke.
In fact your avatar even repeated it.

So, the way Adult Swim time works is: You asserted it. You show it.

Accordingly, .....time to saddle up, mein freund.
And show the forum just which law you are referencing and how it applies to the situation.
And as long as you are doing your due diligence, share with us if you will, what 'authorities'....legal experts, or credible learned legal observers who have claimed that what the United States of America was doing in their 'incentivizing' of Ukraine was illegal.
And that's not that we don't have faith in your opinion about legal interpretations, it's just that people who really know are people we'd like to hear from.

Thanx in advance.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Since you won't have 60 votes in the Senate and none of what you listed above even comes close to being something you can impeach (politically) over,
I'd say, you got no shot. It would be a waste of time and there will be no stomach to undertake it.

And you're making a HUGE assumption that the Republicans will take back both houses next year.
That is FAR from certain. Long way to go.

Didn't stop the libs from making up fairy tales. No worries though, R's dont have the nads.

 

[j-mac]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, lemme offer a micro-tutorial good poster "J-Mac", if I may.

It was your avatar that initially stated the law was broke.
In fact your avatar even repeated it.

So, the way Adult Swim time works is: You asserted it. You show it.

Accordingly, .....time to saddle up, mein freund.
And show the forum just which law you are referencing and how it applies to the situation.
And as long as you are doing your due diligence, share with us if you will, what 'authorities'....legal experts, or credible learned legal observers who have claimed that what the United States of America was doing in their 'incentivizing' of Ukraine was illegal.
And that's not that we don't have faith in your opinion about legal interpretations, it's just that people who really know are people we'd like to hear from.

Thanx in advance.

1. You don’t give me homework.

2. You never accepted the evidence in any of the other 6,000 threads specifically speaking to this, so why would you now?

Im fully aware of the rules in debate, and honestly, I don’t see you, or the other progressives on this board demanding this sort of thing for any other reason than to waste a posters time, and tie that poster up from posting on other threads. It’s a tactic I’ve seen over 20 years Posting on boards like this.

So, I won’t be posting pages of research for you to ignore.

 

[The Republicans]

Absolutely Biden must go.

He has done way worse things than what Trump was impeached for.

We have a new standard to follow for impeachment, so lets follow it.

Joe needs to be impeached.

On What grounds?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

25th Amendment Biden, Impeach Harris for dereliction of duty, violation of oath of office & being an ignorant liberal slept who slept her way up the ranks

And Speaker of the House Trump takes over for the remainder of the term. I love it - make it so