The Biden Impeachment Inquiry

[+and-then]

Dubinsky to Newsmax: 'Misleading' for Dems to Dismiss Hearing | Newsmax.com

The first witness before the House committee on the issue of Biden's impeachment inquiry is a forensic accountant.  The kind of accountant that has gone through Trump's bank records and tax returns, endlessly, looking for evidence of criminal actions.  The article will no doubt be ignored by most of those who support Tater and that says volumes about their integrity, or lack thereof.  

The guy asks some basic questions that rank partisans will struggle with ignoring without outing themselves as such.  The biggest question is the simplest.  Multiple Biden family members received payments from corporations that had funds deposited by other corporations but in no instance has any of that money been accounted for with regard to HOW IT WAS EARNED.  IOW, if any of us came to the attention of the fearless minions of the IRS, a forensic accounting would be done and we'd have to PROVE not only that we paid the proper taxes, but also what we did to earn the money.  My question to the rest here is, should our politicians not face the same rigorous accounting?  

What say YOU?

[Grim Reaper 6]

31 minutes ago, and-then said:

Dubinsky to Newsmax: 'Misleading' for Dems to Dismiss Hearing | Newsmax.com

The first witness before the House committee on the issue of Biden's impeachment inquiry is a forensic accountant.  The kind of accountant that has gone through Trump's bank records and tax returns, endlessly, looking for evidence of criminal actions.  The article will no doubt be ignored by most of those who support Tater and that says volumes about their integrity, or lack thereof.  

The guy asks some basic questions that rank partisans will struggle with ignoring without outing themselves as such.  The biggest question is the simplest.  Multiple Biden family members received payments from corporations that had funds deposited by other corporations but in no instance has any of that money been accounted for with regard to HOW IT WAS EARNED.  IOW, if any of us came to the attention of the fearless minions of the IRS, a forensic accounting would be done and we'd have to PROVE not only that we paid the proper taxes, but also what we did to earn the money.  My question to the rest here is, should our politicians not face the same rigorous accounting?  

What say YOU?

I read the article and if it is true, then the Bidens should be fully investigated and if found guilty prosecuted! I really can say more than that because I do not trust your source, could you please post a different source?

[Doc Socks Junior]

1 hour ago, and-then said:

Dubinsky to Newsmax: 'Misleading' for Dems to Dismiss Hearing | Newsmax.com

The first witness before the House committee on the issue of Biden's impeachment inquiry is a forensic accountant.  The kind of accountant that has gone through Trump's bank records and tax returns, endlessly, looking for evidence of criminal actions.  The article will no doubt be ignored by most of those who support Tater and that says volumes about their integrity, or lack thereof.  

The guy asks some basic questions that rank partisans will struggle with ignoring without outing themselves as such.  The biggest question is the simplest.  Multiple Biden family members received payments from corporations that had funds deposited by other corporations but in no instance has any of that money been accounted for with regard to HOW IT WAS EARNED.  IOW, if any of us came to the attention of the fearless minions of the IRS, a forensic accounting would be done and we'd have to PROVE not only that we paid the proper taxes, but also what we did to earn the money.  My question to the rest here is, should our politicians not face the same rigorous accounting?  

What say YOU?

I mean, heck yeah. Whoever elected Hunter Biden to political office should be inquiring as to what he did to earn his money. Same with Jim Biden. Any other Biden who got money deposited in their accounts.

They are elected officials, right? 

No, you say?

Bueller?

[Grim Reaper 6]

Republican Says Biden Impeachment Inquiry Belongs on 'Back Burner'

 Representative Ken Buck said Thursday that he believes the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden "should go on the back burner" until the House successfully avoids a government shutdown. 

However, Buck, a Colorado conservative, told CNN several hours after the hearing that he had concerns about his GOP colleagues' "priorities," adding, "I think that there is nothing worse than a shutdown."

"I think this is an embarrassment," Buck continued while speaking with CNN's Anderson Cooper. "We knew that September 30 was coming for a long time. We should have been talking in July about a continuing resolution. It doesn't have to be done on the eve of a shutdown."Buck previously told CNN's Manu Raju that he believed the impeachment inquiry was a waste of time.

While House Republicans have insisted that there is mounting evidence that ties Biden to instances of bribery and misconduct, Thursday's hearing failed to bring any clear evidence to prove the allegations.

Republican Says Biden Impeachment Inquiry Belongs on 'Back Burner' (msn.com)

Edited September 29 by Grim Reaper 6

[Grim Reaper 6]

Well, andthen it appears the first witness in the Biden Impeachment Investigation doesn't believe there is enough evidence to warrant an Impeachment proceeding. Where the hell did the House Republicans find this witness in the democratic witness protection program?

Republicans' Own Witness Pours Cold Water on Biden Impeachment

Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar and George Washington University law professor, was questioned during Thursday's first impeachment inquiry hearing by the House Oversight Committee as conservatives move forward with their effort to impeaching the president for allegedly aiding his son, Hunter Biden, in business dealings in Ukraine and China.

"I have previously stated that, while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment," Turley wrote in his written statement, which he read verbatim during the hearing.

Republicans' Own Witness Pours Cold Water on Biden Impeachment (newsweek.com)

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I read the article and if it is true, then the Bidens should be fully investigated and if found guilty prosecuted! I really can say more than that because I do not trust your source, could you please post a different source?

Hi Grim

I think if investigating and prosecuiting a couple ex-presidents consecutively that a message to any future canidates to be above reproach in their character.

As far as things go though Biden's team has done well given some of the serious issues like covid and war and Afghanistan so it wasn't an easy term for any polititian. He wasn't Trump and most of us have admitted Biden only won because some people that voted Trump in did not want to vote for him again. Biden was a career politition and was to only option to vote for to get Trump out.

[Grim Reaper 6]

9 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Grim

I think if investigating and prosecuiting a couple ex-presidents consecutively that a message to any future canidates to be above reproach in their character.

As far as things go though Biden's team has done well given some of the serious issues like covid and war and Afghanistan so it wasn't an easy term for any polititian. He wasn't Trump and most of us have admitted Biden only won because some people that voted Trump in did not want to vote for him again. Biden was a career politition and was to only option to vote for to get Trump out.

I think your right my friend about Biden and while I would rather have him than Trump in office I didn't vote in the last election. I have never been a fan of Joe; he has always been an outlier as far as I am concerned. I suspect that this may be because I am a Moderate Republican and I have been my entire life.

[+and-then]

Nice try... the banking records happen to be real.  If the Biden family has evidence to offer that explains where the money came from and HOW it was earned, then by all means... publish it.  Until then, the investigation plods on, regardless of how many MSN clickbait links you post.

If they've done nothing wrong, they should cooperate and stop delaying the information coming out.  

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, and-then said:

Nice try... the banking records happen to be real.  If the Biden family has evidence to offer that explains where the money came from and HOW it was earned, then by all means... publish it.  Until then, the investigation plods on, regardless of how many MSN clickbait links you post.

If they've done nothing wrong, they should cooperate and stop delaying the information coming out.  

Hi And Then

It would likely be better if Biden really face any legal actions till after this term as likely neither he or Trump will get voted in again. They can do the same thing to him that they are doing with Trump without affecting current government administration. 

[quiXilver]

Follow evidence until it's proven obtuse, or reveals guilt.  Then act accordingly.

 

[itsnotoutthere]

 

[+razman]

Well if there's a shutdown , then wouldn't that put the inquiry on the backburner anyway? At least for now.

[Gromdor]

51 minutes ago, razman said:

Well if there's a shutdown , then wouldn't that put the inquiry on the backburner anyway? At least for now.

No.  The members of the comittees have aleady said that they have taken provisions to ensure that it contines through the shutdown.

[+razman]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

No.  The members of the comittees have aleady said that they have taken provisions to ensure that it contines through the shutdown.

Of course.

[Gromdor]

10 hours ago, and-then said:

Dubinsky to Newsmax: 'Misleading' for Dems to Dismiss Hearing | Newsmax.com

The first witness before the House committee on the issue of Biden's impeachment inquiry is a forensic accountant.  The kind of accountant that has gone through Trump's bank records and tax returns, endlessly, looking for evidence of criminal actions.  The article will no doubt be ignored by most of those who support Tater and that says volumes about their integrity, or lack thereof.  

