McCarthy directs House to open formal impeachment inquiry into Biden’s involvement in Hunters Deals

[+DieChecker]

45 minutes ago, Portre said:

Accusations are not evidence. Repeating accusations do not make them evidence. That's not how it works. You need actual evidence.

If you think there's no evidence, you are probably too far into the echo chamber. There's many congressional testimonials of connections to Joe of international influence seekers... China, Russia, Ukraine...

I'd not say there's a smoking gun yet, but there's enough it certainly looks like an organized family business.

Did they ever figure out where the several millions came from, that Joe didn't state the origin of? 

[+DieChecker]

Why would a FedGov agency drag out a investigation one might ask?

Well, if for political reasons, dragging it out for two, or three, years will cause the Satute of Limitations to expire. Then the case can be officially dropped.

We nearly saw this recently with Hunter and his sweetheart deal. The DOJ had to rush and file an indictment this week, because... The Statute of Limitations was going to expire. 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/politics/hunter-biden/index.html

Quote

Prosecutors have previously said the statute of limitations for some of these offenses is set to expire in October.

That's why they "investigated" so long with no result. They wanted it to expire and go away.

Almost worked too.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Portre said:

Accusations are not evidence. Repeating accusations do not make them evidence. That's not how it works. You need actual evidence.

See if you can spot the difference:

ac·cu·sa·tion
[ˌakyəˈzāSHən]
NOUN
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong:
"accusations of bribery"
the action or process of accusing someone:
"there was accusation in Brian's voice"

ev·i·dence
[ˈevəd(ə)ns]
NOUN
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
"the investigation finds no evidence of bribery"
 

I ask for the latter; you give me the former.

In your opinion, do these "accusations" testimonies and records warrant a deeper dive or should we just get on with our lives?

[Tatetopa]

43 minutes ago, OverSword said:

In your opinion, do these "accusations" testimonies and records warrant a deeper dive or should we just get on with our lives?

We can do both.  That is why we have representatives, to take care of our light work while we do the heavy lifting in life.

I am all for investigating allegations, I am opposed to substituting a FOX interview for investigation.  

[+OverSword]

Interesting.  Lengthy tweet.  Click to see all

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 9/14/2023 at 9:13 AM, Portre said:

See if you can spot the difference:

ac·cu·sa·tion
[ˌakyəˈzāSHən]
NOUN
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong:
"accusations of bribery"
the action or process of accusing someone:
"there was accusation in Brian's voice"

ev·i·dence
[ˈevəd(ə)ns]
NOUN
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
"the study finds little evidence of bribery"
 

I ask for the latter; you give me the former.

Wasn’t the justification for the Orange Menace investigations “we know he’s guilty, we need the investigations to find out what of”? Sounds like sauce for the goose basting the gander now.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Wasn’t the justification for the Orange Menace investigations “we know he’s guilty, we need the investigations to find out what of”? Sounds like sauce for the goose basting the gander now.

No.

[Tatetopa]

Joe's big mistake might have been not making Hunter a special a presidential advisor, then making him a special envoy to Ukraine.  Instead of a few million, he might have raked in a couple billion. 

Get rid of all the corruption.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

10 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Joe's big mistake might have been not making Hunter a special a presidential advisor, then making him a special envoy to Ukraine.  Instead of a few million, he might have raked in a couple billion. 

Get rid of all the corruption.

Exactly! None of this half-arsed corruption… GO BIG OR GO HOME!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

No.

You’re right, I was conflating “we have to pass this bill in order to know what was in it” with a different rationale for hating on Trump. 

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

Interesting.  Lengthy tweet.  Click to see all

 

I'd basically agree with a lot of that, but generally I don't believe Biden's been compromised. A handful of millions just isn't enough to force a Presidents hand in anything major.

They (The nebulous "they", bad guys) could drop all the dirt, and Biden gets impeached, but I don't think that will happen, as even if just for a minor future "favor" it's not worth ruining him.

