No, President Biden Should Not Be Impeached For Lax Border Security

Last night, Laura Ingraham asked Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.) about the options in dealing with the influx of undocumented persons over the southern border. Sen. Cotton raised the possibility of impeachment. I have had this question raised with me on a number of occasions in the last year. I believe that President Joe Biden can be legitimately blamed for his handling of the crisis at the border but I do not believe that he could be legitimately impeached for those failures.

As a threshold matter, one should acknowledge that there have long been periods of crisis at the border. Other presidents have dealt with a border that has remained porous and fluid. However, I do believe that the Administration has lacked transparency and, frankly, honesty in dealing with the crisis. Biden’s own policies likely have contributed to this increase in illegal crossings.

When asked about the border on “The Ingraham Angle” on Tuesday Sen. Cotton said about impeachment:

No Laura, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility because of all of the abuses of the Biden administration. I think what the Department of Homeland Security has done to undermine American sovereignty, to open up our borders to undercut wages and jobs for American workers is probably the most egregious…and they’re open about it. [DHS] Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has said it in speeches…that being illegally present in the country is no longer even a priority for deportation. They admit these things publicly.

Clearly, nothing in a political sense is “out of the realm of possibility” in Congress. However, an impeachment on the border crisis would be, in my view, an abuse of the impeachment powers and a dangerous precedent for our constitutional system.

In fairness to Sen. Cotton, he only stated that there might be a basis for “investigation” on possible impeachment.  I would strongly discourage the use of impeachment as the basis for such an investigation. Congress has oversight responsibilities and powers that should be used to investigate the crisis and how the Administration has addressed it. While impeachment investigations are considered more robust, there are ample oversight powers to fully investigate the handling of the crisis.

Biden could clearly be impeached if he committed certain offenses in relation to the border. For example, if he committed the crime of perjury (like Clinton) or obstructed Congress, there would be a cognizable basis for impeachment. However, we have not seen evidence to support such an allegation.

The scope of the impeachment standard was a matter of passionate disagreement in both both the Clinton and Trump impeachments. I testified in both impeachments as a constitutional expert on the standard (here and here).

During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason wanted to include a broad scope for impeachable offenses, covering everything that could “subvert the Constitution.” He failed. The Framers rejected terms ranging from “corruption,” obtaining office by improper means, betraying one’s trust to a foreign power, “negligence,” “perfidy,” “peculation” and “oppression.” All these were rejected along with “maladministration” and kept off the Constitution’s list of impeachable offenses.

An impeachment over the border crisis would be based on a type of maladministration or negligence theory. The danger of such a broad, ill-defined standard is obvious. It would convert the impeachment clause into a type of vote of no confidence and allow the removal of a president whenever the opposing party gains enough votes in the two houses. That is why I previously disagreed with calls for impeachment over Afghanistan and other such debacles. It is also the reason the Framers rejected these broader standards.

Many presidents have been viewed as “failures” by critics but that it not what impeachment is designed to address.

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.”

When we make someone president, we give them tremendous power and tremendous discretion in wielding that power. Such discretionary judgments are protected for even low level federal officials. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) contains a major exception called the the discretionary function exception to protect officials from lawsuits for poor judgments. If a president uses poor judgment, you can refuse a second term or use the checks and balances of the system to counteract his mistakes.

Past presidents have made breathtaking mistakes from the Bay of Pigs to wars like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, those judgments have not been deemed high crimes and misdemeanors. Otherwise, you create the basis for the impeachment of virtually any president.

I believe that the Democrats did great harm to the impeachment process in the use of snap impeachments and poorly drafted articles against Trump. The Republicans should not follow the same casual approach to the constitutional standard or process.

172 thoughts on “No, President Biden Should Not Be Impeached For Lax Border Security”

  1. Impeachable offense?? Biden should be commended for allowing 2 million illegal aliens into the country. All part of the great replacement. Leftists love the creation and maintenance of a new victim class and “conservative” business interests like cheap labor. What’s there not to like?

    antonio

  2. In America we keep statistics on everything. How is it then that no statistics on how many illegal immigrants have been tested for Covid? How many illegal immigrants have actually had Covid? It’s curious that in a world of statistics no information on Covid brought into the U.S. through immigrants can be found. They must all have immigrant natural immunity?? Maybe a preference is being applied. Ya think?

    1. “ How many illegal immigrants have actually had Covid?”

      That shouldn’t be an issue. We Americans don’t need to worry about covid. We, after all, are against mask mandates and vaccine mandates AND we all have that wonderful natural immunity we all got from the first exposure to covid. Plus there’s always invermectin available should you need an extra precaution.

      1. Precious illegal immigrants are not tested for covid because they will not be here for a long period of time (according to Jen Psaki). It is also my understanding that they cannot spread it, akin to liberals when they get together for social events.

        Now if you want to attend church, that is deadly and must be strictly controlled.

        antonio

    2. Let’s start with the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States. We have been told for the last 20 years it is 11 million. It never changes…RIGHT??? They are lying to us again.

