Most Americans are horrified by images out of Afghanistan and the negligence shown in the withdrawal from that country. However, we recently discussed why President Joe Biden should not be subject to impeachment over his alleged poor decisions related to the debacle. Now Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland and Ralph Norman of South Carolina formally announced impeachment articles against Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken for his own alleged failures in the withdrawal. Once again, the use of impeachment to address such policy and programmatic “failures” would fundamentally change the purpose of impeachment in our constitutional system.
The articles of impeachment against Blinken allege in part:
[Article 1] Secretary Blinken has failed to faithfully uphold his oath and has instead presided over a reckless abandonment of our nation’s interests, security, and values in his role in the withdrawal of American forces and diplomatic assets from Afghanistan
…
Secretary Blinken’s actions, including ignoring critical intelligence received from the embassy in Kabul and United States intelligence agencies, have left American property, military equipment and weapons in the hands of enemies of the United States, left American citizens stranded in life threatening situations in dereliction of his duties as Secretary of State (22 U.S.C. 2715; 22 U.S.C. 4802). These actions have eroded American interests and security as well as our credibility and relationships amongst our closest allies. In failing to uphold his responsibilities of his office, Secretary Blinken has failed to ensure the protection of the United States Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries.
…[Article 2] In direct conflict with the intelligence and advice provided by his own diplomats and the intelligence community, Secretary Blinken failed to advise and counsel the President accordingly and did not inform the Congress nor American citizens at home and abroad of the dangers posed by the advancing Taliban of which he was explicitly aware.
Those allegations raise policy and performance criticisms that were never meant to be part of the impeachment process. During the Trump Administration, we regularly discussed Democratic members and writers calling for the impeachment of Trump for everything from criticizing NFL kneelers to obnoxious tweets. This is the same misuse of impeachment as a type of “no confidence vote.”
Parliamentary systems, like Great Britain’s, allow for “no confidence” motions to remove prime ministers. Parliament can pass a resolution stating “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.” But that’s not our system, and it’s doubtful that the members of Congress calling for Trump’s impeachment would relish a parliamentary approach: When such a vote succeeds, the prime minister isn’t necessarily the only politician to go. If the existing members of parliament can’t form a new government in 14 days, the entire legislative body is dissolved pending a general election.
The Framers were certainly familiar with votes of no confidence, but despite their general aim to limit the authority of the presidency, they opted for a different course. They saw a danger in presidents being impeached due to shifts in political support and insulated presidents from removal by limiting the basis for impeachment and demanding a high vote threshold for removal. There would be no impulse-buy removals under the Constitution. Instead, the House of Representatives would have to impeach and the Senate convict (by two-thirds vote) based on “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes or Misdemeanors.”
In these two articles, the members seek impeachment over failed policies which is the very essence of a “no confidence” vote. To embrace such a standard would be to invite chaos in future administrations as congressional majorities engage in impulse removals of cabinet members or even presidents.
Once again, I cannot imagine how the United States could mess up this withdrawal in such a spectacular and gut-wrenching manner. We had long ago announced our withdrawal and had many months to carry out an orderly withdrawal. While the Biden Administration insisted that no one foresaw the collapse of the government in such a short time, that is simply untrue. Even if it were not true, good policymakers do not rely on such assumptions when you are dealing with the lives of tens of thousands of citizens and allies.
Nevertheless, what I said in 2017 in the face of Democratic calls for impeachment is still true today:
“History has already answered this call for impulse-buy impeachments. The Framers saw the great abuses caused not only by tyranny of nobility, but tyranny of the majority. They sought to insulate our government from the transient impulses of politics. Otherwise, impeachment becomes little more than grabbing any opportunistic excuse for impeachment like so many “straws” in the political wind.”
It would seem that to get rid of Antony Blinken you must get rid of Biden, Harris, and Pelosi.
There is ample evidence to meet the standard required by their intentional refusal to enforce the immigration laws, which at best is a violation of their express Constitutional duties to enforce the law and protect the citizenry, and at worst treason. For additional fodder, there is Biden’s intentional actions in contravention of Supreme Court rulings.
If the Democrats had any integrity as the Republicans did in Watergate, the Democrats would join in on these impeachment proceedings.
