- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/27268080
House Republican investigators accused President Joe Biden of engaging in “impeachable conduct” as part of a long-awaited report. It’s unlikely to change a reality the party has faced for months: They don’t have the votes to impeach him.
The 291-page report released Monday by the Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means committees comes roughly eight months after Republicans formalized their impeachment inquiry against the president. Their sweeping investigations, largely focused on the business deals of Biden’s family members, have gone on even longer, informally starting around the time they first took the House majority in January 2023.
Republicans on the committees are accusing Biden of two offenses they argue meet the bar for impeachable conduct: abuse of power and obstruction. They’re the same charges that House Democrats cited in the 2019 impeachment against then-President Donald Trump — an inquiry frequently mentioned in the House GOP report.
“The Constitution’s remedy for a President’s flagrant abuse of office is clear: impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate,” the committees write in the report, adding they are releasing the report to the House “for its evaluation and consideration of appropriate next steps.”
She would be the incumbent at that point. The Democrats have a Biden problem. This would allow them to remove the problem and get Kamala some early attention.
If she goes through the normal cycle, she will most likely lose. Both sides have attacked her first policy discussions as horrible. That is only going to get worse as she starts to debate and push her agenda.
Except Biden isn’t running? How do they have a “Biden problem” if he isn’t even running for election?
What are you basing that on?
Have you not kept up on any of the news? Biden is still seen as a liability to the party. The quicker they get him out, the better.
Once she starts talking policies, her ratings will drop like a rock. There is a reason why she has lost the primaries in the past. She doesn’t have good policies.
Cite your statements. Don’t dodge the question.
@breadsmasher @wintermute_oregon #Reuters themselves did say that the #DNC is expected to be “vibe-heavy, policy-light”, which could signal that #KamalaHarris’ policies, at least internally, are viewed more as a liability than an asset.
https://x.com/Reuters/status/1825533278192837040
They are a huge liability, which is why they are trying to avoid them. Her policies will cause massive inflation and instability in the economy.
What specifically do you find confusing? Do you think Kamala is just going to skate into the office? Nobody is predicting that.
I suggest you read Nate Silver, who has discussed this topic extensively.
Dodge. Dodge. Dodge the questions!
This is why no one bothers engaging with you.
Who said anything was confusing? I am trying to work out where you are getting your position from. Apparently the best you can do is state “Read Nate Silver”.
I guess your position then is just regurgitate whatever Nate Silver says?
edit
Heres Nate Silver talking about latest polls
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
I am not dodging anything. You are not being clear. Can you be more clear about what is confusing you?
Yes, read Nate Silver, as you seem ignorant about the topic, which should help educate you. You seem to think Kamala is a slam dunk to win, which is not what the experts say. Right now, she doesn’t have the 4% needed to win the national election.
Give his latest article a read. And then tell me again how “shes going to lose because nate silver said so”
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
I never said Nate said she would lose. What I said is she is not guaranteed to win. Her numbers don’t show that. What Nate has said is that once she starts to talk about policies, she may lose her lead. He has also said she needs a 4% national advantage is win, which she doesn’t have.