  3. Jonathon, you’ve drunk far more deeply from the spring of constitutional history than this lawyer. I wonder whether the 60 vote requirement in the Impeachment clause is the inspiration for the Senate filibuster rule.

    1. I rarely disagree with Professor Turley, but I believe that failure to honor his oath of office – “to faithfully execute the laws….” – is sufficient basis for impeachment. Refusal to follow existing law just because you don’t like it is clearly presidential malfeasance.

      1. Skipkirkwood,

        “ Refusal to follow existing law just because you don’t like it is clearly presidential malfeasance.”

        Which law/s are you referring to? Surely you can provide an example.

  4. More proof that Turley is a NeverTrumper. He is not vindictive and out to seek revenge against Democrats, e.g., Newt Gingrich:

    “Cheney hits Gingrich for saying Jan. 6 panel members may be jailed”

    This article stated:

    “You’re going to have a Republican majority in the House and a Republican majority in the Senate. And all of these people who have been so tough and so mean and so nasty are going to be delivered subpoenas,” Gingrich said, adding the lawmakers heading up the commission are “just running over the law.”

    “And I think when you have a Republican Congress, this is all going to come crashing down,” he continued. “And the wolves are going to find out they are now sheep and they’re the ones who are going to face a real risk of, I think, jail for the kind of laws they’re breaking.”

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/591007-cheney-hits-gingrich-for-saying-jan-6-panel-members-may-be-jailed

    Turley has not objected publicly against the committee investigating Trump for the riot on 1/6 because he supports it! He actually called for Trump’s Congressional censure for his “reckless” 1/6 speech. How then can he be opposed to Congress investigating the events leading up to this “desecration” of our Capitol as he called it. You don’t just “move on” after a desecration.

    But wouldn’t you Trumpists have loved it had Turley called the 1/6 investigation a “witch-hunt”? Not gonna happen….

    1. Professor TURLEY is a very forgiving person. Not like the dims that impeached President Trump twice.

      1. Bob says:

        “Professor TURLEY is a very forgiving person. Not like the dims that impeached President Trump twice.”

        He is also NOT a name-caller like you in calling Democrats “dims.”

        Turley objects to name-calling:

        “Trump often uses juvenile or insulting nicknames for those who oppose him, from “Sleepy Joe Biden” to “Crooked Hillary” to “Pencil Neck” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2019/08/19/myside-bias-how-the-democrats-are-becoming-more-trump-like-and-why-no-one-seems-to-notice/

        BE MORE LIKE TURLEY.

              1. Turley is not a liberal of today’s standards. Today’s liberals are better known as fascists. I don’t think Turley qualifies as a Never Trumper.

                1. You are wrong there as well. Your rejection of Trump and his policies is quite different than Turley’s. Turley even was part of Trump’s defense of impeachment. Turley has a mind. You don’t have one, but you do have a mouth that spews hate and ignorance.

                  1. Gee, Meyer, just last night you were saying “Stop with the name calling.”

                    You post more insults than anyone else here, and many of them are quite vile.

                    Jeff clearly has a mind and is more civil than you are.

                    1. I am very civil and polite. That in this free-for-all, some are insulted is too bad. Jeff deserves derision and insult. I’ll forget about his continuous broad-based insults, but to libel the blog owner demonstrates a particularly repugnant individual. To be so repetitive is like chalk screeching over the blackboard, unnecessary for all concerned.

                      Are we going to now get into another debate where you nitpick your way through ending at the starting point?

              1. “Trumpist” is not a pejorative. It simply means “a supporter of Trump.” It is no more offensive than the word “Leftist.” Calling someone a “liar” is not name-calling. It is simply describing the bad conduct of a person. It is no different than calling someone a “rapist” if he engaged in that conduct. You no doubt disagree that Trumpists are liars, but they to this day believe that they election was stolen. Turley refutes it. Trumpists are lying.

                1. So we agree! “Dims” is not a pejorative, it simply describes a democrat, much the same as leftist, marxist, fascist, socialist, communist, Karen, and Brandon.

                  And yes, the election was stolen and Epstein did not kill himself.

                  1. “Dims” is a pejorative because it suggests that Democrats are “dim.” Admittedly, it is not name calling per se since I would agree that some Democrats are dim, but most aren’t despite what you may believe. However, all Trumpists who believe the election was stolen *are* lying because as Turley has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence of massive voter fraud has never materialized.

                    Who killed Epstein? To what end? All the incriminating evidence are on the Cd-roms in the hands of the police. What good would it do to silence Epstein? The cd-roms speak for itself.

                    1. You are an attorney, so you should know better, but for some reason, you don’t. That is a mark against the legal profession.

                      A person may have killed with impunity, but the evidence able to be obtained might not be sufficient even if circumstances point to the killer killing off witnesses.