Plus, I'm not sure he's even running things to a large extent. Could very well be, like late 2nd term Reagan, that he's mostly just a talking face walked out to say stuff. 

Edit: For sure Weiss has been covering up and dragging things out. I think now he's trying to save his future in politics. He's close to being a burner phone, and tossed away. So he needs to prove himself now. Still, a bad choice for special counsel.

Edited September 16, 2023 by DieChecker

[Portre]

On 9/15/2023 at 8:10 AM, itsnotoutthere said:

Now repeat that thought process for Trump.

Read the many indictments. There is evidence to back all those charges. 

[Portre]

On 9/15/2023 at 8:55 AM, DieChecker said:

There's many congressional testimonials of connections to Joe of international influence seekers...

Read the actual transcripts.

[Portre]

On 9/15/2023 at 9:38 AM, OverSword said:

In your opinion, do these "accusations" testimonies and records warrant a deeper dive or should we just get on with our lives?

Read the transcripts. Those testimonies do not support the accusations.

[Portre]

On 9/15/2023 at 2:38 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Wasn’t the justification for the Orange Menace investigations “we know he’s guilty, we need the investigations to find out what of”? Sounds like sauce for the goose basting the gander now.

No. The justifications are the actual crimes committed by the POS POTUS. With Uncle Joe, you have all the dots, but no lines connecting them.

[Portre]

On 9/15/2023 at 11:26 AM, OverSword said:

Interesting.  Lengthy tweet.  Click to see all

 

Huh? This charge was for the crime he pled guilty to in the original plea agreement.

Weiss was appointed by the POS POTUS and retained by Uncle Joe.

[+OverSword]

38 minutes ago, Portre said:

Huh? This charge was for the crime he pled guilty to in the original plea agreement.

Weiss was appointed by the POS POTUS and retained by Uncle Joe.

I know what it says, do you?  It says pursuing the gun charge (who gives a damn about it?) is just a bone thrown to us that know there is something corrupt going on with the Biden family to give the impression that something is being done until Joe can pardon Hunter and possibly himself after the election when there will be no political risk by doing so as Joe will be what is known as a lame duck president after the election. 

[Portre]

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I know what it says, do you?  It says pursuing the gun charge (who gives a damn about it?) is just a bone thrown to us that know there is something corrupt going on with the Biden family to give the impression that something is being done until Joe can pardon Hunter and possibly himself after the election when there will be no political risk by doing so as Joe will be what is known as a lame duck president after the election. 

Matt Gaetz Admits Biden Impeachment Is Really About Helping Republicans in 2024.

“The purpose of that impeachment, from my standpoint, is not to force a vote that loses,” he said during a Twitter Space on Monday night. “It’s to put on a trial in the Senate, and by the way, not for the sake of conviction. 

“There’s no conviction and removal of Joe Biden coming on impeachment. I know that. You know that,” Gaetz said.

But all of the investigations into Biden are absolutely for political purposes. House Republicans have mobilized multiple committees to go after the Biden family. There has yet to be any proof of wrongdoing, but Republicans have used the investigations as excuses to trash Biden, attack policies they don’t like such as immigration, and share his son’s nude photos.

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, Portre said:

Matt Gaetz Admits Biden Impeachment Is Really About Helping Republicans in 2024.

“The purpose of that impeachment, from my standpoint, is not to force a vote that loses,” he said during a Twitter Space on Monday night. “It’s to put on a trial in the Senate, and by the way, not for the sake of conviction. 

“There’s no conviction and removal of Joe Biden coming on impeachment. I know that. You know that,” Gaetz said.

But all of the investigations into Biden are absolutely for political purposes. House Republicans have mobilized multiple committees to go after the Biden family. There has yet to be any proof of wrongdoing, but Republicans have used the investigations as excuses to trash Biden, attack policies they don’t like such as immigration, and share his son’s nude photos.