They haven’t “refus[ed] to enforce the immigration laws,” and Biden didn’t act “in contravention of Supreme Court rulings” (if you’re referring to Kavanaugh concurring opinion, it was not the opinion of the court).
You are not 100% wrong, but you are not correct, nor do you portray these things accurately.
As much as I despise the way this Administration has conducted itself in this and other matters, this loose talk about impeachment is the logical result of Democrats trying to use impeachment as a recall mechanism.
Maladministration is not grounds for impeachment. Get that through your thick heads and think about what your vote means next time you vote.
With respect to the (debauched) Afghanistan exit, Biden’s apologists keep asking: “What do you expect him to do?”
His job.
Are you kidding? Biden didn’t even have to campaign for the job. The corrupt media did it for him. He just sat back, hiding behind Covid, and let the media elevate him, lie for him, run cover for him *and* his corrupt disgusting family, too.
All the corrupt institutions ran cover for Biden all during the campaign and they are all doing it now.
Biden is lazy as h*ll.
He was ON VACATION when Kabul fell. He came back for a few hours, delivered a teleprompter speech, then went BACK to his vacation. Biden is a lazy no-good, corrupt, entitled, arrogant, senile fool. ZERO respect is owed this a-hole.
The fall of the American Empire is happening on demented Joe Biden’s watch. Intentionally. The results of infiltration by nefarious actors within the Biden administration is now in plain view of the world.
Joe Biden and his sick family have been paid off in the millions by the Chinese Communist Party, and others. Joe Biden is a greedy and corrupt sellout. Period.
Jonathan: I agree that Congress should avoid “grabbing any opportunistic excuse for impeachment”. But in 1998 you were an enthusiastic supporter of Bill Clinton’s impeachment over his lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Certainly something the Founders didn’t have in mind when they wrote the impeachment clause. You said in a column supporting Clinton’s impeachment: “Impeachment serves a purpose beyond removal…the House does not convict but the House accuses. Thus, the House plays an important role in deterring presidential misconduct”. In Trump’s two impeachments you did a 180. In Trump’s second impeachment you argued it was a “snap impeachment” and said “being obnoxious or narcissistic is not grounds for removal”. Funny you didn’t say this over Clinton’s behavior. In the second impeachment Trump was charged with inciting an insurrection to overturn a legitimate election and the Constitution. In other words, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. That’s a lot more then just being “obnoxious” or “narcissistic”. It appears you are all over the park when it comes the grounds for impeachment–supporting the impeachment of Democratic presidents but opposing them when it comes to Republicans. The contradictions in your arguments are apparent. If the House played an “important role in deterring presidential misconduct” in the impeachment of Clinton doesn’t the same standard apply to Trump? I guess, in the end, it is all about partisan politics in which you are more than willing to take part.
I think one has to put Turley’s words in context. This might help.
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards … This impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.” __J. Turley
Take note where his concerns lie.
“In the second impeachment Trump was charged with inciting an insurrection to overturn a legitimate election and the Constitution”
We learned from the FBI that this is a LIE. Yet another lie.
“We learned from the FBI that this is a LIE”
No, the FBI itself has not said that.
Headline from msn “FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-jan-6/ar-AANxOuQ
You stretch everything to the point it breaks. Pure dishonesty. This is another example of your lack of credibility.
Right. The FBI also says that there is no such thing as Havana Syndrome…and the list goes on…
In other words, you believe only what agrees with your thoughts and disagree with the rest. That sounds pretty silly to me.
Nope. I question it all.
Your own words call you a liar.
If you’d bothered to read the article, you’d find that there was no statement from the FBI. Not my fault that MSN wrote a faulty headline.
“This is another example of your lack of credibility.”
On the contrary, it’s another example of your sloppiness with details.
What you are relying on is that the FBI didn’t say those exact words. If they don’t call it an insurrection then it isn’t an insurrection. You play this same game over and over again in every form it takes. They also didn’t say it wasn’t a circus or a party. Since the FBI didn’t say it wasn’t a circus, Anonymous the Stupid, can now argue it was. What a jerk. No credibility
“What you are relying on is that the FBI didn’t say those exact words.”