                    2. I’ll grant that ‘Dims’ could be considered a pejorative per your explanation. By the same measure, it would seem that ‘Dumbocrat’, no matter how accurate it may be at times, would also be a pejorative because it disparages the minority of democrats that are not truly dumb. I’ll make a note to avoid these terms.

                      So, we are left with the ‘lying trumpists’ who believe that 2020 was stolen and the ‘lying lefties’ who believe that 2016 was stolen, that 2020 was the most secure election ever (!!), and that 2022 and 2024 will be stolen. What to do?

                      BTW, Turley’s statement that evidence that the election was stolen ‘never materialized’ was in reference to the various election lawsuits that took place after the election. He said; “ After the 2020 election, some of us expressed skepticism over the claims of widespread fraud but waited to see the evidence presented in court. That evidence never materialized…”

                      Prior to you enlightening me about pejoratives, I would have commented that it is disingenuous of you to take Turley’s statement out of context by implying that he has stated that there is, to date, absolutely no evidence of election fraud. However, having been enlightened on pejoratives, I will say that YOU ARE A LYING LEFTIST!

                      Is JS a liar? Check!
                      Is JS a leftist? Check!
                      No pejoratives issued. Check!!

                      Thanks Jeff!

                    3. I don’t believe the 2016 was stolen. There is no concrete evidence that Putin’s efforts made a difference in the vote. The belief that 2016 was stolen is held by very few Leftists compared to the vast majority of Trumpists who claim that 2020 election was stolen and/or rigged.

                      What is the difference between evidence not materializing and evidence not existing? In either event, there is no proof that the election was stolen, and saying that it was is a lie because you know there is no evidence. Period. Turley is against spreading this lie. Remember that his employer, Fox, is being sued for billions for broadcasting this lie to its viewers and defaming 2 election companies in the process. Trumpist lawyers are being sued, sanctioned by courts, and having their law licenses threatened. 700 rioters broke the law on account of this lie.

                      Turley is not on the side of Trumpists because he is NOT a liar.

                    4. “The belief that 2016 was stolen is held by very few Leftists ”

                      Yet vying for the 2024 Democrat nominee for President lies one of the most devious politicians, Hillary Clinton, who still complains the 2016 election was stolen. I wonder how she will fare since so few believe her.

                    5. Jeff,

                      I commented about the ‘lying lefties’ who believe that 2016 was stolen, that 2020 was the most secure election ever (!!), and that 2022 and 2024 will be stolen.”

                      You replied that you do not believe that the 2016 election was stolen. I accept your word on this and I commend you, we agree!

                      However, your failure to contest the charge that you believe that “2020 was the most secure ever but the 2022 and 2024 elections will be stolen” clearly indicates that you are guilty as charged.

                      Turley recently wrote a column describing these beliefs as the Democrat’s “Big Lie”. He went on to say those that push this lie are no different than Trump telling his “Big Lie”. That you hold these beliefs would certainly make you a LYING LEFTIST in Turley’s eyes!

                    6. Ray says:

                      “However, your failure to contest the charge that you believe that “2020 was the most secure ever but the 2022 and 2024 elections will be stolen” clearly indicates that you are guilty as charged.”

                      I don’t know if 2020 was the most secure election ever. How would I know? I don’t believe that ANY election can be stolen without it being discovered after the fact with auditing. Thus, I assume that ALL elections are legitimate.
                      Am I clear now?

                      You say:

                      “Turley recently wrote a column describing these beliefs as the Democrat’s “Big Lie”. He went on to say those that push this lie are no different than Trump telling his “Big Lie”. That you hold these beliefs would certainly make you a LYING LEFTIST in Turley’s eyes!”

                      I don’t believe that Democrats are immune from lying. Turley acknowledges that Trump is a liar for his stating that the election was stolen without any evidence. Turley simply hopes that Democrats will not lie about elections like Trumpists. Turley wants Democrats to be better than lying Trumpists.

                    7. Jeff,

                      Turley’s recent article mentioned Trump’s “Big Lie” about the 2020 election only because it was needed as a preface to his commentary on the fact that the democrats are now telling a “Big Lie” about the coming 2022 and 2024 elections. The democrat’s “Big Lie” is not a hypothetical nor did Turley’s article present it as such. It is a fact as evidenced Biden’s comments during his recent press conference.

                      I know that Turley wants both sides to stop the lies because he is JUST LIKE ME; we do not lie and we consider liars to be contemptible! It is certain that Turley would consider you to be a CONTEMPTIBLE LEFTIST LIAR!!

                    8. Ray says:

                      “I know that Turley wants both sides to stop the lies”

                      Then we agree. We just don’t agree on which side tells the most lies.

                    9. People can’t be lying about what they believe. They especially aren’t lying, because people like you refuse to look at the evidence that the election was indeed rigged on multiple fronts. Even, if you just consider the four years plus every form of media spent demonizing and conditioning people around the world to feel justified in hating President Trump. That tremendous amount of influence was a very powerful form of election rigging. I know tor a fact that positive things President Trump did were never reported on by any mainstream media station or social media platforms. Conversely, not one of the crimes committed or lies told by Joe Biden have seen the light of day since he became the nominee.