I don’t know how this will help republicans in 2024. I really could care less what Goetz says. As far as I’m concerned whoever runs someone that hasn’t already been a president will win.

Edited September 17, 2023 by OverSword

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I don’t know how this will help republicans in 2024. I really could care less what Goetz says. As far as I’m concerned whoever runs someone that hasn’t already been a president will win.

If you can get your opponent accused of the same crimes you did, it evens the field a bit on the "Morality" and "Personal Character" scales that people judge by.

Only need to convince them till election time and then put it on the back burner till the next election.  Even putting it on the back buner will get the truly faithful fired up as they will thinl it's a cover up by the other side.  

It's a pretty obvious pattern to see gong back.  Take Hillary for instance-  that has been strung along for decades now.

[+OverSword]

19 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

If you can get your opponent accused of the same crimes you did, it evens the field a bit on the "Morality" and "Personal Character" scales that people judge by.

Only need to convince them till election time and then put it on the back burner till the next election.  Even putting it on the back buner will get the truly faithful fired up as they will thinl it's a cover up by the other side.  

It's a pretty obvious pattern to see gong back.  Take Hillary for instance-  that has been strung along for decades now.

They’re both obviously immoral and guilty of what they are accused of so……

[Tatetopa]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

They’re both obviously immoral and guilty of what they are accused of so……

Everybody can form their own opinion without any reliance on evidence.  Immorality is not equivalent to being  convicted of a crime. Can either of these individuals be proven to have broken US laws? We still require a formal trial with evidence presented to ascertain guilt or innocence.  So far, only one trial has been completed.  We can conclude from his conviction that Donald Trump is guilty of sexual assault and defamation.  So far that is all that either of these guys has been found guilty of doing.

Immorality and behavior are plenty for me to decide my vote, but not legal consequences.

 

 

[F3SS]

24 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Donald Trump is guilty of sexual assault and defamation. 

How is that anyhow? She accused him of rape (a fantasy of hers) with a fantastical story straight out of a steamy novel. They landed on assault. While in similar ballparks, they're two wildly different things and there's no mistaking the difference between the two. Defamation just seems frivilous.

[Doc Socks Junior]

26 minutes ago, F3SS said:

How is that anyhow? She accused him of rape (a fantasy of hers) with a fantastical story straight out of a steamy novel. They landed on assault. While in similar ballparks, they're two wildly different things and there's no mistaking the difference between the two. Defamation just seems frivilous.

For your edification.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

How is that anyhow? She accused him of rape (a fantasy of hers) with a fantastical story straight out of a steamy novel. They landed on assault. While in similar ballparks, they're two wildly different things and there's no mistaking the difference between the two. Defamation just seems frivilous.

The judge disagrees. He says it was for all practical purposes rape.  She couldn't tell his finger from his penis, so it is tried as assault. Who knows whether it was lack of experience on E. Jean Carrol's part or lack of stature on Trump's part.  The judge seemed to think it is in the same ballpark though. 

In any case, agree or disagree, it was a trial and a verdict, the only one so far.  Neither Trump nor Biden has had their day in court on any of the other offenses.

So far, Donald Trump has not been found guilty of tax fraud,  election interference by trying to bribe Stormy Daniels with a payout, racketeering in Georgia, instigating an insurrection, or possession and dispersal of sensitive government documents.  So he is as yet innocent of those counts.

Joe Biden is innocent for the same reason, compounded by the fact that as yet, no law has been identified that he broke, and he has not been formally charged.

From the other side, it all looks like weaponization of Congress and election interference by a former president and mob boss.  A crook trying to make believe his opponent is a crook to level the playing field.

It is a shame Donald Trump drove all of the honest, intelligent Republicans away or into hiding.  There used to be some good Constitutional lawyers and real conservatives in that party.  They would have been capable of pursuing an honest and solid case against Biden, if there was one to present.