Once again, you demonstrate your tactic of putting words in people’s mouths / thoughts in their heads and then attacking the person for your imagined belief. What I’m actually relying on is the fact that the article had no statement whatsoever from the FBI itself.
“If they don’t call it an insurrection then it isn’t an insurrection.”
I’ll wait for them to announce the end of their investigation and their findings, thanks, at which point we’ll know what the FBI itself is saying. I am more patient than you are.
“I’ll wait for them to announce the end of their investigation and their findings, thanks”
If you were honest you wouldn’t have started calling it an insurrection before it was proven. No one puts words in your mouth. Your problem is your input and output have been reversed.
On the contrary, an honest person can call it an insurrection as long as that person truly believes it to be an insurrection based on evidence that is already public. Honest people do not have to wait for the FBI to come to a conclusion about it before drawing their own conclusions, as long as they do not attribute claims to the FBI that the FBI hasn’t made.
“No one puts words in your mouth.”
You did, when you falsely asserted “What you are relying on is that the FBI didn’t say those exact words.”
You are a deeply dishonest person, Allan/Seth Meyer.
>>” “No one puts words in your mouth.”
>You did, when you falsely asserted “What you are relying on is that the FBI didn’t say those exact words.””
Anonymous the Stupid, you are playing both sides of the fence. You used the words insurrection before the FBI said anything. That is no different from when you supported the Steele Dossier, the Russia Hoax, and all the other garbage and lies to which you quickly attached yourself.
You start with the theory that you can call what happened an insurrection. No, you can’t. You had no reasonable proof. As the evidence comes in, the evidence demonstrates that your first statement was wrong. Now that the FBI words imply no insurrection based on tangible reasoning, you didn’t find the reasons adequate.
You play the same dishonest game over and over again. You love saying, “heads I win tails you lose, but not everyone is as Stupid as you and recognizes a liar and deceitful person.
“If you’d bothered to read the article, you’d find that there was no statement from the FBI. Not my fault that MSN wrote a faulty headline.”
The headline was a headline but reasonably accurate for a headline. The FBI didn’t use those exact words, so you try to convince with deception. Everyone should read the article, which is from MSN that twists the news in your favor.
“You are a deeply dishonest person, Allan/Seth Meyer.”
Though the description applies to you I am happy that you place names so people have some knowledge of who might be talking. to whom That is precisely the reason I labelled you Anonymous the Stupid . That forces you out of the dark and forces you to live with your lies and deception.
“You start with the theory that you can call what happened an insurrection. No, you can’t. You had no reasonable proof.”
That’s your opinion. People’s opinions about whether the evidence supports the conclusion clearly vary a great deal. If you were actually an sincere, honest, civil person aiming for a sincere, honest, civil discussion, we could discuss the evidence for and against it reasonably being labelled an insurrection. But you are not that person, and that is not your goal. Your goal is to denigrate, which is why you insult your opponents over and over.
“You love saying, ‘heads I win tails you lose'”
No, you are once again attributing your own failings to others.
“The FBI didn’t use those exact words, so you try to convince with deception”
Once again: the FBI itself didn’t use ANY words in that article. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nought. None. There is no deception at all involved in pointing out that there was NO statement from the FBI itself in that article. Your false claim about me is itself an attempt “to convince with deception.”
“I labelled you Anonymous the Stupid”
You use that label with multiple people, and once again, your insults describe you more than they describe anyone else.
Bill Clinton was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH and suborning PERJURY.
Not fit his sexual impropriety.
I wish that once, lefties could under stand principle
I’m liberal. I agree that Clinton committed perjury. Trump also lied when it was illegal to do so. For example, he failed to report his debt to Cohen on his 2017 financial disclosure form (Cohen went to jail in part for his own part in paying off Daniels): extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/12DAC79CC95F849085258142002703CA/$FILE/Trump,%20Donald%20J.%20%20final278.pdf
Trump attempted to avoid certifying the form as “true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge,” but eventually did so, despite it not being complete and correct — since it omits his debt to Cohen, which the form requires be reported. Trump knew that he omitted it. The AG can bring civil or criminal actions against someone who lies on that form: oge.gov/Web/278eGuide.nsf/Content/For+Ethics+Officials+Document~1.06:+Failure+to+File+and+Falsification+Penalties
But of course Trump’s AG didn’t do that.