                2. Jeff,

                  Yes, we agree. Turley sees people like me who do not lie as compatriots and he see people like you who do lie as contemptible leftist liars.

            1. Your RECENT attempt to align yourself with the views of the good professor are frankly laughable. I would suggest that the professor has and will be as critical of Biden and Democrats as he was of Trump, and Biden is only one year in. Your constant reference to “carnival snake charmer” is also laughable, dating back eleven years to 2011? If the professor currently felt so negative about Trump, he could easily have declined to serve as witness to Trump’s defense before Congress-he certainly was not a compelled witness-and he could have suggested someone else to testify. Further, he could have remained totally silent on the impeachment-and he was not. He also favorably viewed and predicted the success of some of Trump’s decisions that were ultimately upheld before SCOTUS. This is why he deserves our respect, and his blog is valuable, because he can rise above politics. You, apparently, cannot.

              1. It isn’t recent. All along, Jeff’s comments have emphasized that he agrees with Turley about a lot, but criticizes Turley’s consistent choice not to condemn Fox for behavior that Turley condemns in other media.

                Whether Turley rises above politics is a matter of opinion. You think he does. I think he doesn’t. I think his failure to do so is regularly demonstrated — especially by his choices of column topics versus news that he’s silent about, and by his cherrypicking of evidence in his arguments.

                  1. People may have different opinions, but should be able to agree on the facts. If I made a factual error, I’d like to correct it. What do you believe my factual errors to be?

                    1. “All along, Jeff’s comments have emphasized that he agrees with Turley a lot…” No, this is a recent phenomenon. Go back one year (and apparently before that) and look at his comments. I speak of personal knowledge regarding “one year and back.” Someone else commented that going back farther evinces the same.

                    2. It’s not actually that easy to find comments of Jeff’s prior to 2021. But here’s one I found from 2018 where he talks about Turley making “sober points” and says “I respect Turley’s legal judgment but not where he renders it”:
                      https://jonathanturley.org/2018/05/29/tweetstorms-how-a-couple-of-trump-tweets-unleashed-a-torrent-of-rage-filled-messages/comment-page-1/#comment-1742349

                      Sounds like general agreement with Turley to me. His complaint is about Turley appearing on Fox. FWIW, I’ve been commenting here for less than 2 years, so this was the first time I saw that comment from 2018.

                      How about you give some examples of a few of the older comments that you’re referring to? I’ll change my mind in response to evidence rather than hearsay.

                      To be clear, I wasn’t claiming that every single comment from Jeff expresses agreement with Turley, as a number don’t mention Turley at all. I’m saying that for as long as I’ve been reading Jeff’s comments, when Jeff has mentioned Turley, he’s expressed a lot of agreement with Turley. The only two things I’ve ever seen him challenge Turley on are issues related to Fox and whether good speech is truly an effective antidote to bad speech. But I haven’t read every comment he’s posted here, so I’m open to changing my mind if there’s convincing evidence.

                    3. Thanks Anonymous. You are quite correct. My complaints are 2: First, Turley’s abject hypocrisy in ignoring the patent advocacy journalism at Fox and the unmitigated rage emanating from his Fox colleagues. Second, his belief that liars and hate-mongers ought to be tolerated and not retaliated against by “Little Brother” and citizens alike.

                      Interestingly, Turley’s attitude about banning people may have evolved since joining Fox. I believe he was not working for Fox at the time he wrote this:

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2018/05/11/white-house-aide-and-former-fox-expert-mock-mccain-as-dying-and-a-traitor/

                      Turley wrote:

                      “Most Americans rightfully view Sen. John McCain as a genuine war hero and American icon. That view is not shared by President Donald Trump’s supporters, it would appear. Kelly Sadler, a special assistant to the presidend, is under fire for telling staff that they should laugh off McCain’s opposition to Gina Haspel as CIA director over her record of torture because his opinion “doesn’t matter” since “he’s dying anyway.” On Fox Business, Thomas McInerney, a former Fox News military analyst, rebuked McCain by saying torture clearly “worked for John” and that is why is calling “Songbird John” for cracking under torture.”

                      Quite an indictment of Trumpists who agree with Trump’s vile opinion of McCain who served this country militarily unlike Trump who evaded it.

                      Turley concludes:

                      “McInnerney’s comments to Charles Payne has led him to be barred from any further appearances on Fox and Payne has apologized.

