UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://ujrefugees.net/
There's no crime to be impeached over, only the word of people who've demonstrated they cannot be trusted. I know it goes against the very fiber of your being, but don't you want to be informed about that which you speak before you speak?
i listed the crimes that Mayorkas was impeached over. i didn't say you had to like any of them.
And none of them rise to the level of impeachment, because policy differences are not impeachment worthy. Don't you want the case for impeachment to have merit or do you only care that they satisfy their promises to their donors? You remember, those promises from way before the impeachment inquiry got under way? Before any investigation or witness testimony, they were promising to impeach. This is just stuff on the record, reasons the impeachment has no merit, no crimes committed, no good faith basis for it being conducted. Ignore it to your own detriment, I didn't say you had to like it but it still exists.
oh, there were crimes committed. i listed them.dot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:52 pmAnd none of them rise to the level of impeachment, because policy differences are not impeachment worthy. Don't you want the case for impeachment to have merit or do you only care that they satisfy their promises to their donors? You remember, those promises from way before the impeachment inquiry got under way? Before any investigation or witness testimony, they were promising to impeach. This is just stuff on the record, reasons the impeachment has no merit, no crimes committed, no good faith basis for it being conducted. Ignore it to your own detriment, I didn't say you had to like it but it still exists.
Just do a little research prior to making a fool of yourself for your own sake.
dot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:52 pm And none of them rise to the level of impeachment, because policy differences are not impeachment worthy. Don't you want the case for impeachment to have merit or do you only care that they satisfy their promises to their donors? You remember, those promises from way before the impeachment inquiry got under way? Before any investigation or witness testimony, they were promising to impeach. This is just stuff on the record, reasons the impeachment has no merit, no crimes committed, no good faith basis for it being conducted. Ignore it to your own detriment, I didn't say you had to like it but it still exists.
Just do a little research prior to making a fool of yourself for your own sake.
you will find the critical flaw to your dumb logic hidden right there in the sentences that you just wrote. Hint: crimes were committed. I listed them.dot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:19 pmdot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:52 pm And none of them rise to the level of impeachment, because policy differences are not impeachment worthy. Don't you want the case for impeachment to have merit or do you only care that they satisfy their promises to their donors? You remember, those promises from way before the impeachment inquiry got under way? Before any investigation or witness testimony, they were promising to impeach. This is just stuff on the record, reasons the impeachment has no merit, no crimes committed, no good faith basis for it being conducted. Ignore it to your own detriment, I didn't say you had to like it but it still exists.
Just do a little research prior to making a fool of yourself for your own sake.
Your critical flaw continues to be swallowing the partisan hackery line whole.dot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:52 pm And none of them rise to the level of impeachment, because policy differences are not impeachment worthy. Don't you want the case for impeachment to have merit or do you only care that they satisfy their promises to their donors? You remember, those promises from way before the impeachment inquiry got under way? Before any investigation or witness testimony, they were promising to impeach. This is just stuff on the record, reasons the impeachment has no merit, no crimes committed, no good faith basis for it being conducted. Ignore it to your own detriment, I didn't say you had to like it but it still exists.
Just do a little research prior to making a fool of yourself for your own sake.
Crimes committed:dot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 7:32 pmYour critical flaw continues to be swallowing the partisan hackery line whole.dot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:52 pm And none of them rise to the level of impeachment, because policy differences are not impeachment worthy. Don't you want the case for impeachment to have merit or do you only care that they satisfy their promises to their donors? You remember, those promises from way before the impeachment inquiry got under way? Before any investigation or witness testimony, they were promising to impeach. This is just stuff on the record, reasons the impeachment has no merit, no crimes committed, no good faith basis for it being conducted. Ignore it to your own detriment, I didn't say you had to like it but it still exists.
Just do a little research prior to making a fool of yourself for your own sake.