In its report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, the Senate Judiciary Committee also implied that Trump lied in at least one of his written responses to Mueller, which were submitted under penalty of perjury.
I understand the principle of people not lying, especially when it’s illegal to do so. I condemn them both for that. Do you join me in doing so?
Correction: I should have said the Senate Intelligence Committee, not the Judiciary Committee. It was a bipartisan report with a Republican chair. See volume 5 of their report.
Again there is a stretching of a point to the breaking point. No direct comparison. Questionable reasoning which is typical on your part.
A couple of examples: “Trump knew that he omitted it.” You are reading a person’s mind. “The AG can”, but they don’t except if is someone the left hates. “true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge,” which so happens to be a reasonable statement. This is why no one can reasonably assume you are credible.
Just so you know, I thought the impeachment, though permissible, of Clinton was wrong based on lying about a sexual affair.
In its report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, the Senate Judiciary Committee also implied that Trump lied in at least one of his written responses to Mueller, which were submitted under penalty of perjury.
I noticed right away your chosen source never accuses President Trump of lying.
I said “implied,” not “stated.” I bet you’re educated enough to understand the difference, which is why I chose “implied.”
I bet you’re educated enough to understand the difference, which is why I chose “implied.</i
I'm educated enough to know if the writers of a report use the word implied, they are pushing a narrative unsupported by evidence. I am able to infer the authors are making up stuff from whole cloth in order to push a political agenda. Not lay out facts reveled during an investigation.
“I’m educated enough to know if the writers of a report use the word implied, they are pushing a narrative unsupported by evidence.”
That’s not an educated stance. Your conclusion (“they are pushing a narrative unsupported by evidence”) does not follow from the antecedent (“if the writers of a report use the word implied”). It might or might not be the case in any particular instance.
“I am able to infer the authors are making up stuff from whole cloth in order to push a political agenda”
LOL, if you infer something, that means you believe what you’ve inferred was implied. However, your inference is false, and ironically, if your inference were true, it would be a counterexample to your own argument.
Evidence and other explicit statements can imply things that are not explicitly stated. Whether our inferences (and the corresponding implications we assume) are correct or not depends on whether or not the inference accurately corresponds to what was implied — whether the evidence does, in fact, support the implication.
So that’s the question you should be asking: does the evidence in Vol. 5 truly support the implication that Trump lied to Mueller. Do you want to look at the evidence together to check that?
There is no such thing as an unintentional lie, which you allege exusts in your comment. Lying requires intent, and you have no such proof.
Like so many other radical liberals along with the Fake news media, you take opinion and misrepresent it as fact.
I’m well aware that lying involves intent. A lie is a knowingly false statement with intent to deceive.
I’m asserting that Trump did not forget to include the information about his debt to Cohen (for getting him to pay off Stormy Daniels and thereby keeping the affair out of the news during the election), any more than Clinton forgot that he had sex with Monica.
I already gave you evidence that Trump omitted his 2016 debt to Cohen. Trump was in the midst of repaying Cohen in 2017 when he signed that 2017 form. He included the 2017 repayment on his 2018 form (documentcloud.org/documents/4464412-Trump-Donald-J-2018Annual278.html), but again made a false claim, this time about how much Cohen was paid: Trump said that he “fully reimbursed” Cohen between $100,001 and $250,000 in 2017, but according to the DOJ’s filing re: Cohen, Cohen was actually paid $420,000. Trump also denied that he had to include this information, which is false. He tweeted that his repayment to Cohen had nothing to do with the campaign, which makes the reporting on form 278e mandatory.
“Lying requires intent, and you have no such proof.”
Yep, Trump just forgot about all of this, amidst his initial denials about his affair with Stormy Daniels and his later denials that paying her off had anything to do with the campaign. The guy lies all the time.
Mostly it’s legal to lie, but both Clinton AND Trump lied when it was illegal to do so. I don’t have a problem noting both of them. Why do you?
Anonymous says:
“Mostly it’s legal to lie, but both Clinton AND Trump lied when it was illegal to do so. I don’t have a problem noting both of them. Why do you?”