                      “I have long shared McCain’s view of waterboarding and I do not support the Haspel nomination on that basis, including her destruction of tapes when investigations began into the torture program (To his credit, Trump at least is honest and refers to waterboarding as torture, but insists that he supports the use of torture). However, this is a more fundamental problem of civility and decency. The sheer hatred and anger often vented in our public debate is chilling. People no longer listen to others or care about how their words can be hurtful or hateful. We are losing not just our collective demeanor but our decency as a nation in these divisive political times.”
                      —————

                      First, Turley notes that Trump believes in torturing people. Do you think Turley would support a President who does? How many times do I have to demonstrate that Turley is a Never Trumper?

                      Second, nowhere in this article does Turley condemn Fox for banning McInerney! Isn’t that mystifying? Turley never fails to criticize universities and companies censoring people for their hateful free speech. But no complaint in 2018.

                      However, I have pointed out that Fox has more recently banned every Trumpist lawyer who peddled the rigged election lie without any pushback by Turley. So, perhaps, Turley is being consistent in not condemning Fox for censoring Trumpists on account of their unpopular speech. It is impossible to know the limits of his free speech philosophy since he won’t engage in any discussion.

        1. You people act like private citizen Trump didn’t exist prior to becoming President. Unless, someone who hates him wants to use his past against him. He has been a public figure all of his adult like. His personality is the same that its always been. His making up nicknames for people is nothing new. He only does that towards people who have insulted him. Hell, Joe Biden said he wanted to beat him That is much worse than a nickname based on observable attributes. Making up nicknames for people is nothing. Compared to spending multiple years trying to ruin a man’s life, marriage, and businesses. How many different Democrats and RINOS are using the offices they hold to violate several of President Trump’s Constitutional rights right now?

  5. With Trump, the Dems sought political theater and used impeachment as a method to discredit a President they hated. As Turley has pointed out numerous times, the impeachments lacked substance and were poorly thought out and even more poorly executed. None of the charges brought had any substantial basis other than “Orange Man Bad.”.

    The problem before us beginning in January of next year with the new Congress, with presumably Republican majorities, is how far can they let an incompetent President go before the harm becomes permanent. This biggest danger is not Joe Biden but the unnamed ideological bureaucrats that work in the agencies making rules with a very leftist agenda. The remarks made by the SCOTUS conservative justices re: the Chevron Doctrine provide hope but only if a Republican-led Congress has the intestinal fortitude to reign in the Administrative State.

    Impeachment is not really an option because the result, under conviction, would be a Harris Presidency which I’m not convinced would raise the competency level in office by very much.

  6. I disagree with Professor Turley on this. one.

    The Presidential Oath:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    I construe that to mean that as the Senior most Law Enforcement Officer of the United States being head of the Executive Branch of our government….has a Duty to see that Federal Law is carried out as authorized by Congress.

    We have Immigration Laws….lots of them…all properly enacted by Congress and signed by Presidents….per the US Constitution.

    The President has a duty to ensure Federal Law and its administration is faithfully carried out.

    That duty re immigration law is no different than enforcing Tax Law or how the FBI operates….or how DEA combats drug smuggling…or how the FAA operates the National Airway system.

    He is granted wide discretion but is not exempt from the language of the Law.

    If Congress wrote the Law so as to grant the President the authority to interpret the Law as he wishes…..then the President is within the scope of his duties should he take action with the bounds allowed per the text of the Law itself.

    What is going on at the Southern Border is a political act…..not one of just lax law enforcement….it is intentional and shows utter contempt for the Immigration Laws extant.

    That to me….constitutes dereliction of duty by President. Biden and thus in my mind equates to a high crime and misdemeanor which is grounds for Articles of Impeachment.

    I shall wait for the Professor to prove me wrong on this one.

    When he told the Democrats how they could successfully Impeach President Trump….I agreed with him despite being a Trump Supporter.

    He was right then….and the Democrats refused to listen to him and lost…..TWICE.

    The Professor has a very good record of being correct in his analysis re Impeachments.

    1. Just because previous Presidents were not impeached for their “breathtakingly bad decisions” is no reason to stop an impeachment on this one.
      Sure, the Democrats polluted the entire meaning of impeachment with what they did with Trump, but that should not stop the Republicans from impeaching Biden for actual high crimes and misdemeanors, especially with such an orgy of evidence.

      The Rule of Law applies to everyone – or no one at all.

    2. Ralph, com’on man, it’s only an oath. Next we’ll be able to lie under oath and it won’t be a felony. See how far we’ve come.

  7. The first term of any president or governor is largely determined by the previous administration – good or bad. So a good first term economy is largely credited to the previous administration.

    Biden (who dozens of GOP appointed judges determined to be the legitimate president) didn’t create Covid and didn’t destroy many of America’s foreign relationships. Not all Trump’s fault but he inherited a mess.

    George Bush inherited a balance budget from Bill Clinton in his first term. Obama inherited a highly indebted nation from Bush, then Obama brought down the deficit just below what Bush left him. Even if you deduct wartime expenses, Bush’s liberal spending was outrageous for non-war and non-national security spending.

    Trump essentially inherited Bush’s deficit credit card bill. Trump then put more on the nation’s credit card then handed it to Biden to pay the bill during a pandemic.

    Biden is not perfect, like all leaders, but give credit where credit is due. Biden’s biggest perceived blunder was pulling out troops from Afghanistan too fast but soldiers were committing suicide daily at a high rate of PTSD. Compared to the average tours in Vietnam, troops in Afghanistan served unprecedented tours of duty contributing to a very high suicide rate. Biden was in a no-win situation but ultimately may have saved more troops in the longterm.

    In the true life documentary “Why We Fight” in 2006, military experts warned that excessively numerous tours of duty for soldiers would destroy the military. This is what Biden was up against. When Bush was in office, Republicans claimed it was highly disloyal for any American to criticize the Commander-In-Chief during wartime. What changed?

    1. George Bush inherited a balance budget from Bill Clinton Speaker Gingrich in his first term

      Learn separation of powers.

      1. If one takes the entire budget of the US into account, then GWB was the only recent President that had a balanced budget during his term of office.

    2. Credit where credit is due means not attributing spending to the President. Congress has the power of the purse. Constitutionally, it’s their primary purpose. So stop repeating the lies.

    3. Well, one doesn’t need to question where your political loyalties lie. Neither , Barak Obama or Joe Biden, have never so much as run a popsicle stand, but they were suddenly economic geniuses once in the White House. Private citizen Trump has an MBA from Wharton, and has led most successful national and international business his entire adult life, but he was economically incompetent? That’s as absurd as suggesting that judges who hated President Trump didn’t just use him for his endorsements. Then, happily joined in the collusion to rob him of his deserved second term. Biden didn’t create COVID. Neither, did President Trump. Yet, Biden and Cuomo, both said President Trump murdered every American who died from COVID! Funny, nobody is saying that about Biden now. Biden, left Afghanistan due to some fantasy about being out by 9/11. In order to do that, he completely closed a functioning military base there and pulled out all the soldiers, abandoning hundreds of Americans and committing the treasonous act of leaving the Taliban billions of dollars worth of weapons. It is crazy, how much you people are willing to overlook that has been done by Joe Biden that’s harms Americans. While, just regurgitating every negative accusation against President Trump no matter how contrived.

  8. Although I believe in principal that Professor Turley is correct, in my view, the Pandora’s box has been open and there is no going back. The only reservation I have would be that if Biden were successfully impeached then Harris would take his place. Progressives fight an asymmetric war and sadly adhering to conventional rules is no longer a viable strategy.

  9. President Biden has been violating title 42 since taking office, and continues to do so today. President Trump would have been successfully impeached for the things this President is purposely doing at our border, and there would have been investigation after investigation into all of the other failures and questionable dealings that Biden and his family are involved in. Prof. Turley is wrong on this one.

  10. The Democrats have done and continue to damage the nation, if not for Biden’s cognitive decline alone he should be removed from office. Although I agree with the professor the best way to deal with the Democrats is through elections. Maybe if the Republicans can gain enough power they can deal with them through criminal prosecution?? Here’s the problem every time socialist, communist, fascist dictatorship has been left to grow, destruction and death accompanied them. The Democrats as many Americans are waking to are dangerous and destructive.

  11. We know Pelosi has expanded the Capital Police to set up offices in 6 major cities. We learned this week the Capital Police have an intelligence side. They are running background checks on every person that speaks to a congress critter, attends a meeting or rally. The ownship of venues rented to hold events, vetting to identify any foreign involvement. Doing deep dives on citizens social media accounts. (Jan 6 riot? Totally taken by surpise…had no idea)
    In effect, Pelosi has created her own private Gestapo. There is no Article I power to “police” in the Constitution.

    1. The Capitol Police are responsible for protecting members of Congress, analogous to the Secret Service protection of the President and VP. The USCP have some temporary field offices because some MoCs are getting death threats. The Secret Service run background checks. Do you consider them the Gestapo too?

      1. The FBI, Marshall’s, Homeland Security, State and local police. There is no need to expand the Capital Police. The Constitution affords Congress has NO POLICE POWERS. But Pelosi is now running her private gestapo that has zero accountability.

        1. Actually, Congress can do all sorts of things through legislation, as long as the Constitution doesn’t make the legislation unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the Constitution preventing the creation of the USCP via legislation, which is how it was created, signed into law by the President, never determined by any court to be unconstitutional, no matter how fervently you believe that.

          1. There’s nothing in the Constitution preventing the creation of the USCP via legislation

            Jurisdiction is the legal hurdle. Does the Capital Police supersede the jurisdiction of the Florida Dept of Investigations. State Police of Florida? Dade County Sheriff? Miami Police Department? But again we are back to Congress running a police dept. No article I powers enumerated. 10th amendment would control.

            1. Congress has enumerated Article I powers to pass whatever legislation they see fit that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit. You claim that the 10th Amendment prohibits the existence of the USCP. Name a court ruling that agrees with you.