They obviously fit the definition. Which means they are impeachable crimes.Not me, legal experts and scholars.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 7:41 pm Crimes committed:
failure to enforce laws that require the detention of migrants who lack authorization to enter the US.
exceeding his authority of allowing these people to remain free to roam about the country pending their processing.
breaching the public trust of falsely reporting the condition of the border to lawmakers
hampering the official investigation into his conduct.
Because Dot doesn't think those are "high crimes or misdemeanors"
Policy disputes are not impeachable crimes, but keep running with that mindset.dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impea ... riticized/
But legal experts warned that policy disputes, even if contentious, do not meet the constitutional impeachment threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. "If members of this committee disapprove of the Biden Administration’s immigration and border policies, the Constitution gives this Congress a wealth of legislative powers to change them—impeachment is not one of those powers," Frank Bowman, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, testified at the hearing. "Dislike of a president's policy is certainly not one of [the grounds for impeachment].”
Legal scholars agree that the purpose of impeachment is to serve as a constitutional mechanism for the removal of federal officials who engage in serious misconduct, ensuring accountability and safeguarding the integrity of the government. Impeachable actions typically encompass severe offenses such as corruption, abuse of power, or subversion of the U.S. Constitution. These criteria, often cited as high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional context, provide a framework for evaluating whether an official's conduct warrants the extraordinary measure of impeachment, a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Meanwhile, you're taking the word of people who swore upon a now criminally indicted informant's false statement. The same people that keep lying to you at every turn, keep pissing on you and telling you it's rain. And what do you do? Believe them.dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am So, not an impeachable offense. But hey, I'll throw you a bone. I got you a reason to impeach him.
https://newrepublic.com/post/178776/rep ... mpeachment
The reason to impeach him is because your side promised their donors their pound of flesh. That makes more sense, don't it?Neguse then attacked Green for attempting to unseat Mayorkas for his own political gain, referring to a New York Times article from last April that stated Green had “promised donors this month that he would produce an impeachment case against” Mayorkas.
“This is before your committee has heard from Secretary Mayorkas,” Neguse said. “It’s before you’ve had the witnesses that have apparently come before your committee. It’s before you’ve had any meaningful debate. You decide a year ago?”
The reason to impeach him is because his literal job is to protect the border. Which he has not only failed to do but he has catastrophically failed to do it. He couldn't not have conspired with every country in Latin America and done it any worse. If he was being reviewed for his job performance he would be escorted from the building by security.dot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:02 pmNot me, legal experts and scholars.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 7:41 pm Crimes committed:
failure to enforce laws that require the detention of migrants who lack authorization to enter the US.
exceeding his authority of allowing these people to remain free to roam about the country pending their processing.
breaching the public trust of falsely reporting the condition of the border to lawmakers
hampering the official investigation into his conduct.
Because Dot doesn't think those are "high crimes or misdemeanors"
Policy disputes are not impeachable crimes, but keep running with that mindset.dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impea ... riticized/
But legal experts warned that policy disputes, even if contentious, do not meet the constitutional impeachment threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. "If members of this committee disapprove of the Biden Administration’s immigration and border policies, the Constitution gives this Congress a wealth of legislative powers to change them—impeachment is not one of those powers," Frank Bowman, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, testified at the hearing. "Dislike of a president's policy is certainly not one of [the grounds for impeachment].”
Legal scholars agree that the purpose of impeachment is to serve as a constitutional mechanism for the removal of federal officials who engage in serious misconduct, ensuring accountability and safeguarding the integrity of the government. Impeachable actions typically encompass severe offenses such as corruption, abuse of power, or subversion of the U.S. Constitution. These criteria, often cited as high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional context, provide a framework for evaluating whether an official's conduct warrants the extraordinary measure of impeachment, a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Meanwhile, you're taking the word of people who swore upon a now criminally indicted informant's false statement. The same people that keep lying to you at every turn, keep pissing on you and telling you it's rain. And what do you do? Believe them.dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am So, not an impeachable offense. But hey, I'll throw you a bone. I got you a reason to impeach him.
https://newrepublic.com/post/178776/rep ... mpeachment
The reason to impeach him is because your side promised their donors their pound of flesh. That makes more sense, don't it?Neguse then attacked Green for attempting to unseat Mayorkas for his own political gain, referring to a New York Times article from last April that stated Green had “promised donors this month that he would produce an impeachment case against” Mayorkas.