If I may be so bold to answer on behalf of your typical Trumpist. He would respond by saying,
“Because Trump does NOT lie. Case closed.”
I appreciate your marshaling of facts to back up your arguments though I recognize that your efforts will be dismissed as “fake news” by Trumpists. Still, I admire your line of reasoning. I only wish that you would kindly choose a pseudonym so that I could keep track of your comments because I generally skip over anonymous contributors knowing that most of them are incoherent.
Ti317,
I agree with you 100%! You Trumpists won’t believe me, but I was in favor of impeaching Clinton for committing perjury as was Turley. I never bought the argument that lying under oath about sex is different. Lying under oath is perjury regardless of the content.
Which is why Trump would NEVER submit to testifying under oath to the Special Counsel because he can’t help himself from lying.
I don’t deny that Biden has lied materially; the trouble with you Trumpists is that you can’t admit that Trump does more often.
seriously Jeff…every human lies…does it really matter how often!
Hjf,
So you actually admit that Trump is a liar? I never thought I would live to see the day when a Trumpist would be so damn honest. I hope that others in your tribe will now be able to follow your brave lead.
I do believe that chronic lying is worse than an occasional one, but let’s leave that argument for another day. It’s enough that you have broken the ice of Trumpist denialism. Mazel Tov!
Jeff is a sicko.
And, he’s well-paid to do it. Hypocrisy doesn’t enter in.
Fair play is something unknown to those like Jeff. Turley’s response to the impeachment of Blinken isn’t much different than his response to the impeachment of Trump. Mommy told Jeff that he was the most important person in the world, and Jeff believed her.
Tony Blinken is a pitifully weak, embarrassing sorry excuse for a Secretary of State.
This withdrawal is a Collosal Treasonous Sh*tshow for all the world to see.
It is impossible to believe this grossly incompetent sh*tshow is not being done as part of a larger “mission” to intentionally diminish America’s standing in the world.
Where are the whistleblowers? Speak up and stand up, now.
I agree with JT. An impeachment trial is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
However, a better venue would be to invite Blinken out to dinner at taxpayer expense.
Plenty of alternatives to remove Bliken.
Bliken is one of MANY who should lose their jobs over this, including the so called Commander and Chief. They can blame the previous admin all they want, but the process, failure and loss of life is theirs to own.
He is an incompetent as all in government and think tanks are. But he was just carrying out his masters orders and did so masterfully. US will need to spend more money for unnecessary wars (and they all are) and all the armaments they left behind, more unemployable people who will be dependent on the government for generations (assuming we get that far) that will denigrate society and the parasites who haven’t worked a day in their life life Harris , Biden, Blinken, Obama, S. Rice, Jarret, Pelosi, Feinstein, AOC, Bushes, Cheney, Millie, Austin, Mueller, Barr, Booth and the rest of the inbreds of the Ivys, baby Ivies, EU, WEF, UN, Builderberg, Trilateral, CFR, Soros, Brock, Newsome, Cuomo, Fauci, Powell, Brown, and Academy who can’t make it in the real world will be richly rewarded as always. You can’t name one thing the tools noted above have ever done that helps anyone one the world but themselves. Nothing.
Mr. Turley, the deliberate ignoring of intelligence that caused the deaths of dozens of Americans IS a High Crime and is therefore subject to impeachment. Impeaching because of a phone call or a tweet (or of any political decision) is of course ridiculous. However the president is also commander in chief, and his reckless disregard for American (and Afghan) life comes under the heading of a High Crime.
Just wondering…is the Commander-in-Chief exempt from the court martial process?
KBigg,
If “reckless disregard for American life” was the standard for Impeachment, Trump would have been impeached for a 3rd time.
Why don’t you tell us about Trump’s reckless disregard? Was he taking Covid positive individuals, murderers, rapists and thieves and putting them all over the nation? Was he incentivizing people to move from the south of the border into the US so that women are raped, children molested, and people die on the trip? Was he permitting the cartels to access the US to distribute drugs to our young, killing 50,000 to 70,000 in a year?
Did he put Americans in jeopardy in Afghanistan? He made a deal to leave Afghanistan, and when the Taliban broke it, he answered them and not one American soldier was killed afterward.