The guy asks some basic questions that rank partisans will struggle with ignoring without outing themselves as such.  The biggest question is the simplest.  Multiple Biden family members received payments from corporations that had funds deposited by other corporations but in no instance has any of that money been accounted for with regard to HOW IT WAS EARNED.  IOW, if any of us came to the attention of the fearless minions of the IRS, a forensic accounting would be done and we'd have to PROVE not only that we paid the proper taxes, but also what we did to earn the money.  My question to the rest here is, should our politicians not face the same rigorous accounting?  

What say YOU?

A guy testified with questions instead of answers?  That's a novel way to not be held liable under oath.

But to the crux.  So they have no evidence but might find evidence if they can get Biden's family bank records?  They have no testimony that the money was aquired illlegally but they might if they can get the Bidens to testify how they got the money?  

[Portre]

8 hours ago, quiXilver said:

Follow evidence until it's proven obtuse, or reveals guilt.  Then act accordingly.

 

One needs evidence to follow. So far, the MAGAts have nada.

[DieChecker]

I have no problem with the House demanding Hunter's financial records. They'll either clearly show he cross shared money with The Big Guy, or they'll show he didn't. 

Joe maintains he received no money at all from Hunter, ever. These records will corroborate that, so Democrats should be happy.

[+OverSword]

As far as the reliability of Newsmax goes, this is not a story they reported it's an interview with a congressional witness and we can easily see the questions asked and the answers given, so this ongoing argument about Newsmax, Wikipedia and Media Bias Fact Check is a waste of space.  The witness says nothing unreasonable and the questions are fair.  There is good reason that this impeachment inquiry is happening.  The result may be that Joe Biden will not impeached, we will see and have to live with the results regardless of our own biases.

[Gromdor]

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I have no problem with the House demanding Hunter's financial records. They'll either clearly show he cross shared money with The Big Guy, or they'll show he didn't. 

Joe maintains he received no money at all from Hunter, ever. These records will corroborate that, so Democrats should be happy.

The dudes a crack head.  There might not be money going to the Big Guy, but I bet there is money going to other places that will get him in trouble.  He won't give it up.  Everyone knows it, that's why it the uncertainty can be used as an election tool.

[+Shooter McGavin]

 

 

Edited September 29 by Shooter McGavin

[DieChecker]

Not sure if this was posted already.

https://oversight.house.gov/blog/joe-biden-lied-at-least-15-times-about-his-familys-business-schemes/

Quote

Joe Biden has repeatedly lied about his family’s business dealings. Joe Biden claims he never spoke to his family about their business dealings; his family never received $1 million in payments through a third party; his son never made money in China; his son’s dealings were ethical; and his son did nothing wrong. Below are 16 times that Joe Biden lied about his family’s dealings over the years.

I thought this quote amusing in what it half says.

Quote

October 27, 2019

Joe Biden: “I’ve never discussed my business or their business, my sons and daughters. And I’ve never discussed them because they know where I have to do my job and that’s it.”

They know where he works, and so he won't talk to them about their work. Because? Are they doing something unethical? 

If they were school teachers, or police officers, or office workers, would he then speak to them of their work?

Is it because they are international lobbiests, and hucksters, who are taking money from China and Russia?

So deniabilty. No sir, I didn't know my son was a criminal... I didn't want to know... 

 

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

 

 

He asked the wrong question.  It's not Hunter, it's Joe.  Joe is the actual target of the impeachment inquiry.

[+Shooter McGavin]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

He asked the wrong question.  It's not Hunter, it's Joe.  Joe is the actual target of the impeachment inquiry.

But Joe hasn't been indicted. Both, Hunter and Trump have.

[+OverSword]

8 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

But Joe hasn't been indicted. Both, Hunter and Trump have.

Not really related.  Can we agree that Pablo Escobar and Donald Trump should both be held accountable if convicted? 

[quiXilver]

3 hours ago, Portre said:

One needs evidence to follow. So far, the MAGAts have nada.

Exactly.  Well said.  Even their own expert witnesses are admitting such.