╌>

House Democrats Blast James Comer for Hiding "Key Evidence" in Biden Probe | The New Republic

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  2 months ago  •  115 comments

By:   Tori Otten (The New Republic)

House Democrats Blast James Comer for Hiding "Key Evidence" in Biden Probe | The New Republic
Democrats say James Comer is refusing to publish a transcript that would disprove many of Republicans' claims.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Democrats say James Comer is refusing to publish a transcript that would disprove many of Republicans' claims.


House Democrats are accusing Oversight Chair James Comer of "concealing key evidence" that disproves Republicans' claims in their investigation into the Biden family.

Jamie Raskin, the ranking Oversight member, sent Comer a letter on Friday demanding he release the complete transcript of a committee interview last week with a former FBI supervisory special agent. The Oversight Committee had released five "key takeaways" from the interview, but not the transcript of what was actually said.

"This failure to release a transcript is the latest in your troubling pattern of concealing key evidence in order to advance a false and distorted narrative about your 'investigation of Joe Biden' that has not only failed to develop any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden but has, in fact, uncovered substantial evidence to the contrary," Raskin charged in his letter, which was obtained by The New Republic.

"Your conduct flies in the face of the Committee's traditional commitment to transparency and underscores the illegitimacy of an investigation that you have described as your 'top priority' and that has recently devolved into a voyeuristic obsession with salacious aspects of Hunter Biden's life."

House Republicans, led by Comer, have for months accused the Biden family of corruption but have been unable to provide any actual evidence linking President Joe Biden or his son Hunter to any wrongdoing. They recently seized on Hunter Biden's taxes, insisting that he committed fraud.

The Oversight Committee heard testimony last week from two IRS agents who say the Department of Justice dragged its feet on investigating the younger Biden for tax fraud. The hearing produced zero actual evidence, so instead, Marjorie Taylor Greene held up poster-size prints of Biden's nude photos, which she says were taken off of his laptop. (This would be the "voyeuristic obsession" Raskin mentioned.)

In his letter, Raskin accused Comer of refusing to release the FBI agent's transcript because it "discredited" the IRS whistleblowers' claims. Raskin said the testimony would instead show the investigation into Hunter Biden's taxes followed procedure and was free of political motivations.

This is not the first time that Raskin has urged Comer to be more transparent about his Biden investigation. Raskin sent Comer a letter in April calling on him to share information with committee Democrats.

Since then, Raskin said in Friday's message, Comer has refused to give his colleagues a copy of Hunter Biden's laptop hard drive, despite continuously citing information from it in media appearances.

Comer has also pushed a years-old, widely debunked conspiracy theory originally started by Rudy Giuliani, and he has publicly discussed confidential but unverified information, including anonymous whistleblower claims and the contents of bank suspicious activity reports, or SARs. Earlier this month, Comer accused the president of laundering money through his granddaughter's account, insisting he had a SAR to prove it.

"Your decision to publicize details of a confidential SAR and speculate about President Biden's grandchild, who was a minor for much of the time period covered by the SAR, suggests that the aim of your investigation is simply to smear President Biden and his family," Raskin said in his letter.

Comer has let his true intentions slip before. He and his fellow Republicans continue to insist Biden is guilty of corruption, despite repeatedly admitting that they have no evidence, they don't know if their information is legitimate, and they don't even really care if the accusations are accurate.

Editor's PickCould James Comer Possibly Get More Embarrassing? (Um, Yes.) Most Recent PostTori Otten/July 28, 2023/2:29 p.m. ET

"The Boss" Wants the Footage Deleted: The Damning New Evidence Against Trump


Trump allegedly tried to destroy the evidence in a cover-up attempt.


1bc5ea125820c79dd6bfd895d951cb1c3562959c.jpeg?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Steve Marcus/Getty ImagesDonald Trump

Special counsel Jack Smith surprised everyone by issuing new charges against Donald Trump—in the classified documents case (we're still waiting on charges for trying to overthrow the 2020 election). And evidence for the new allegations is pretty overwhelming.

Smith filed a superseding indictment Thursday night, and Trump now faces 41 criminal counts for willful retention of national defense information, making false statements, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, among other things. Smith also added another defendant to the case, a Mar-a-Lago employee named Carlos De Oliveira. This brings the total number of defendants to three, including Trump's body man Walt Nauta.

In general, the new charges paint the picture of a cover-up, as Trump allegedly sought to destroy evidence. He, Nauta, and De Oliveira have all been newly charged with altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing an object, as well as corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing an object. De Oliveira has also been charged with making false statements.

De Oliveira is accused of helping Nauta move boxes of documents out of a Mar-a-Lago storage room (Nauta says he did not know what was in the boxes at the time). De Oliveira also allegedly asked an I.T. employee about deleting security footage off of a server. When the tech employee said they didn't know if doing so was authorized, De Oliveira said that "the boss" wanted it.

The indictment does not explicitly say that De Oliveira was referring to Trump when he mentioned "the boss" (although it's also unclear who else De Oliveira's boss could be). But the indictment does list multiple conversations Trump had with Nauta and De Oliveira, seemingly to prove how hands-on the former president was regarding plans to delete security footage.

De Oliveira is also apparently the employee who drained the Mar-a-Lago pool last October into a room full of computer services used to store surveillance footage from around the property. Prosecutors were told that, fortunately, none of the equipment was damaged.

Two of the new charges against Trump also include an additional count of willful retention, as well as a brand new charge of "presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country." The new indictment accuses Trump of showing a document that supposedly details a potential plan to attack Iran to people with no security clearance. Trump allegedly waved the paper around during a meeting at his Bedminster club.

Smith's new indictment is so all-encompassing that one of Trump's former lawyers has a message for his old boss: Good luck.

"I think this original indictment was engineered to last a thousand years, and now this superseding indictment will last an antiquity," Ty Cobb, who represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation,told CNN. "This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming."

Cobb also said Trump had likely been advised by his lawyers "not to destroy, move [documents], or obstruct this grand jury subpoena in any way."

"So this is Trump going not just behind the back of the prosecutors; this is Trump going behind the back of his own lawyers and dealing with two people who are extremely loyal."

Editor's PickDonald Trump Is Running to Stay Out of Prison. Say It, Democrats! Most Recent PostAdrienne Mahsa Varkiani/July 27, 2023/9:35 p.m. ET

"Lazy Shits": Republican Congressman Curses Teenage Senate Pages


This is not the first time Representative Derrick Van Orden has threatened a bunch of teenagers.


4c5c58a20f5c667ceae8e0d855ec60472be8f144.jpeg?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty ImagesRepresentative Derrick Van Orden

Wisconsin Representative Derrick Van Orden yelled at a group of teenage Senate pages early Thursday morning, calling them "lazy shits" and "jackasses."

Senate pages are typically high school teens sponsored by their home state's senator to help out in the chamber. When the Senate works late—as it was on Wednesday, as votes on the national defense bill stretched into Thursday—pages sometimes rest in the Capitol Rotunda. This week is their last in Congress before their session ends.

According to Punchbowl News, several pages were lying on the floor taking pictures of the building's dome when Van Orden spotted them. He immediately began cursing at them, calling them "lazy shits" and ordering them to "get the fuck up."

A Senate page wrote down a transcript of the interaction, which was later reported on in The Hill.

"Wake the fuck up you little shits.… What the fuck are you all doing? Get the fuck out of here. You are defiling the space you [pieces of shit]," Van Orden reportedly told the pages. "Who the fuck are you?"

After one of the kids clarified that they were Senate pages, Van Orden replied, "I don't give a fuck who you are, get out."

"You jackasses, get out," he repeated.

Van Orden, for his part, defended his behavior, arguing that the Capitol Rotunda was used as a field hospital during the Civil War for Union soldiers.

"I would think that I'd be terribly disrespectful to lay on the grave of a soldier that died fighting for freedom," Van Orden told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "And I don't know anybody that disagrees."

Van Orden did not seem to recognize that a hospital and a cemetery are two different things—and the Capitol Rotunda is neither one of them.

The Wisconsin Republican seems to have a penchant for bullying teenagers. In 2021, the then-candidate threatened a 17-year-old staff member at a local library, demanding to know who set up the Pride Month display of books. Van Orden went on to check out every book from the display so that they would not be available to other patrons.

The teenage employee went home and told her parents she no longer felt safe at work.

Editor's Pick100 Degree Days, Wildfires … to Congressional Republicans, Nothing to See Here Most Recent PostTori Otten/July 27, 2023/9:05 p.m. ET

Half of Republicans Don't Think Trump Took Classified Docs. That's Terrifying.


Trump still controls the Republican Party—and they'll believe anything he says.


4177643b07b944767b3716d8948bfcc142d54bd0.jpeg?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC/Getty ImagesDonald Trump

Half of Republicans don't actually think that Donald Trump had hidden classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, a poll released Thursday found, a troubling sign that the party is still deeply in his thrall.

Trump was charged in June with 37 criminal counts of willful retention of national defense information, making false statements, and conspiracy to obstruct justices, among other things. The indictment included multiple photos of the boxes of documents that Trump hoarded at his Florida resort. He kept them stored everywhere around the property, from the ballroom to the bathroom. And there's even a public recording of him admitting he kept the classified materials.

But despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence against him, only 49 percent of Republicans actually believe there were classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, according to a new Marquette Law School survey, while 50 percent don't believe there were documents there.

Those numbers are a fortunate shift from September, when only 40 percent of Republicans believed there were documents, and 60 percent did not.

Democrats, meanwhile, have never been in doubt. The survey found that 95 percent of left-leaning voters believe classified material was kept at Mar-a-Lago, compared to 91 percent in September.

Independents are not quite as convinced as Democrats, but far more believe the indictment than Republicans. Seventy-eight percent say classified documents were present at the resort, up from 66 percent in September.

Republicans' refusal to see the facts right in front of them is a clear sign of how much influence Trump still has over the party. He is leading the pack of Republican presidential candidates by a mile, and if anything, the multiple indictments against him have made him even more popular.

This is a chilling indication of what we can expect next November. If Trump wins the GOP presidential nomination, then he will still have a solid fan base on which to draw come Election Day.

And if he does return to the White House, good luck prosecuting him for anything.

Editor's PickThe False Hope That the Law Will Finally Catch Up to Trump Most Recent PostAdrienne Mahsa Varkiani/July 27, 2023/6:51 p.m. ET

This Senate Is the Second-Oldest in History


A recent incident with Mitch McConnell has cast a light on just how old this Congress is.


aa35b593b46934b4fd310bbd6eee3be4f2e844c9.png?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images Drew Angerer/Getty Images Senators Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell

Congress is even older than you think it is.

On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seemed to shut down while giving a press conference at the Capitol. He froze, apparently unable to speak, as several of his colleagues asked him if he was alright. Eventually, he had to be escorted away.

While he seems to have recovered shortly thereafter—glaring at reporters who asked him whether he had chosen a successor yet—the incident has revived questions about his age and fitness to serve. After all, this isn't the 81-year-old lawmaker's first public health scare.

But zooming out, it also casts a light on just how old our Congress is getting.

According to an NBC News analysis, this Congress is the third-oldest since 1789, when the legislative branch as we know it today was first established. The Senate is the second-oldest in U.S. history.

And as the House keeps getting younger, the Senate keeps getting older.

A Pew analysis found that the median age of House lawmakers is 57.9 years, down from 58.9 in the last Congress. The Senate's median age, however, is 65.3 years, an uptick from 64.8 in the last session. These reverse trends have been continuing for years now.

4c47197367c4e1876e8b06e10f42e5a6a51a41af.webp?w=1280

While age isn't everything, and we don't have the full details of what happened to McConnell, it's hard not to be concerned about this trend.

In March, McConnell tripped and suffered a concussion and cracked rib, leaving him out of session for nearly six weeks before he was finally able to return to Congress. His injury is a common one among older people, as an estimated 800,000 seniors per year are hospitalized for injuries from falling. After Thursday's incident in the press conference, reporters revealed that McConnell has fallen multiple times this year and has taken to using a wheelchair in airports to avoid future accidents. (McConnell, it should be noted, is a polio survivor and walks with a limp, but his recent history is troubling even his Republican colleagues.)

On the other side of the aisle, Senator Dianne Feinstein was missing from the chamber for nearly three months due to a particularly bad bout of the shingles. The illness led her to contract Ramsay Hunt syndrome, causing facial paralysis and vision and balance impairments, as well as encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain that can cause "lasting memory or language problems, sleep disorders, bouts of confusion, mood disorders, headaches and difficulties walking," according to The New York Times.

When she did finally return to Congress, Feinstein seemed completely unaware that she had been missing at all.

On Thursday morning, during a vote on the defense appropriations bill, she launched into a full speech instead of simply casting her vote.


Asked to vote on the defense appropriations bill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) begins giving a speech: "I would like to support a 'yes' vote on this. It provides …"
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA): "Just say aye." pic.twitter.com/Gw2eZ9rEMv

— The Recount (@therecount) July 27, 2023

"Just say 'aye,'" Senator Patty Murray advised Feinstein, giving her a thumbs up.

"OK, just—?" she replied, looking confused. "Aye."

Editor's PickMitch McConnell, You're No Mike Mansfield Most Recent PostTori Otten/July 27, 2023/6:04 p.m. ET

Trump to Jack Smith: Indicting Me Will "Destroy Our Country"


Trump is expected to face his third indictment any minute now, and he is not handling it well.


673cdc837c327ee862f013ac9fb34169c195824f.jpeg?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Donald Trump had a dangerous warning Thursday for special counsel Jack Smith, who is investigating him for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election: Another indictment would "destroy" the United States.

Smith has already indicted the twice-impeached former president for mishandling classified documents. Trump's lawyers met with Smith's team earlier Thursday and were reportedly told to expect an indictment.

Trump has not been handling all of the indictment talk well (to put it mildly), and his post on Truth Social was no different.

"My attorneys had a productive meeting with the DOJ this morning, explaining in detail that I did nothing wrong, was advised by many lawyers, and that an Indictment of me would only further destroy our Country," he wrote.

"No indication of notice was given during the meeting—Do not trust the Fake News on anything!" he added, disputing reports that his legal team was warned an indictment was coming.

In addition to Smith's charges against him, Trump has been charged with 34 counts of business fraud in New York relating to hush-money payments made during the 2016 election, has been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and has been sued for defamation yet again. He could also be indicted in Georgia for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election within the next few weeks.

Editor's PickPeople Aren't Facing Up to the Horrors a New Trump Term Would BringMost Recent PostTori Otten/July 27, 2023/5:19 p.m. ET

Blacks and Latinos Are Half of L.A. Population—but 80 Percent of Arrests


A new study sheds light on the disproportionate rate of arrests in the second-biggest city in America.


75862a46e8126f92e42cfdfe7ea50f081dc348d9.jpeg?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Los Angeles city police arrest a Black or Latino person nearly eight out of every 10 times, despite the fact that those two communities only make up about half the city's population, a new study has found.

City Controller Kenneth Mejia's office released an analysis Wednesday night of the LAPD's nearly 300,000 arrests made from 2019 to 2022. Mejia was elected in November, and part of his campaign involved putting up billboards around Los Angeles blasting the city's massive police budget.

Black and brown people make up an average of 78.26 percent of all arrests for the years analyzed—but they make up only 56 percent of the city's population, according to 2020 census data.

1bf34ee174bd956c9a446496d719dbb4a5a4e20a.png?w=14000619aa95bbdf89a78a76efa225a8d6ae096efd7e.png?w=1400

The majority of the arrests, every year except 2021, occurred in the city's District 14, where people of Hispanic origin make up nearly three-quarters of the neighborhood. In 2021, District 8 had the most arrests by just three. That district, which also has high arrest numbers, has a primarily Black- and Hispanic-origin population.

The report comes as police departments across the United States increased scrutiny, particularly of systemic racism and brutality. In June, the Department of Justice released a report that found the Minneapolis Police Department systematically used excessive force and discriminated against racial minorities for years ahead of the police killing of George Floyd.

Editor's PickThe DOJ Barely Scratched the Surface of Minneapolis Police Thuggery Most Recent PostTori Otten/July 27, 2023/3:23 p.m. ET

Supreme Court Clears Way for Mountain Valley Pipeline, as Earth Reaches Hottest Temp


This is a blow to environmental groups everywhere.


757a78688b86626d12b7b3faa829a9804b756ec5.jpeg?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu Agency/Getty ImagesA Stop Mount Valley Pipeline rally in front of the White House on June 8

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that construction on the controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline could continue, a huge win for Senator Joe Manchin and a blow to environmental groups.

Manchin had demanded that permits for the pipeline be included in the debt ceiling deal in exchange for his supporting the bill. Democrats agreed, infuriating environmental activists and politicians alike. Two separate appeals courts issued stays on the pipeline earlier this month, one of which determined that the pipeline would violate the Endangered Species Act.

But the Supreme Court agreed to lift the lower court orders and allow construction to continue. There were no public dissents, even from liberal justices, a rare occurrence on the politically divided bench.

The pipeline will run more than 300 miles from northern West Virginia to southern Virginia, possibly even into Northern California. It will carry fracked gas, which is proven to be the cause of surging global methane emissions—a major contributor to climate change.

But President Joe Biden has backed the pipeline, despite opposition from other Democrats. Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, who represents one of the regions that will be most affected by construction, was particularly furious that the pipeline was included in the debt bill instead of moving through the standard process.

The ruling also comes as states from coast to coast struggle with triple-digit temperatures. July is set to be the world's hottest month on record.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are not just burying their heads in the sand over the heat wave but actively plotting to undermine Biden's environmental policy plans.

The GOP is blocking Biden from declaring a national emergency over climate change, introducing a bill that bars him from directing resources to address the life-threatening crisis. The House and Senate sponsors of the bill have received about $5 million from fossil fuel interests just over the past five years.

This story has been updated.

Editor's PickI Wish I Were Joe ManchinMost Recent PostTori Otten/July 27, 2023/2:34 p.m. ET

Raskin Demands Comer "Publicly Reprimand" Greene for Waving Around Hunter Biden Nudes


Marjorie Taylor Greene's actions are turning the committee into "a 1970s-era dime store peep show," the Democratic congressman warned.


bab1a70b93240f75296654071c321fa0c3f619bb.jpeg?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Representative Jamie Raskin is accusing House Oversight Chair James Comer of undermining the committee's credibility by allowing Marjorie Taylor Greene to show Hunter Biden's nude photos, saying the committee is being "reduced to the level of a 1970s-era dime store peep show."

The House Oversight Committee heard testimony last week from two IRS agents who say the Department of Justice dragged its feet on investigating the younger Biden for tax fraud. The hearing produced zero actual evidence, so instead, Greene tried to claim that Biden engaged in sex trafficking and listed payments to sex workers as a tax write-off. To support her argument, she held up poster-size prints of Biden's nude photos, which she later also posted on Twitter and shared in her email newsletter.

In a letter sent to Comer Wednesday evening, Raskin tore into his colleague for refusing to stop Greene during the hearing. Raskin asked Comer to publicly reprimand Greene and to establish new committee rules banning the display of "pornographic images" unless they are actually relevant to the case at hand.

"If Rep. Greene's completely gratuitous and irrelevant display of pornographic images at our televised hearing does not violate the Congressional rules of decorum, then we have no rules of Congressional decorum," Raskin said in the letter, which was obtained byThe New Republic. "This type of display is a violation of House rules, and, as you yourself have recognized, also 'counter to a credible investigation.'"

Raskin also called Comer out for repeatedly declining to condemn Greene's actions. Instead, the official Oversight Republicans' Twitter account shared Greene's tweet, which included a video clip of her holding up the nude photos.

"These pictures were displayed across America for purely voyeuristic, sensationalistic, and sadistic purposes," Raskin said in his letter. "Our Committee, which was once chaired by heroes of the public interest like Henry Waxman and Elijah Cummings, is rapidly being reduced to the level of a 1970s-era dime store peep show."

"Your failure to halt Rep. Greene's display of pornographic photography during Committee proceedings undermines the integrity of this Committee and the House of Representatives."

Democrats moved earlier this week to censure Greene for a variety of offenses, including showing Biden's nudes. The resolution also condemns Greene for calling Muslim members of Congress part of the "Jihad Squad" and for appearing at a white nationalist event.

"For me, censuring Rep. Taylor Greene is about the health of our democracy and faith in government. Her antisemitic, racist, transphobic rhetoric has no place in the House of Representatives," said Representative Becca Balint, who introduced the measure Tuesday.

Biden has also hit back at Greene: His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, filed an ethics complaint against her on Friday, sending a letter to the nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics asking that Greene be investigated and penalized for her "outrageous, undignified conduct."

Editor's PickLeonard Leo's Slippery Trick for Dodging the Scrutiny of CongressMost Recent PostTori Otten/July 26, 2023/9:08 p.m. ET

Republican Rep Torches McCarthy for Biden "Impeachment Theater"


The hard-line Republican had some choice words for Kevin McCarthy.


557116d8fad65062dedd7f4fbabc291c3ae2dff9.jpeg?auto=compress&w=768&h=undefined&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.2Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty ImagesRepresentative Ken Buck

Republican Representative Ken Buck on Wednesday accused Kevin McCarthy of raising the idea of impeaching Joe Biden to distract the public.

McCarthy said this week that the Republicans' (bogus) investigation of Biden was "rising to the level of impeachment inquiry," despite previously calling attempts to impeach the president immature. The House Freedom Caucus, the GOP's farthest-right wing, and other hard-line Republicans have been pushing the idea of impeachment proceedings for some time now.

But Buck, a member of the Freedom Caucus, is calling out McCarthy, saying that talking about impeachment right now is irresponsible. "This is impeachment theater," the Colorado Republican told CNN's Dana Bash. "We right now are starting the appropriations process, and there is not consensus on the Republican side about what the numbers should be."

Buck pointed out that when McCarthy became House speaker, he had promised not to raise the debt ceiling. But he later struck a deal with Biden to do just that (after a Republican-manufactured crisis that brought the United States to the brink of default).

"What he's doing is he's saying, 'There's a shiny object over here, and we're really going to focus on that. We just need to get all these things done so that we can focus on the shiny object,'" Buck said. "Most of us are concerned about spending."

"I don't think it's responsible for us to talk about impeachment."


GOP Rep. Ken Buck says Kevin McCarthy's impeachment talk is just a "shiny object" to distract the public from spending and other issues.
"I don't think it's responsible for us to talk about impeachment." pic.twitter.com/HFATtZfla1

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) July 26, 2023

Buck did say he supported the House Republicans' (so far evidenceless) probe into the Biden family's alleged wrongdoing, but he warned that talking about impeachment already could give Americans the wrong impression.

McCarthy escalated the investigation to a new level on Monday when he put impeachment on the table. Other Republicans have tried to impeach Biden before. Both Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert introduced articles of impeachment over Biden's handling of immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border—a sore point that led to Greene calling Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.

When Boebert introduced her articles in June, McCarthy called the move premature and urged his fellow Republicans to oppose it. He reportedly told lawmakers that impeachment "strengthens Biden and weakens us."

Editor's PickHouse Republicans' Impeachment Fever Is a Gift to DemocratsView More PostsRead More: Politics, Law, Supreme Court, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Economic Inequality, Taxes, Washington


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    2 months ago

Comer is full of shit and his press releases are full of MAGA lies...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1    2 months ago
Comer is full of shit and his press releases are full of MAGA lies...

Ah, so he is the Republican equivalent of Adam Schiff.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @1    2 months ago

So is the man that he kisses on the ass daily

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2    2 months ago

No argument here...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2  Trout Giggles    2 months ago
On the other side of the aisle, Senator Dianne Feinstein was missing from the chamber for nearly three months due to a particularly bad bout of the shingles. The illness led her to contract Ramsay Hunt syndrome, causing facial paralysis and vision and balance impairments, as well as encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain that can cause "lasting memory or language problems, sleep disorders, bouts of confusion, mood disorders, headaches and difficulties walking," according to The New York Times.

When she did finally return to Congress, Feinstein seemed completely unaware that she had been missing at all.

On Thursday morning, during a vote on the defense appropriations bill, she launched into a full speech instead of simply casting her vote.


Asked to vote on the defense appropriations bill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) begins giving a speech: "I would like to support a 'yes' vote on this. It provides …"
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA): "Just say aye." pic.twitter.com/Gw2eZ9rEMv

— The Recount (@therecount) July 27, 2023

"Just say 'aye,'" Senator Patty Murray advised Feinstein, giving her a thumbs up.

She needs to retire already

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3  cjcold    2 months ago

There is no innuendo or lie that Comer, Jordan or any Trump sycophant won't stoop to in their endless futile attempts to slander Biden or defend the serial criminal Trump. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @3    2 months ago

No one ever needs to slander Biden, all we have to do is tell the truth about him and then listen to the sycophants squeal.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    2 months ago

All you "know" about Biden is what Trump and his fellow propagandists say.

Try looking up his record and the things he has done FOR We the People.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @3.1.1    2 months ago
All you "know" about Biden is what Trump and his fellow propagandists say.

Sure, Joe Biden doesn't have a record to run on.

No one knows anything about Joe except what his handlers allow, right?

I know for a fact that Joe Biden said more than once he never discussed any of his son's business with him. Yet we find him entertaining Hunter's business associates with tales of the weather!

I also can recognize when someone proves Reagan right about what liberals 'know'.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.3    2 months ago

That is untrue on multiple levels...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  cjcold @3.1.1    2 months ago
"Try looking up his record and the things he has done FOR We the People."

We're very aware of what he has done AGAINST the people. Worst excuse for a president in the history of the Universe.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.1.4    2 months ago

True for everything he says - untrue that is

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
3.1.8  JumpDrive  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.3    2 months ago
His record and comments show he is a racist by not wanting to integrate schools

Just a slight lack of nuance. Here's the section of a Biden interview in 1975 about race. Almost 50 years ago, but pretty damn good by today's standards:

TV NEWS. Senator, as you know, busing is a very controversial issue in Delaware right now. What is your stand on busing? Why did you vote against the anti-busing Gurney Amendment that was defeated 7-46 in the Senate? 
BIDEN. I oppose busing. It's an asinine concept, the utility of which has never been proven to me. I took that position-along with Howard Brown, a black candidate for mayor-long before the '72 election; we were the only Democrats on record as opposed to busing. Many people forget that-conveniently- now for their own political reasons. The Gurney Amendment was a political move which would have allowed anyone affected by a civil rights decision from 1954 onward to re-open their court case. 90% of those cases had nothing to do with busing. It would have created havoc in our court system. Five hundred law professors signed petitions saying the amendment was unconstitutional. My political opponents cast this as "A vote against Gurney is a vote for busing." In fact, everyone admitted there was no chance of it going into effect; it was one of those political "flag-waving" things to show the folks, nothing more. I've gotten to the  point where I think our only recourse to eliminate busing may be a constitutional amendment. The unsavory part about this is when I come out against busing, as I have all along, I don't want to be mixed up with a George Wallace. I don't want anybody to give me credit for sharing any point of view George Wallace has. There are some people who oppose busing because they are racist, but the vast majority of the American people-the people of Delaware-oppose it for the same reason that the architect of the concept now opposes it. Professor Coleman, an educator, first suggested the possible benefits of busing in a 1966 report. Now in 1975 Coleman says, "Guess what? I was wrong. Busing doesn't accomplish its goal." We should be concentrating on things other than busing to provide for the educational and cultural needs of the deprived segment of our population. But we've lost our bearings since the 1954 "Brown vs. School Board" desegregation case. To "desegregate" is different than to "integrate." I got into trouble with Democratic liberals in 1972 when I refused to support a quota-system for the Democratic National Convention. I am philosophically opposed to quota-systems; they insure mediocrity. The new integration plans being offered are really just quota-systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with; what it says is, "in order for your child With curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son." That's racist! Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child? The point is that if we look beyond the "old" left to the "New Left," almost all the new liberal leaders and civil rights leaders oppose busing. 

TV NEWS. If nobody wants it, where did it come from? 
BIDEN. It has come from the courts primarily, from people who were-for the most part-appointed during the 60's, at the height of the civil rights activist movements. The thrust at that time was to force integration, to eliminate racial identities in the hope that then we'd all live happily ever after. It was probably a necessary first-step then, and I would probably have shared that viewpoint, had I been around then. So what we have now is a court-administered system that is ten or twelve years behind what I believe is accurate, rational thinking. There are other things besides busing that we should be addressing to deal with these problems. For example, during my campaign I went on record in support of a single statewide school district tax, and I got clobbered for it. Well, if we'd done that, we wouldn't have to be talking about busing now; it wouldn't even be an issue. We would have undercut the argument about equal distribution of educational benefits. I was the only member of County Council to push for public housing in the suburbs of New Castle County. Well, one of the bases of the current suit is that they have been able to identify discrimination in housing patterns in the county. 

TV NEWS. How can you, as a U.S. Senator, work to remedy the situation now? What are you currently doing? 
BIDEN. I have made my views known to state legislators, saying that I don't think busing is a good idea. But frankly, I have tried not to become too vocal on the subject while the case is still being litigated. I'm a conservative where the constitution is concerned, and I believe it would be inappropriate for me-as a U.S. Senator-to try to put pressure on the courts. We've got to wait until the judicial remedy runs its course before moving in with a legislative remedy. We don't wait and do nothing, however. I think we can do three things: (1) Develop legislation saying that HEW cannot order busing-if it ever is ordered, it certainly shouldn't be through an administrative agency. (2) Draw legislation which says simply that children may not be assigned beyond their own school district, unless it can be proven that the district lines were deliberately drawn to exclude certain areas. And (3) draw up new legislation which more strictly defines de jure segregation, which is the basis on which the children are now being bused. Senator Roth and I are working on that legislation already. The problem, you see, is that the courts have gone overboard in their interpretation of what is required to remedy unlawful segregation. It is one thing to say that you cannot keep a black man from using this bathroom, and something quite different to say that one out of every five people who use this bathroom must be black. It used to be that the pattern of use of a facility was one measure of segregation. Discrimination can take subtle forms, and blatant racism is the exception rather than the rule. For instance, a black man can be turned down for a job and the employer can offer many excuses other than the fact that the applicant was black. So the pattern of use test became one way to estimate real segregation. But it has now been turned into an affirmative program to insure integration, and that brings us right back to quota systems. The ultimate result is a "planned-society,'' which I abhor. It is the obligation of government to knock down any barriers thrown up to prevent someone from being able to participate in any aspect of our society. But I do not buy the concept, popular in the 60's which said: 'we have suppressed the black man for 300 years, and the white man is now far ahead in the 'race' for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a "head start' or even hold the white man back to even the race." I don't buy that. I don't feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation ls today, for the sins of my own generation. And I'll be damned 1f I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago. 

TV NEWS. You are still a liberal, aren't you, Senator? 
BIDEN. I think I'm a true liberal. I think these other people are a little bit phony about being liberals. A true liberal says you allow as much flexibility in society as possible. A true liberal would say that it is wrong to penalize someone who has committed no wrong, based simply on the generalization of his race's violation of the civil rights of another race. It ls true that the white man has suppressed the black man, and continues to suppress the black man. It ls harder to be black than to be white. But you have to open up avenues for blacks without closing avenues for whites; you don't hold society back to let one segment catch up. You put more money into the black schools for remedial reading programs, you upgrade facilities, you upgrade opportunities, open up housing patterns. You give everybody a piece of the action. 