How has Biden done? Expect more deaths, American hostages, terrorism etc. Your brain must have fried at one of the BLM / Antifa rallies.
It depends how you define failure…is Biden going personally to the doors of those marines who died and explaining how he was AWOL?…Is it a high crime to abandon ALL Americans and just let the Taliban murder them…is it treason to negotiate with terrorists?…did we negotiate with Hitler…the Japs…Iraq…N. Korea…Iran…Russia…China…every time we try to make a deal WE end up the losing end…now what happens when China, Russia, and the Taliban for a coalition…do you really think Biden/Harris could handle that negotiation?…Biden has to read cue cards today and still he makes no sense…the US is the laughing stock of the civilized world…the weakest the US has ever been with the weakest administration…all this is on democrats hands…you will NEVER get the blood washed off…how do you sleep at night???…Oh I forgot…you just blame Trump!!!
Thousands of ISIS terrorist were released from prisons in Afghanistan after decades of rounding them up. Biden now gives a new meaning to “catch and release”. These terrorist are coming to a neighborhood near you. While the political elite have arm police and guards and live behind walls, they want to take your guns away from you. Go Figure.
Impeachment is not the process to address the policy issues in this debacle, and the House would in all probability advance Articles of Impeachment.
However, there must be resignations. These should include Blinken, Austin, Milley, Sullivan, and McKenzie. These are the individuals who were responsible for implementing the retrograde out of Afghanistan and launched one of the most inept missions in recent memory.
These are the individuals who were responsible
Dont forget the intelligence community. They failed on the whole collapse,.Just like they missed the fall of the Berlin wall, and the dissolution of the USSR
They are good at running political operations on US soil, not so much with tracking foreign intel.
They are too busy looking for all the imaginary white supremacists that progressives see behind every bush and tree….
I’m not sure that I agree. To begin, these aren’t “policies” or failed policies, these are “acts.” Acts which may very well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Murder of 13 service men ist nobody’s responsibility. Yet the President of the United States making a phone call to a foreign leader is impeachable.
There were some 200 plus that died as a direct result of Biden’s actions.
Many tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since the war began. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all share the blame in that.
No, attempting to bribe that foreign leader during the phone call in order to personally benefit the President is impeachable.
More members of the Armed Services were murdered during Trump’s tenure. Neither their deaths nor the deaths under Biden are impeachable.
Bribe a foriegn leader? you’re going to have to quote verbatim that conversation.
We Americans cannot “Make the world safe for democracy!”
Woodrow Wilson was a nitwit.
In the primary period when Biden was running against Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the left media was trashing Biden. That was CNN, MSNBC, CBS and newspapers like the NY Times. When Biden got the nomination they went on Biden side vs. Trump. But now they are throwing rocks at Biden.
“Make up your mind God, I aint got nothin left to throw up but my nutz.” -Comedian Richard Pryor reminiscing a night out on the town.
Wasn’t right for Trump, isn’t right for Biden or Blinken.
Hey Lefties, see what happens when you let your passions rule your brains.
I am sorry that these two fellows let their need for attention overrule their brains.
Conservatives are usually better than Lefties and most of us know that the Dems screwed the withdrawal up. Let the elections toss the incompetents out.
Hey, at least there are no mean tweets.
Read it and weep, Trumpists! Read it and weep. And you thought he was on your side.
js
And speaking of someone who lets his emotions overrule his brain, here is another nonsensical comment from jeffsilberman.
True this
Monument,
The Truth hurts. Foiled again!
Okay LIBTARD!! YOU are the definition of that. You keep proving it over and over and over again. We heard you the 1st time. You don’t have to repeat it 20 million times.
Thank you, Wen Bars, may I have another?
It’s not about sides. It’s about intellectual consistency.
Currentsitguy,
You are absolutely correct. Turley defied the Trumpists when he refuted their calling Trump’s Impeachments “witch-hunts,” but, rather, conceded Trump’s conduct was impeachable IF proven with substantial evidence. And now he is disabusing Trumpists of their call for the Impeachment of Biden and Blinken as inconsistent with the Constitution.
That IS consistency!