“This is before your committee has heard from Secretary Mayorkas,” Neguse said. “It’s before you’ve had the witnesses that have apparently come before your committee. It’s before you’ve had any meaningful debate. You decide a year ago?”
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:17 pm The reason to impeach him is because his literal job is to protect the border. Which he has not only failed to do but he has catastrophically failed to do it. He couldn't not have conspired with every country in Latin America and done it any worse. If he was being reviewed for his job performance he would be escorted from the building by security.
dot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:02 pmPolicy disputes are not impeachable crimes, but keep running with that mindset.dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impea ... riticized/
But legal experts warned that policy disputes, even if contentious, do not meet the constitutional impeachment threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. "If members of this committee disapprove of the Biden Administration’s immigration and border policies, the Constitution gives this Congress a wealth of legislative powers to change them—impeachment is not one of those powers," Frank Bowman, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, testified at the hearing. "Dislike of a president's policy is certainly not one of [the grounds for impeachment].”
Legal scholars agree that the purpose of impeachment is to serve as a constitutional mechanism for the removal of federal officials who engage in serious misconduct, ensuring accountability and safeguarding the integrity of the government. Impeachable actions typically encompass severe offenses such as corruption, abuse of power, or subversion of the U.S. Constitution. These criteria, often cited as high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional context, provide a framework for evaluating whether an official's conduct warrants the extraordinary measure of impeachment, a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
i listed the crimes he committed. you are the one that doesn't like them. just because you don't like a crime he committed, doesn't mean it isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.dot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:39 pmAnimal wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:17 pm The reason to impeach him is because his literal job is to protect the border. Which he has not only failed to do but he has catastrophically failed to do it. He couldn't not have conspired with every country in Latin America and done it any worse. If he was being reviewed for his job performance he would be escorted from the building by security.dot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:02 pmPolicy disputes are not impeachable crimes, but keep running with that mindset.dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impea ... riticized/
But legal experts warned that policy disputes, even if contentious, do not meet the constitutional impeachment threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. "If members of this committee disapprove of the Biden Administration’s immigration and border policies, the Constitution gives this Congress a wealth of legislative powers to change them—impeachment is not one of those powers," Frank Bowman, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, testified at the hearing. "Dislike of a president's policy is certainly not one of [the grounds for impeachment].”
Legal scholars agree that the purpose of impeachment is to serve as a constitutional mechanism for the removal of federal officials who engage in serious misconduct, ensuring accountability and safeguarding the integrity of the government. Impeachable actions typically encompass severe offenses such as corruption, abuse of power, or subversion of the U.S. Constitution. These criteria, often cited as high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional context, provide a framework for evaluating whether an official's conduct warrants the extraordinary measure of impeachment, a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
You're really bad at this, just like with fraud.
It’s policy to lie to Congress?dot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:39 pmAnimal wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:17 pm The reason to impeach him is because his literal job is to protect the border. Which he has not only failed to do but he has catastrophically failed to do it. He couldn't not have conspired with every country in Latin America and done it any worse. If he was being reviewed for his job performance he would be escorted from the building by security.dot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:02 pmPolicy disputes are not impeachable crimes, but keep running with that mindset.dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impea ... riticized/
But legal experts warned that policy disputes, even if contentious, do not meet the constitutional impeachment threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. "If members of this committee disapprove of the Biden Administration’s immigration and border policies, the Constitution gives this Congress a wealth of legislative powers to change them—impeachment is not one of those powers," Frank Bowman, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, testified at the hearing. "Dislike of a president's policy is certainly not one of [the grounds for impeachment].”
