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

[HisArpy]

Where arev you when even your own people think it's stupid?

Republican Blasts Biden Impeachment Inquiry as Waste of Time​

RINOs and DINOs are only consequential when their vote tips the balance of power. Other than that they're best ignored by one and all.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Trump never had the DOj

"Trump's" DOJ conspired against him from day one.

The problem with your analogy above is that at first glance it would be incorrect to assume a racial component to a shooting at the black church, no more than you would assume a racial component to any other shooting in any other place in the black community where daily shootings are commonplace. It could have been a gang shooting, drug-related, or outright berserk behavior. We can only assume it to be race-related when evidence of such becomes apparent.

Here perhaps?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

https://i.redd.it/k94yy0evv9ob1.jpg

 

[Sean Renaud]

Fuck you Phil! You can't ambush a man who is drinking soda. My nose is gonna be burning for a while now. The only living thing more evil than you is my cat. I love her but she's a twat. One day I will find out why that cat like screw drivers so fucking much. I might as well just make one for her so she'll leave mine alone but somehow that feels irresponsible.

 

[jomar]

Trump never had the DOj

Bill Barr doesn’t count?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Well forget the audience. Lets for the sake of this conversation say that all news was ultimately funneled through a single "Source" so there was no market.

Is being unbiased even possible. If lets say me and Right Guide walk into the scene of a black church shooting. My thoughts are immediately going towards this was a hate crime. The odds of a black church being shot up at random TO ME seems pretty low. Taken at face value for the moment RG is going see this as a tragic attack on Americans or perhaps on Christianity. Since he constantly claims not to see color. This at the moment is not a criticism RG so I ask that you stay frosty.

The point is that the two of us could walk into the same crime scene, see the same thing and focus on different things for different reasons. We are BOTH biased and is entirely possible that we are both correct. They might hate black Christians or any combination. Maybe if the nearest location had been a Temple or Mosque or *gasp* a primarily white church. We don't have those facts. Neither of us are lying however is an important take away.

The above in bold is exactly why you need to read about that "particular" story from more than one reputable news source.

 

[Comshaw]

In the meantime, an unlikely critic of impeachment has emerged in conservative Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., who served as a federal prosecutor in the 1990s and, later, as a district attorney.

“I have been a prosecutor for 25 years,” Buck recently said, “I want to see evidence that ties Joe Biden to Hunter Biden’s activities. I haven’t seen that evidence yet.”

While no president could possibly welcome being impeached, congressional Democrats benefited from Republicans’ impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998; in that year’s midterms, Democrats bucked historical trends by gaining seats in the House and Senate.

Although Clinton was more popular than Biden, a similar dynamic could help the president in 2024, especially since his reelection is premised on the notion that the Republican Party has become a band of extremists uninterested in the business of governing.

“The strongest case Democrats have against impeachment is that it’s not only a waste of time but is coming at the expense of governing: that the House GOP is privileging frivolous, political investigations over trying to fix a host of other pressing problems,” argues Alex Shephard in the New Republic.

How the Biden impeachment push could imperil Republicans


Hmmmmmmm...

Comshaw

 

[jaF0]

It would be wonderful to see 'Pubs trounced nationwide over the antics of the likes of Matty, Margie, Louie, Joshie, Teddy and a few others.

But I'm not sure we'll see that.

 

[Rightguide]

The number of black churches is so low you have to go out of your way to have targeted one, which isn't actually the point. The other issues you bring up are clearly not race related at least not in that way.

That's the point. The shooting could have been the result of any of those I posited. It wasn't too far back when a white man shot up a white church in Texas. We didn't automatically assume the shooter was black or that there was a racial component. The man just hated religion.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1703423978725888339

https://twitter.com/x/status/1703431870917337316

 

[butters]

Nov. 25th 2015 pre-meeting memo makes clear VP Biden's actions in meeting with President Poroshenko—where he threatened the US would withhold $1B if Shokin wasn't investigated—shows he was following Pres. Obama's official government policy

Joe Biden's Impeachment Falls Apart

Republican efforts to impeach President Joe Biden suffered a blow after fresh evidence emerged showing his bid to remove Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in 2015 represented U.S. government policy.

 

[Lazaran]

Nov. 25th 2015 pre-meeting memo makes clear VP Biden's actions in meeting with President Poroshenko—where he threatened the US would withhold $1B if Shokin wasn't investigated—shows he was following Pres. Obama's official government policy

Joe Biden's Impeachment Falls Apart

I can’t find any corresponding report of that memo.

Cite please.

Thx

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Nov. 25th 2015 pre-meeting memo makes clear VP Biden's actions in meeting with President Poroshenko—where he threatened the US would withhold $1B if Shokin wasn't investigated—shows he was following Pres. Obama's official government policy

Joe Biden's Impeachment Falls Apart

This isn't a big secret, well except to rwcj Republicans.....

 

[HisArpy]

Nov. 25th 2015 pre-meeting memo makes clear VP Biden's actions in meeting with President Poroshenko—where he threatened the US would withhold $1B if Shokin wasn't investigated—shows he was following Pres. Obama's official government policy

Joe Biden's Impeachment Falls Apart

The US government cannot engage in illegal acts. Nor can it order it's administrators to engage in illegal acts.

Quid Pro Quo is illegal under US law. Thus, if Biden were following that illegal policy he would still be liable for the offenses he committed in doing so. "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense when the orders are illegal.

 

[butters]

I can’t find any corresponding report of that memo.

Cite please.

Thx

don't know what happened there... the middle line was highlighted blue—a link—when i posted that yesterday. I'll go look for the story and link it properly.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Quid Pro Quo is illegal under US law.

So you agree Trump should have been impeached..........wow, just fucking wow....

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20954985/impeachment-trump-quid-pro-quo

Trump himself ordered the aid blocked back in mid-July, and he seemed to connect the general topic of military aid to investigations on his late July call with Zelensky. But it wasn’t until August that the Ukrainians learned the aid was being held up.

After that, the quid pro quo became explicit: One administration official, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, began telling the Ukrainians that Ukraine would only get the aid if they publicly announced those investigations. Sondland said the same thing to several of his American colleagues — and he claimed several times that this was coming from Trump himself. (Arguably, this is less a quid pro quo than extortion.)

 

[butters]

don't know what happened there... the middle line was highlighted blue—a link—when i posted that yesterday. I'll go look for the story and link it properly.

okay, Laz, the same story but not the msn link i had with it

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/joe-biden-s-impeachment-falls-apart/ar-AA1gWk27#image=1

Then-Vice President Biden met Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president at the time, in December 2015, after which he claimed he'd threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kyiv, unless Shokin was removed from his post, which he subsequently was.

Some conservatives have suggested Biden was attempting to protect Ukrainian energy company Burisma, the board of which his son, Hunter Biden, had joined in 2014, by moving against Shokin. However a pre-meeting memo prepared for Biden by the State Department, dated November 25, 2015, made it clear that removing Shokin was the Obama administration's policy.

Shokin would later tell Fox News he was removed from office "at the insistence of the then Vice President Biden because I was investigating Burisma."

What We Know​

There are, however, no records showing the prosecutor general was actively investigating Burisma at the time with Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, recently telling a congressional committee it wasn't in the company's interest for him to be fired. In August, Biden insisted he "never talked business" with his son.

The Justice Department under the Trump administration also investigated allegations about whether or not Biden was bribed and found claims like Shokin's to be "not supported by the facts."

 

[Bray123]

GO FUCK YOURSELF

You're letting yourself down again.

 

[butters]

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc​

from the Financial Times 2019

Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden​

EU and US officials dispute Trump’s claim former vice-president acted to protect son

European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin, the country’s former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden, the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his removal, people involved in the talks said. Mr Biden did not act unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Mr Shokin, despite suggestions to the contrary by supporters of US president Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter said.

EU diplomats working on Ukraine at the time have, however, told the FT that they were looking for ways to persuade Kiev to remove Mr Shokin well before Mr Biden entered the picture. The push for Mr Shokin’s removal was part of an international effort to bolster Ukraine’s institutions following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the armed conflict in the eastern part of the country.

“All of us were really pushing [former Ukrainian president Petro] Poroshenko that he needs to do something, because the prosecutor was not following any of the corruption issues. He was really bad news,” said an EU diplomat involved in the discussions. “It was Biden who finally came in [and triggered it]. Biden was the most vocal, as the US usually is. But we were all literally complaining about the prosecutor.”

i don't see any images of the pre-meeting memo; don't know if it's been shared publicly.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1704602777719034029

 

[Philthy_Phil]

The US government cannot engage in illegal acts. Nor can it order it's administrators to engage in illegal acts.

Quid Pro Quo is illegal under US law. Thus, if Biden were following that illegal policy he would still be liable for the offenses he committed in doing so. "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense when the orders are illegal.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahhahah ahahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahah!!! heh

What a maroon!

 

[Lazaran]

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc​

from the Financial Times 2019




i don't see any images of the pre-meeting memo; don't know if it's been shared publicly.

I found this section of the Newsweek article to be definitive:

From the article:

“n a September 2015 speech, Geoffrey Pyatt, then the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, referred to Shokin by name and said his office was an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts "by openly and aggressively undermining reform". He accused it of undermining Ukrainian and British inquiries into Burisma.

"It was a policy that was coordinated tightly with the Europeans, with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank. But not only did we not see progress, we saw the PGO (Prosecutor General's Office) go backwards in this period," Victoria Nuland, currently Biden's acting deputy secretary of state, told the Senate Homeland Security and Accountability Committee in 2020, referring to Shokin's dismissal.”

That ^ is pretty conclusive.

 

[PaxNurgle]

The US government cannot engage in illegal acts. Nor can it order it's administrators to engage in illegal acts.

Quid Pro Quo is illegal under US law. Thus, if Biden were following that illegal policy he would still be liable for the offenses he committed in doing so. "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense when the orders are illegal.

IS not the current impeachment inquiry on Biden exactly this? Quid pro quo?
If there was evidence of his wrongdoing that would be one thing, but there it not.

Hence, it is quid pro quo- and nothing more. (Even you ought to be able to figure that out.)

OF course you refuse to recognize that the crimes of the former president are not only gravely serious, but seriously threatened our national security and our democratic system- and you for some reason don't think he should be held accountable.

 

[zipman]

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.

Comer said they didn't subpoena Joe Biden because they have no evidence.

Is a to to get back at trying to prosecute Trump for the many crimes he had committed and admitted to.

 

[zipman]

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.

Nope. Comer admitted that there is no evidence thing Joe to any money or payments.