Maybe worth considering impeachment of Trump over Afghantistan withdrawal

[fescuerescue]

Biden has a done a great job given the constraints he has. Unfortunately had no power to stop the withdrawal.

Perhaps the house should consider impeaching Trump for starting this terrible process back in 2020.

[mcar]

1. I think you are missing something here

[fescuerescue]

7. Well don't hold back

Obviously he's not president anymore. But he could run again

And being in office is NOT a deterrent to being impeach. This would be for his actions in office.

[jimfields33]

2. Might as well because god forbid we lose the house next year, the republicans will

To president Biden.

[fescuerescue]

4. Exactly. This is a very real danger

But only if we lose the house.

They will impeach purely on vindictiveness.

[jimfields33]

6. Oh yeah.

That Marjorie creature already submitted impeachment articles on president Biden on January 21, 2020. Thank goodness speaker pelosi shit canned them.

[SharonClark]

3. You haven't given this much thought, have you?

[fescuerescue]

5. It would lock him out of running again.

[mcar]

9. No, it wouldn't

[Celerity]

15. It takes 3 votes to perma ban him, the middle one is never happening in this Senate

1. House impeaches. Simply Majority. All it takes is 3 defections atm, and even that fails.

2. Senate tries him again and has to have 2/3rds of the members present vote to convict. Not happening with this Congress.

3. IF and only IF he is somehow convicted by the Senate, then the 3rd and final vote is veld for disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

The Constitution doesn’t prescribe a two-thirds majority vote for that, and in the past, the Senate has used a simple majority for disqualification. (The Senate has only ever disqualified three people from holding future office, and all three of them were federal judges.)

IF he was banned by a simple majority vote that did not reach the 2/3rds threshold, it would instantly be appealled to the SCOTUS. Coin toss time at that point as to what they would do. My personal guess is they would uphold the ban, due to precedent.

[Hoyt]

8. I think Biden had the power to stop the withdrawal, send in a rear guard, delay or whatever.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. Yep, he did

He stopped any number of other Trump clusterfucks, no reason he couldn't have stopped this one as well.

I don't know if he got bad info from defense and intel, or if he got good info and chose not to follow it...and we'll probably never know. But whatever led to the decision, and however well-intentioned it was (and I have zero doubt of his good intentions), the outcome is awful.

[bluedevil4]

10. are you serious?

Biden didn't have to withdraw the way he did. He could have stopped it at anytime and no one would have thought differently of him or his administration.

He stopped lots of trumps projects already in progress with support from all of us. This was no different.

[Hoyt]

12. In fact, he could have blamed it on trump by announcing that trump had drawn down troops to

a level that could not guarantee safety of Americans or "friendly" Afghans.

[David__77]

13. Withdrawing was and is the right thing to do!

And of course Biden could have arranged for direct US military intervention to continue. I’m so glad that he chose not to do this and stands firmly by that course of action.

[sarisataka]

14. I'll play

What would the impeachment charge be?

[fescuerescue]

16. The lawyers can certainly craft that

But basically dereliction of duty.

Plus there's probably a hundred of other items that haven't been charged yet.