Legal scholars agree that the purpose of impeachment is to serve as a constitutional mechanism for the removal of federal officials who engage in serious misconduct, ensuring accountability and safeguarding the integrity of the government. Impeachable actions typically encompass severe offenses such as corruption, abuse of power, or subversion of the U.S. Constitution. These criteria, often cited as high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional context, provide a framework for evaluating whether an official's conduct warrants the extraordinary measure of impeachment, a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
dot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impea ... riticized/
But legal experts warned that policy disputes, even if contentious, do not meet the constitutional impeachment threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. "If members of this committee disapprove of the Biden Administration’s immigration and border policies, the Constitution gives this Congress a wealth of legislative powers to change them—impeachment is not one of those powers," Frank Bowman, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, testified at the hearing. "Dislike of a president's policy is certainly not one of [the grounds for impeachment].”
Legal scholars agree that the purpose of impeachment is to serve as a constitutional mechanism for the removal of federal officials who engage in serious misconduct, ensuring accountability and safeguarding the integrity of the government. Impeachable actions typically encompass severe offenses such as corruption, abuse of power, or subversion of the U.S. Constitution. These criteria, often cited as high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional context, provide a framework for evaluating whether an official's conduct warrants the extraordinary measure of impeachment, a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I understand that you have a big problem with his policy on the border. And I understand that many people in this country dispute his decisions on policy on the border.
No, you didn't. You listed policy disputes masqueraded as crimes by the same people who've been lying to you about Joe Biden bribery schemes, that tell you they demand border security before providing aid to allies only to reject border security so they can keep refusing to provide aid to our allies. All of which are not impeachable offenses, as attested to by people that know way more than you or I do about the threshold for impeachments. So it comes down to who's more believable, the legal experts and scholars or the proven liars in Congress being directed by a criminal buffoon on trial for his many crimes against the country and its citizens. Them's the facts, you don't have to like it, but it is the reality.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:26 pm I understand that you have a big problem with his policy on the border. And I understand that many people in this country dispute his decisions on policy on the border.
But I am only talking about the crimes he committed. Whick I listed. And you don't like them.
The language of the law states very clearly that every illegal alien shall be retained in custody (DETAINED) until their admittance into the country has been determined. EVERY single one. Detained until they determine if they should be admitted.dot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:33 pmNo, you didn't. You listed policy disputes masqueraded as crimes by the same people who've been lying to you about Joe Biden bribery schemes, that tell you they demand border security before providing aid to allies only to reject border security so they can keep refusing to provide aid to our allies. All of which are not impeachable offenses, as attested to by people that know way more than you or I do about the threshold for impeachments. So it comes down to who's more believable, the legal experts and scholars or the proven liars in Congress being directed by a criminal buffoon on trial for his many crimes against the country and its citizens. Them's the facts, you don't have to like it, but it is the reality.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:26 pm I understand that you have a big problem with his policy on the border. And I understand that many people in this country dispute his decisions on policy on the border.
But I am only talking about the crimes he committed. Whick I listed. And you don't like them.
So you’re saying that yes it is policy to lie to Congress. The specific lie being that the border was secure.dot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:53 pmdot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:48 am https://time.com/6554103/mayorkas-impea ... riticized/
But legal experts warned that policy disputes, even if contentious, do not meet the constitutional impeachment threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. "If members of this committee disapprove of the Biden Administration’s immigration and border policies, the Constitution gives this Congress a wealth of legislative powers to change them—impeachment is not one of those powers," Frank Bowman, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, testified at the hearing. "Dislike of a president's policy is certainly not one of [the grounds for impeachment].”
Legal scholars agree that the purpose of impeachment is to serve as a constitutional mechanism for the removal of federal officials who engage in serious misconduct, ensuring accountability and safeguarding the integrity of the government. Impeachable actions typically encompass severe offenses such as corruption, abuse of power, or subversion of the U.S. Constitution. These criteria, often cited as high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional context, provide a framework for evaluating whether an official's conduct warrants the extraordinary measure of impeachment, a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate.