mccarthy announces impeachment enquiry against President Biden, despite lacking the votes to get it started

[HisArpy]

Serious allegations. I welcome the Republicans making their evidence public.

They are indeed serious allegations.

As for making the evidence public, Comer has been releasing that information consistently to the public. That you're either not aware of it, or are denying its existence, only shows that it's you who is out of the loop.

 

[drusus]

Serious allegations. I welcome the Republicans making their evidence public.

The evidence for the scheme HisArpy describes should be easy enough for anyone to find. If 20 companies exist, they must be registered somewhere, so all anyone should need is the State and the company name. The companies would need bank accounts and they wouldn't be able to set them up without being properly documented.

As for making the evidence public, Comer has been releasing that information consistently to the public.

Guess I'm out of the loop but it sounds like that's just what's needed. Please post the list of company names.

There is no benefit to 'filtering' money and transferring money from one company to another is pointless. It doesn't matter if it's two companies, 20 or 2000, the trail would be clear and obvious. The only way that it could be obscured would be to use a reasonably sophisticated money laundering scheme but that hasn't been alleged. Banks absolutely look for companies that do nothing but transfer big sums in and out as part of their fraud prevention measures, so shell companies aren't easy to operate for very long.

In the end, your narrative that Joe didn't "do" anything might be correct. It's doubtful given the evidence, but it might turn out that way.

You've got the burden of proof backwards here. The evidence has to prove he did, he doesn't have to prove he didn't. This sounds an awful lot like the Hunter Biden laptop emails thing that filled the news a while back. 'The emails are damning', 'just wait 'til you see them', 'clear evidence of wrongdoing'. Lots of accusations and hyperbole, still waiting for the emails.

 

[HisArpy]

The evidence for the scheme HisArpy describes should be easy enough for anyone to find. If 20 companies exist, they must be registered somewhere, so all anyone should need is the State and the company name. The companies would need bank accounts and they wouldn't be able to set them up without being properly documented.


Guess I'm out of the loop but it sounds like that's just what's needed. Please post the list of company names.

There is no benefit to 'filtering' money and transferring money from one company to another is pointless. It doesn't matter if it's two companies, 20 or 2000, the trail would be clear and obvious. The only way that it could be obscured would be to use a reasonably sophisticated money laundering scheme but that hasn't been alleged. Banks absolutely look for companies that do nothing but transfer big sums in and out as part of their fraud prevention measures, so shell companies aren't easy to operate for very long.


You've got the burden of proof backwards here. The evidence has to prove he did, he doesn't have to prove he didn't. This sounds an awful lot like the Hunter Biden laptop emails thing that filled the news a while back. 'The emails are damning', 'just wait 'til you see them', 'clear evidence of wrongdoing'. Lots of accusations and hyperbole, still waiting for the emails.

It's really not anyone else's fault that you're stupid.

The facts are out there. They've been put out there by the committee for everyone to see and read. You refusing to do so doesn't make them disappear.

 

[drusus]

It's really not anyone else's fault that you're stupid.

The facts are out there. They've been put out there by the committee for everyone to see and read. You refusing to do so doesn't make them disappear.

Then I'm sure you'll use your higher intelligence and indulge me with the list of company names. Or a link, either is fine.

 

[HisArpy]

Then I'm sure you'll use your higher intelligence and indulge me with the list of company names. Or a link, either is fine.

Dudly, I'm not here to educate you so you are prepared to debate the issues under discussion.

If you aren't prepared, that's on you and no one else. And if your debate tactic is to be ignorant, don't be surprised when you get your ass handed to you for it.

 

[jomar]

Except receive money through deposits laundered through 20 different shell companies that don't do any actual business other than receive money from a Biden family owned company before disbursing it to yet another Biden family owned company bank account, which also does nothing but disperse the money to yet another Biden family owned company bank account until it finally ends up at the end of the dispersment line in Joe's bank account.

So let them follow the money and if its a laundering scheme let the chips fall

So, to recap; Hunter is hired on the strength of his family ties. Those hiring him are given proof of life of the family ties via the phone calls made during business meetings where Hunter gets his VP dad on the line. Money is then paid. That money is filtered through all those shell company bank accounts until it eventually ends up in Joe's bank account.

In the end, your narrative that Joe didn't "do" anything might be correct. It's doubtful given the evidence, but it might turn out that way.

We all know Hunter was hired for his name and hopes of a friendly ear. If Joe”s that reckless and things are provable, again, hold him accountable.

But bad optics aren’t crimes.

What's also correct is that Joe got paid by those demanding he "do" something to help them politically. That's quid pro quo and is illegal. And in order to hide the source of those payments so that his quid pro quo scam wouldn't be discovered Joe engaged in another illegal scheme - money laundering.

So prove it. So far even republicans are saying they don’t see any evidence of what crimes are being alleged

 

[drusus]

Dudly, I'm not here to educate you so you are prepared to debate the issues under discussion.

If you aren't prepared, that's on you and no one else. And if your debate tactic is to be ignorant, don't be surprised when you get your ass handed to you for it.

You allege there is evidence, yet you can't point to any of it. Instead, you're offensive straight off the bat. Sounds like you've got nothing.

 

[HisArpy]

So let them follow the money and if its a laundering scheme let the chips fall

They have. Yet some people still insist on not believing there's even any evidence.

It's so bad that the DOJ/FBI are running a protection front to prevent the evidence from being uncovered. They slow walked Hunter's tax case, prevented the IRS from interviewing Hunter and getting their hands on the Form 1023 that shows Joe was corrupt and more.

We have whistleblowers testifying about all kinds of shady as shit stuff going on. We have Garland lying to Congress about how much authority Weiss had to bring charges wherever he felt he needed to but then having to "upgrade" Weiss' prosecutorial status to special counsel to give him the authority he supposedly already had. This was done YEARS after it was too late to bring those charges. Charges which, based on the evidence that would have been used for a conviction, would have undeniably connected Joe to Hunter.

And yet there are those who say there's no evidence. It's there. We've seen some of it, but according to the whistleblowers, there's a LOT more where that came from.

We all know Hunter was hired for his name and hopes of a friendly ear. If Joe”s that reckless and things are provable, again, hold him accountable.

That's what the impeachment inquiry is supposed to do. Right now the narrative is that there's no evidence so we don't need no stinking investigation to SEE if there's evidence. But the point of the INQUIRY is to see if what's been happening is criminal.

You don't start an investigation AFTER you have all the evidence the investigation is supposed to get. You start an investigation to see if there IS evidence. So the narrative is backward and that's intentional to try and cover up what happened.

But bad optics aren’t crimes.

This isn't just bad optics. There are evidentiary links which tie Joe to Hunter's business dealings and which show Joe profiting from those business dealings. More links which show that Hunter only got those opportunities because of Joe being VP.

So, Hunter gets hired because Joe is VP
Hunter gets paid.
Joe gets paid.
Payments are hidden in money laundering scheme involving multiple shell companies.

That's not just "bad optics."

So prove it. So far even republicans are saying they don’t see any evidence of what crimes are being alleged

This isn't really true. A few RINO Republicans in the early days of the inquiry said so but it's not the universal position any more than the few D's who go against their party.

Nancy Mace was critical of the investigation in the beginning, although she warned that it was going to lead to an impeachment inquiry. She has since changed her opinion on the evidence, although she was correct in her prediction. I believe this is because once you look at the evidence, and realize how much more of it is out there, you really don't have anyplace left to stand when you try to deny what the evidence shows.

And we haven't even gotten the JRBware emails yet.

 

[HisArpy]

You allege there is evidence, yet you can't point to any of it. Instead, you're offensive straight off the bat. Sounds like you've got nothing.

dudly, the evidence is out there. All you have to do is google.

If you can't do that, don't expect someone else to do your homework for you.

And if the truth hurts, it's only because you refuse to get off the tracks when the train comes by.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I hear a lot of talking.

I don't see any showing.

https://www.gifcen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/shrug-gif-7.gif

 

[jomar]

They have. Yet some people still insist on not believing there's even any evidence.

It's so bad that the DOJ/FBI are running a protection front to prevent the evidence from being uncovered. They slow walked Hunter's tax case, prevented the IRS from interviewing Hunter and getting their hands on the Form 1023 that shows Joe was corrupt and more.

We have whistleblowers testifying about all kinds of shady as shit stuff going on. We have Garland lying to Congress about how much authority Weiss had to bring charges wherever he felt he needed to but then having to "upgrade" Weiss' prosecutorial status to special counsel to give him the authority he supposedly already had. This was done YEARS after it was too late to bring those charges. Charges which, based on the evidence that would have been used for a conviction, would have undeniably connected Joe to Hunter.

And yet there are those who say there's no evidence. It's there. We've seen some of it, but according to the whistleblowers, there's a LOT more where that came from.



That's what the impeachment inquiry is supposed to do. Right now the narrative is that there's no evidence so we don't need no stinking investigation to SEE if there's evidence. But the point of the INQUIRY is to see if what's been happening is criminal.

You don't start an investigation AFTER you have all the evidence the investigation is supposed to get. You start an investigation to see if there IS evidence. So the narrative is backward and that's intentional to try and cover up what happened.



This isn't just bad optics. There are evidentiary links which tie Joe to Hunter's business dealings and which show Joe profiting from those business dealings. More links which show that Hunter only got those opportunities because of Joe being VP.

So, Hunter gets hired because Joe is VP
Hunter gets paid.
Joe gets paid.
Payments are hidden in money laundering scheme involving multiple shell companies.

That's not just "bad optics."



This isn't really true. A few RINO Republicans in the early days of the inquiry said so but it's not the universal position any more than the few D's who go against their party.

Nancy Mace was critical of the investigation in the beginning, although she warned that it was going to lead to an impeachment inquiry. She has since changed her opinion on the evidence, although she was correct in her prediction. I believe this is because once you look at the evidence, and realize how much more of it is out there, you really don't have anyplace left to stand when you try to deny what the evidence shows.

And we haven't even gotten the JRBware emails yet.

Well, we all know the real reason McCarthy called for an impeachment inquiry is because he got held hostage. And that end of the republican bell curve are the ones who are rabid about it. No, republicans are still saying they don’t see evidence, probably not just the RINOs. And the timing is interesting. But as I said, let the dust settle where it settles.

https://newrepublic.com/post/174953...accidentally-admits-no-proof-biden-corruption
TNR skews left but gets high marks for credibility.

Also
https://newrepublic.com/post/174974...getting-hunter-biden-special-counsel-demanded

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701977346197295451

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701982448241013150

 

[Rightguide]

She had the votes, both times. McCarthy doesn't.

That wasn't my point. She didn't call for a vote, it's not required by House rules. But in this case, many on the left are making a big deal about how McCarthy didn't "call for a vote," because they are stupid and ignorant. They just want to try and make McCarthy look like he's doing something untoward and out of the ordinary. All of which is right up your slum like alley.

 

[ll74]

As was demonstrated in previous Congresses, a vote is a courtesy, not a requirement.

 

[Comshaw]

Kevin's in a tight spot. It appears some of the Republican congress critters aren't happy with his decision.

An anonymous Republican Senator said:

“It’s a waste of time,” that senator said, explaining that, even if the House could force through a vote to impeach Biden, the Democrat-controlled Senate would never allow it to go through.

“Maybe this is just Kevin giving people their binkie to get through the shutdown,” they speculated, referring to a looming Sept. 30 deadline to pass a continuing resolution and stop the government from grinding to a halt.

Others weren't so anonymous:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) full-throatedly criticized the choice to move forward with an inquiry. “The bar for impeachment seems to get lower and lower every year,” she said, according to Reuters. She told other reporters that the process would distract from Congress’ ability to pass the dozen-odd bills needed to avert a shutdown.

Tuberville said he didn’t believe House Republicans had “enough time” to see an impeachment through, given that 2024 is an election year. He warned his colleagues: “You better have an ironclad case… Make sure you got what you need to have. Don’t be guessing. Don’t just be throwing mud.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) called the move “frustrating,” sounding resigned as she pointed out to The Hill that she hadn’t seen any actual evidence of impeachable offenses. “I’m going to default to the position that the House is going to do what the House is going to do, and we’ll have to react to that,” she said.

And there's even more in the article. In light of this I'd say there isn't a snow balls chance in hell Kevin is going to make this work. I think he did it to appease MTG and cohorts to get something done AND retain his speaker chair. The problem is when you are juggling a handful of hyenas mixed with wolves one wrong move and you will get ate. And Kevin is well on his way to being lunch for that crowd.

Even GOP Senators Are Clowning on McCarthy’s Biden Impeachment Inquiry

Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Jonathan Turley has a great summary out today of what we know so far with regard to Biden’s involvement with Hunter’s influence peddling and why the inquiry is necessary.

https://themessenger.com/opinion/five-facts-that-compel-the-houses-biden-impeachment-inquiry

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Kevin's in a tight spot. It appears some of the Republican congress critters aren't happy with his decision.

An anonymous Republican Senator said:

Others weren't so anonymous:


And there's even more in the article. In light of this I'd say there isn't a snow balls chance in hell Kevin is going to make this work. I think he did it to appease MTG and cohorts to get something done AND retain his speaker chair. The problem is when you are juggling a handful of hyenas mixed with wolves one wrong move and you will get ate. And Kevin is well on his way to being lunch for that crowd.

Even GOP Senators Are Clowning on McCarthy’s Biden Impeachment Inquiry

Comshaw

Senators have as much right to their opinions as all of us, but they have no involvement with what happens in the House. The inquiry is being conducted by the House, not the Senate.

 

[drusus]

dudly, the evidence is out there. All you have to do is google.

If you can't do that, don't expect someone else to do your homework for you.

And if the truth hurts, it's only because you refuse to get off the tracks when the train comes by.

When people have evidence for something, they're usually happy to show it because it backs up their argument.

To your specific allegation:

Except receive money through deposits laundered through 20 different shell companies that don't do any actual business other than receive money from a Biden family owned company before disbursing it to yet another Biden family owned company bank account, which also does nothing but disperse the money to yet another Biden family owned company bank account until it finally ends up at the end of the dispersment line in Joe's bank account.

Where is the evidence that any of these companies dispersed money to Joe Biden?

 

[HisArpy]

When people have evidence for something, they're usually happy to show it because it backs up their argument.

To your specific allegation:


Where is the evidence that any of these companies dispersed money to Joe Biden?

It is not my fault you refuse to accept reality. Do your own homework.

 

[HisArpy]

Well, we all know the real reason McCarthy called for an impeachment inquiry is because he got held hostage. And that end of the republican bell curve are the ones who are rabid about it. No, republicans are still saying they don’t see evidence, probably not just the RINOs. And the timing is interesting. But as I said, let the dust settle where it settles.

https://newrepublic.com/post/174953...accidentally-admits-no-proof-biden-corruption
TNR skews left but gets high marks for credibility.

Also
https://newrepublic.com/post/174974...getting-hunter-biden-special-counsel-demanded

We don't "all know the real reason." Some speculate that's the reason, but they have no evidence of such other than political animas and ideology.

So far as I'm aware, the only R's who are still in denial are the RINOs. There are several R's who have publicly said they believe it's not worth the effort because even if they come up with a smoking gun that cannot be denied by anyone, the Senate will not vote to remove. Again, solely because of political animas and ideology. This view may or may not be correct but the only sure way to know is to see what evidence there is and present it to the American people for their decision.

If enough people are outraged on both sides, then the Senate may have no choice but to remove. The only way to know if they are or aren't is to go forward and gather the evidence that this administration doesn't want to reveal. The only way to get past that roadblock is to open the impeachment inquiry which give the committee authority and powers it otherwise doesn't have.

This doesn't have to automatically end in impeachment. The question on whether it does or doesn't depends on the evidence the committee gathers. Just like a Grand Jury doesn't have to indict but an indictment depends on the evidence the Grand Jury hears and gathers.

 

[Comshaw]

Senators have as much right to their opinions as all of us, but they have no involvement with what happens in the House. The inquiry is being conducted by the House, not the Senate.

And of course, it means nothing at all that those Senators are part of the same party as those in the House who are trying to set up this debacle. How convenient! It would be appropriate for you to downplay and demean such opinions from the Democrats, after all they are on the other side. But such a visceral reaction from members of their (and your) own party is telling. The tale it is telling is that the congress critters in the house are doing this for no other reason than theater and know it will never even get close to conviction in the house.

The "evidence" you quoted isn't really any at all. Lots of accusations, innuendos, may be's and could be's but not one damn whit of hard evidence that the President was ever involved in Hunter's dealings.

Joe was on some calls with Hunter and his business associates and had supper with a few. Hunter rode with Joe to China and took care of his business while Joe was taking care of ours. So is there ANY evidence that Joe profited from any of those? Took money? Bribes? No one has ever presented any evidence of that. And trying to declare Joe is guilty because he did the things he did is like calling a random guy a bank robber because he walked into a bank with a piece of paper in his hand: stupid in the extreme.

As far as the congressional investigation all the "Hunter did this" and Hunter did that" means jack shit, because Hunter isn't and NEVER WAS an elected official of the government. If he did do some nefarious dealings, things that are illegal, hand it over to the Justice Department and let them prosecute him. I have no problem at all with that. But getting Hunter isn't what this is about. It's about trying to sway the vote in the next election, nothing more.

With Trump's impeachment, there was plenty of credible evidence presented. Even with Clinton, as flimsy and as stupid as it was (impeaching him for lying about a blowjob) it was evidence. This time around there isn't any. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

The other thing here is Kevin talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying what is convenient to bolster his position. What am I talking about? Well back during the Trump impeachments, Kevin insisted it required a vote of the house to start an impeachment. Now? Why damn but he just declared it so without a vote!

I have no problem holding people responsible, holding their feet to the fire when they screw the pooch, especially our elected representatives of either party. But I despise political theater. And it's even worse when they have important work waiting, work that if not done can affect most of our country. They need to get off their ass, quit playing games and get the stuff done.

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

And of course, it means nothing at all that those Senators are part of the same party as those in the House who are trying to set up this debacle. How convenient! It would be appropriate for you to downplay and demean such opinions from the Democrats, after all they are on the other side. But such a visceral reaction from members of their (and your) own party is telling. The tale it is telling is that the congress critters in the house are doing this for no other reason than theater and know it will never even get close to conviction in the house.

The "evidence" you quoted isn't really any at all. Lots of accusations, innuendos, may be's and could be's but not one damn whit of hard evidence that the President was ever involved in Hunter's dealings.

Joe was on some calls with Hunter and his business associates and had supper with a few. Hunter rode with Joe to China and took care of his business while Joe was taking care of ours. So is there ANY evidence that Joe profited from any of those? Took money? Bribes? No one has ever presented any evidence of that. And trying to declare Joe is guilty because he did the things he did is like calling a random guy a bank robber because he walked into a bank with a piece of paper in his hand: stupid in the extreme.

As far as the congressional investigation all the "Hunter did this" and Hunter did that" means jack shit, because Hunter isn't and NEVER WAS an elected official of the government. If he did do some nefarious dealings, things that are illegal, hand it over to the Justice Department and let them prosecute him. I have no problem at all with that. But getting Hunter isn't what this is about. It's about trying to sway the vote in the next election, nothing more.

With Trump's impeachment, there was plenty of credible evidence presented. Even with Clinton, as flimsy and as stupid as it was (impeaching him for lying about a blowjob) it was evidence. This time around there isn't any. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

The other thing here is Kevin talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying what is convenient to bolster his position. What am I talking about? Well back during the Trump impeachments, Kevin insisted it required a vote of the house to start an impeachment. Now? Why damn but he just declared it so without a vote!

I have no problem holding people responsible, holding their feet to the fire when they screw the pooch, especially our elected representatives of either party. But I despise political theater. And it's even worse when they have important work waiting, work that if not done can affect most of our country. They need to get off their ass, quit playing games and get the stuff done.

Comshaw

The evidence that Joe received payment is there. All the SAR's which show all the bank accounts which filtered the money from Burisma and others to "Biden" bank accounts. Hunter's emails which proudly whine about having to pay 10% to the big guy - whom Bobulinski fingered as Joe - are there. More emails about Hunter paying Joe's bills from a "shared" bank account.

We still haven't seen the contents of the JRBWare false account emails yet and there's probably more evidence in those.

I also note the continuing goalpost moving on the part of those who hate Trump but support Biden. We've gone from "didn't know a thing" to "never discussed" to "not in business with" to "Not my laptop but I'm totally embarrassed by the invasion of my privacy by the release of the contents on the laptop" to "no evidence of corruption" to "no hard evidence of anything." Extrapolating (which a lot of people here seem to be able to do with self professed accuracy) from there, what do you think the next "explanation" will be? That Joe's fake email accounts are trojans and were hacked to send those fake emails trying to implicate him in some kind of insurectionist Republican inspired plot to overthrow the US government?

At some point even the most die hard supporter has to realize that there's some kind of there there. Whether it rises to something actionable isn't the question YET. But denying the existence of everything we've learned isn't going to make swallowing the bitter pill that your guy is corrupt, should such come about, any easier.

 

[drusus]

It is not my fault you refuse to accept reality. Do your own homework.

It's real if you have some evidence. Looks like you don't.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The evidence that Joe received payment is there. All the SAR's which show all the bank accounts which filtered the money from Burisma and others to "Biden" bank accounts. Hunter's emails which proudly whine about having to pay 10% to the big guy - whom Bobulinski fingered as Joe - are there. More emails about Hunter paying Joe's bills from a "shared" bank account.

We still haven't seen the contents of the JRBWare false account emails yet and there's probably more evidence in those.

I also note the continuing goalpost moving on the part of those who hate Trump but support Biden. We've gone from "didn't know a thing" to "never discussed" to "not in business with" to "Not my laptop but I'm totally embarrassed by the invasion of my privacy by the release of the contents on the laptop" to "no evidence of corruption" to "no hard evidence of anything." Extrapolating (which a lot of people here seem to be able to do with self professed accuracy) from there, what do you think the next "explanation" will be? That Joe's fake email accounts are trojans and were hacked to send those fake emails trying to implicate him in some kind of insurectionist Republican inspired plot to overthrow the US government?

At some point even the most die hard supporter has to realize that there's some kind of there there. Whether it rises to something actionable isn't the question YET. But denying the existence of everything we've learned isn't going to make swallowing the bitter pill that your guy is corrupt, should such come about, any easier.

Never mind bank records showing millions paid to Biden family members through shell companies, emails authenticated by independent forensic experts, sworn testimonies, contemporaneous notes, WhatsApp messages, more than 20 calls with Hunter’s business associates, dinners with Hunter’s associates, personal note of gratitude to Devon Archer on Office of the Vice President stationary, use of pseudonyms in email correspondence with Hunter and others, and that trip to China. President Biden never discussed business with Hunter and never met any of his associates. There is nothing to investigate.

 

[icanhelp1]

When people have evidence for something, they're usually happy to show it because it backs up their argument.

To your specific allegation:


Where is the evidence that any of these companies dispersed money to Joe Biden?

The evidence that Joe received payment is there. All the SAR's which show all the bank accounts which filtered the money from Burisma and others to "Biden" bank accounts. Hunter's emails which proudly whine about having to pay 10% to the big guy - whom Bobulinski fingered as Joe - are there. More emails about Hunter paying Joe's bills from a "shared" bank account.

We still haven't seen the contents of the JRBWare false account emails yet and there's probably more evidence in those.

I also note the continuing goalpost moving on the part of those who hate Trump but support Biden. We've gone from "didn't know a thing" to "never discussed" to "not in business with" to "Not my laptop but I'm totally embarrassed by the invasion of my privacy by the release of the contents on the laptop" to "no evidence of corruption" to "no hard evidence of anything." Extrapolating (which a lot of people here seem to be able to do with self professed accuracy) from there, what do you think the next "explanation" will be? That Joe's fake email accounts are trojans and were hacked to send those fake emails trying to implicate him in some kind of insurectionist Republican inspired plot to overthrow the US government?

At some point even the most die hard supporter has to realize that there's some kind of there there. Whether it rises to something actionable isn't the question YET. But denying the existence of everything we've learned isn't going to make swallowing the bitter pill that your guy is corrupt, should such come about, any easier.

Comshaw is looking for the checks, deposit tickets and the addresses of the banks and all of Joe’s Walmart receipts.

I’m really baffled that Barr allowed Hunter’s tax evasion charges to lapse. Sending a Biden corruption case to Delaware without oversight? The amount of tax dollars that Hunter evaded is just a percentage of how much money went through his hands. SAD! David Ignatius just gave the democrats the green light to dump Joe and print media will support it.