The thing is after the double impeachment debacle during Trump moving forward every President will be impeached when there is an opposition Congress. In reality it has lost all meaning and importance.
Currents,
Trumpists calling for Biden and Blinken to be impeached over Afghanistan is precisely what Turley is warning you guys not to do! I repeat- Turley did NOT dispute the Democrats impeaching Trump. He simply objected that the case was not made strong enough in the Senate trial. The evidence was not sufficient in his opinion, but the allegations were impeachable unlike the current situation.
, but the allegations were impeachable unlike the current situation.
Yes the gold standard for leftists. Its not the nature of the crime, but rather, the seriousness of the allegations.
Iowan2 says:
“Yes the gold standard for leftists. Its not the nature of the crime, but rather, the seriousness of the allegations.”
This statement is incomprehensible! Even you can’t make sense of it! Think before you open your trap.
I guess you aren’t as smart as you think you are. That statement is quite easy to understand.
Go ahead, spoon feed it to me.
Are you looking for a mother?
Oh poor jiffy , your loyalties come and go like a cool breeze over a septic pond. And so it goes , so it goes. In short order you will again pillary Mr Turley when his analysis does not fit your agenda.
Phergus,
Turley’s analysis DOES suit me. My complaint is his HYPOCRISY. If only he would criticize his employer Fox, I would have little problem with his jurisprudence and viewpoints.
“My complaint is his HYPOCRISY. “
Let’s all laugh (left and right) in unison at Jeff’s comment. Hypocrisy is the defining feature of Jeff’s character.
Bahahahhahhahhhahha….All you have to do is look in the mirror Jeff.
And you thought he was on your side.
Once again, just to illuminate the stupidity on display
Truley is not on a side. Unless you you include adhering to the constitution as a ‘side’ That’s what leftist and TDS sufferers can not intellectualize. Turley does not make his posts personal, or curate them in such a manner as to advance a narrative…other than the narrative of a representative constitutional republic.
Aaannnndd… i have stumbled on the reason leftists dislike Turely. He keeps pointing out how their agenda often is in conflict with the Constitution
Iowan2,
Turley is on the side of law and order which is my side. Those who call criminal prosecutions “witch-hunts” are on the other side. Plain and simple.
If Turley ever calls any investigation or prosecution a “hoax” or uses the term “Deep State,” then I’ll concede he is a Trumpist. Until then, he and I are side by side.
side of law an order which is my side …says the Russian hoaxer and Ukrainian phone call HOAX adherent ….you jiffy are the conspiracy theorist and TDS sufferer. The very kind of peep you profess to scorn and hate…hypocrisy much yourself there.
Phergus,
Turley never uses the word “hoax” unlike you Trumpists. That’s the difference between you and him.
Those who call criminal prosecutions “witch-hunts” are on the other side. Plain and simple.
Do you even understand the “investigation” of candidate, then President Elect, then President Trump was NEVER a criminal investigation? Nope. NEVER any hint if a crime. Of course if they claimed a criminal investigation, Constitutional limits severely limit avenues available to the FBI
All that adds up to a witch hunt by the deep state.
“Unless you you include adhering to the constitution as a ‘side’”
That is a great way to explain Turley’s actions.
Now ex-military are raising funds, putting their own lives on the line, to do a job Biden should have done…that makes me very, very angry!!!
“Failure in the withdrawal.”. BS. I won’t explain why BS stands for. I’ll say this:. George Bush: Pull out now like your father should have.
There are no failures. A foreign power cannot withdraw from a terrorist state without taking some attacks on its troops and people.
We should not keep troops there for a hundred years. Twenty was too long
Biden is getting tons of false criticism. It’s defamation.
I can’t even begin ti imagine the hue and cry if Trump and Pompeo were in charge of this debacle
I have to disagree with you bigly on some of your screed. Biden Mucked up a perfectly planned withdrawal under OUR TERMS. His exuberant haste cost many lives now and showed the world what a buffoon he and his handpicked team of dullards are. With a military consumed with wokeness ( on purpose ) from it’s very top of hand picked incompetents it is no small wonder why they just went along and played the flute and our troops suffered for it…America suffers for it .
Baizou Biden deserves every rock and epitaph thrown at his senile noggin and incompetent staff.