              As for jurisdiction, I suggest that you read 2 US Code 1978 to learn their jurisdiction.

              If you think they’re doing something illegal in some state, notify the state’s AG.

  12. I disagree, JT. The open defiance of INA Statute, the debasement of national sovereignty, the defilement of Oath of Office — these cause a Separation of Powers Crisis and are grounds for Impeachment. The threat of Impeachment come Jan ’23 should be used to “nudge” Biden into not repeating the disaster of 2022.

  13. Sad to think that the Democrats should be allowed to pull anything out of a hat and impeach on that basis and they are to be forgiven, but the Republicans must be the better people and ignore what was done to Trump and not do the same. I realize that Republicans are held to a higher standard but to actually say that we should ignore what the Democrats have done and are currently doing to our Republic is ignoring the blatant fact that they are and have been misusing the Constitutional powers they have been given to turn our country into a sh-t hole like other third world countries.

  14. Actually, if you read the immigration – related portions of the criminal code, which I encourage you to do, they are exceptionally broad. Intentionally doing any act that assists an illegal alien to avoid deportation is a crime. That is literally the policy of the Administration. So, whether or not it’s a good idea, I would say that Biden is as a matter of law, impeachable.

  15. Elections are the best way to remove an ineffective, incompetent, feeble person from office
    That’s the leftists dream. Abuse their power,knowing the Republicans will roll over to get their belly rubbed.
    What you ignore is the term of President Trump. 6 years of the FBI, DoJ, Intelligence Community, the State Dept, and local prosecutors abusing their power to effectively remove the power of the Presidency from the President.

  16. All true Professor. But we are in the midst of the J6 committee using their power to look for crimes. That violates the Constitution. But no one has standing. or has standing but cant find an attorney to represent them, or the cash to pay them. Federal govt abuse of its mammoth level of unchecked power. In my mind the only solution is mutual assured destruction. Investigate Pelosi, her kids, and siblings. Force them to spend $millions defending themselves from the unlimited resources of the federal government.

    1. What bunk.

      The Supreme Court ruled on a J6 case a week ago. Trump had standing in the case, found an attorney, and presumably paid them. He lost. SCOTUS doesn’t agree with you that Congress lacks constitutional power for their investigation.

      1. SCOTUS doesn’t agree with you that Congress lacks constitutional power for their investigation.

        That is no where in the SCOTUS ruling. What was in the ruling that Presidents out of office do have a say into making their papers public, or accessible under warrant…Except President Trump. He is a one of. The SCOTUS ruling is limited to exactly one President ONLY.

        1. I would have thought this obvious, but if the House J6 investigation were unconstitutional, they’d have said so and ruled in Trump’s favor.

          1. Virtue is not a characteristic of the Democrat Party of today.

            Some choose to govern by hook or by crook instead of being “sincere friends of liberty.”

            ” the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

            —-
            The sincere friends of liberty who give themselves up to the extravagancies of this passion are not aware of the injury they do their own cause. As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

            PUBLIUS ( Madison)

          2. Congress has enumerated power to investigate the Executive Branch. Thus the power to subpoena White House Papers. SCOTUS was very clear that the Presidents power be private in their deliberative communications. Except President Trump.

            1. That’s NOT what SCOTUS ruled.

              They simply said:
              “The application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is denied. The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns. The Court of Appeals, however, had no occasion to decide these questions … Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision. … Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump’s status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta.”

    2. Iowan2,

      “ All true Professor. But we are in the midst of the J6 committee using their power to look for crimes. That violates the Constitution. But no one has standing. or has standing but cant find an attorney to represent them, or the cash to pay them.”

      Mmmm…the constitution gives congress the power to investigate. The Jan 6 committee isn’t looking for crimes. They are investigating the people involved. There’s a distinction. If they find evidence that criminal conduct did occur they refer it to the DOJ where they determine if charges are warranted. This is the legal process that is very much constitutional.

      Those who can’t afford an attorney they can get a public defender just like everyone else.

        1. What part of “If they find evidence that criminal conduct did occur they refer it to the DOJ where they determine if charges are warranted” do you not understand?

          The DOJ is not Congress. If the DOJ indicts someone, that person can choose to have a public defender.

          1. There were reasons to prevent “Bills of Attainder” This isn’t one. Still, Democrats are using an abbreviated process to effectuate a Bill of Attainder and, in the process, violate the civil rights of many people. The process may or may not be OK from a strictly legal point of view, but what is being done is wrong, and civil rights violations in many cases seem to be illegal.

            1. The investigation hasn’t produced anything like a bill of attainder, and it’s striking that you don’t name anyone whose civil rights you believe have been violated.

              Do you have a name and some evidence?

              1. Congress is going outside of its legislative power under the guise of investigation. In the process, they are violating the civil liberties of people where there is no evidence of those people being involved in a crime. Look at the requests of Congress for personal information.

                I don’t want to get into another nitpicking discussion with you because invariably, one of my commas falls in the wrong place, and you become apoplectic.

                1. In other words, you’re unable to name the person(s) whose civil liberties you believe to have been violated.

                  1. No. What I have said is clearly evident. There is no need to point out the telephone records and other records of innocent people requested, which is more typical of a despotic government. You can ask all you want for my proof the sun will rise tomorrow, and then you can nitpick your way, proving yourself to lack the ability to engage in intelligent discussion.

                2. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

                  “ Congress is going outside of its legislative power under the guise of investigation. In the process, they are violating the civil liberties of people where there is no evidence of those people being involved in a crime. Look at the requests of Congress for personal information.”

                  How is congress going outside of its legislative power? Congress literally has the power to investigate anything it deems worthy of investigation. They investigated Hillary Clinton for years and sought personal information. This is no different.

                  The committing of a crime is not a requirement for congress to investigate.

                  1. Anonymous, you like to argue for no reason at all. Look at the pages of documents that stemmed from my central point to Svelaz that BioNTech was not approved and was legally different than Comirnaty. You nitpick, and no matter what questions are answered, you always have more questions but seldom answers that make sense or don’t conflict with your prior statements.

                    Many innocent people whose names were never known were wrapped into the Congressional investigation despite violating their civil liberties. Such things are not supposed to occur. Just like unmasking is not supposed to occur. Just like spying on a Presidential campaign is not supposed to occur. Just like creating false documents (Steele Dossier) is not supposed to occur.

                    In each of these instances, you argued in the same fashion. Denial is primary and then non-stop requests for information along with requests for more picayune details. Such actions in a court of law would eventually prompt the judge to throw you out.

                    After your last debacle involving the approval of Comirnaty but not BioNTech, I’m throwing you out. You are not an honest broker. You have turned out wrong in all the issues mentioned and more.

                    When Madison talked about the necessity of virtue to maintain the fragile republic being created, he worried about those who were very much like you.

          2. “ The DOJ is not Congress. If the DOJ indicts someone, that person can choose to have a public defender.”

            Congress can provide evidence to the DOJ and the DOJ can decide whether to prosecute. Congress can gather evidence thru it’s constitutional power to investigate.

        2. George, anyone has a right to a public defender when charges are brought against anyone. Being investigated doesn’t require the need for a public defender…yet. Only when charges and arrests are made. Jan 6 rioters in jail have a right to a public defender.

      1. Those who can’t afford an attorney they can get a public defender just like everyone else.

        If you are fighting abuse of federal power you need a civil lawyer, not criminal. You are talking about criminal law. Try to keep up

        1. Howard Root – Five Heart-Stopping Years as a CEO on the Feds’ Hit-List

          The best explanation and example of the abuse by federal prosecutors I have ever heard. This video is chilling and demonstrates why many have been accused and settled. Howard Root is one of the only persons who ever won a case of this nature. It cost millions of dollars and demonstrated how the government prosecutors intimidated people into testifying against Root and how Root won.

          f48173abe4?embedded=true&source=video_title&owner=46627472

          1. S. Meyer

            Thanks for the video.

            Frightening.

            People need to understand what prosecutors are doing.

            1. Thank you for watching. I hope others who have not yet done so watch this video learning how the powerful backed by the government can destroy lives without concern or penalty.

        2. Iowan2, a public defender is any lawyer. Whether for civil or criminal. You’re entitled to defend yourself from said “abuse”. The purpose is legal representation. You’re entitled to public legal representation.

  17. Just because Impeachment was used as a weapon against Trump by the Democrats doesn’t mean that has to be the new normal or should be. I think the current Congressional J6 committee has turned into Impeachment 3.0 against Trump. They aren’t using the “I” word but this has become the nation’s first preemptive impeachment investigation, an attempt to disqualify or weaken a person who may be president in the future. Every member of the committee voted in favor of Trump’s Impeachment and removing him in the past. Every leaked testimony or report centers on him or members of his circle.

    But I would never want to be as myopic, petty, inauthentic as this era’s Democrats. “Because they did it,” is NEVER a reason to do anything.

    1. What “leaked testimony or report” are you referring to?

      And if you look at the public testimony, such as the hearing where the four LEOs testified, Trump barely came up.

      1. The latest is a draft copy of an executive order that no person in the White House authored. How is that public knowledge? That’s just one. There are dozens more.

        Just another example of commenting about a subject of which you have zero knowledge.

        1. a) That’s neither testimony nor a report.
          b) You’ve presented no evidence that it was leaked by the Committee.
          c) The Committee chair made a public statement about it, which is also not a leak.

  18. We are better than the Dems; we don’t need to weaken the country with another impeachment.

    Let’s take congress and let the old geezer become (more) irrelevant.

    Hey Lefty voters, elections have consequences – live with Biden.

  19. There is no reason for the Republicans to go down the same path as the D’s. Elections are the best way to remove an ineffective, incompetent, feeble person from office

Leave a Reply