TV NEWS. You believe that is possible? 
BIDEN. I believe it is absolutely necessary, and I wouldn't stay here if I didn't think it was possible. Because if it's not possible, quite frankly, I don't hold much hope for our generation. If we cannot do this, we are going to end up with the races at war, because your children and my children are not going to stand up for having their civil rights violated in order to give some other group an opportunity to exercise their civil rights. This ls the real problem with busing-you take people who aren't racist, people who are good citizens, who believe ln equal education and opportunity, and you stunt their children's intellectual growth by busing them to an inferior school and you're going to fill them with hatred. And what about the black student from Wilmington's east side? You send him to Alexis I duPont, bus him through Centerville every day, then send him back to the ghetto. How can he be encouraged to love his white brothers. He doesn't need a look at the other side," he needs the change to get out of the ghetto permanently. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5  Greg Jones    2 months ago

"Democrats continue to insist Trump is guilty of corruption, despite repeatedly admitting that they have no evidence, they don't know if their information is legitimate, and they don't even really care if the accusations are accurate."

Fixed it for ya'.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @5    2 months ago

The Trump Organization has been convicted of multiple cases of financial fraud, his attorney and accountant have gone to prison and he is forever barred from operating a charity ever again. Now Trump is facing over eighty federal criminal indictments, with more coming, yet MAGA still have the gall to post ridiculous comments like that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1    2 months ago
yet MAGA still have the gall to post ridiculous comments like that?

heck, you post all kinds of crazy stuff about nonexistent and/or unproductive investigations!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    2 months ago

Unproductive? How many criminal indictments is Trump facing?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    2 months ago
Nothing?

Yes.

prove me wrong--all you have to do is list any indictment---I won't even bother with a conviction--that resulted from one of these investigations you claim were happening well before 2016.

You know--the same exact things people have been imploring you to provide form the very first instance you posted these articles.

My money says you just can't do it or you would have by now.

That's the problem when you tout investigations which turned up nothing.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    2 months ago
How many criminal indictments is Trump facing?

And somehow that is proof of guilt?  All it proves is the prosecutor gave enough information to convince a small group of people.  NONE of it has been challenged by a defense.  Nowhere close to proof of guilt.

Not to mention that some of these charges may be in question due to Smith's use of a Grand Jury in D.C. for the Documents case.  He has until next Thursday to address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Silent
5.1.5  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.4    2 months ago

yea, people are often facing close to a hundred charges whence completely innocent, it’s just coincidental, that this midget mental, is always being charged with Trumped up charges, simply due to his name, either that, or lack of shame ….

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.5    2 months ago
charged with Trumped up charges

Look how many times he's been "charged" and how many even made it to a trial.  

due to his name

Well he did embarrass the Democrats.  Hence their Big Lie and continual "investigations" since 2016.

I also notice you didn't try to answer my question (hell, my whole comment at that).  Do you think an indictment is proof of guilt?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.4    2 months ago
And somehow that is proof of guilt?

No of course an indictment is not proof of guilt.   Hell, a conviction is not even proof of guilt.   A conviction is simply a determination of guilt.

Do you think the Trump indictments are all bogus ... that Trump is squeaky clean?   That Trump has not done anything wrong in his Big Lie campaign, classified documents fiasco, etc.?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.6    2 months ago
Look how many times he's been "charged" and how many even made it to a trial.  

So does that translate in your bizarre thinking that Trump has not engaged in wrongdoing?

Does Trump have to be convicted before you acknowledge that attempting to suborn Pence to table certified votes to allow Trump's fake electors to substitute the real electors is wrong?

Does he need to be convicted for you to realize that it was wrong for Trump to lie that the US electoral system was rigged, that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS and that tens of millions of voters were disenfranchised in an unconstitutional attempt to steal a US presidential election for the first time in US history?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    2 months ago
No of course an indictment is not proof of guilt. 

And yet you have trolled me for over a month trying to brow beat me into stating his guilt.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.8    2 months ago
So does that translate in your bizarre thinking that Trump has not engaged in wrongdoing?

It translates to what I've been telling your for quite a while - IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    2 months ago

I have a few questions:

This article is about the House Committee investigation of the Biden family's corruption. How do we jump to Trump?

Why is the msm avoiding the House Committee investigation?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.12  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.8    2 months ago
"Does he need to be convicted for you to realize that it was wrong for Trump to lie that the US electoral system was rigged, that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS and that tens of millions of voters were disenfranchised in an unconstitutional attempt to steal a US presidential election for the first time in US history?"

Of course it was wrong, but not ILLEGAL. Trump truly might have believed what he said was true. 

And now we learn that the J6 Dem committee was not interested in being fair and impartial.

January 6th committee didn't turn over its records to the House – HotAir

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.13  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.6    2 months ago
Do you think an indictment is proof of guilt?

oh dear, have republicans finally transitioned from where's the charges and indictments to where's the proof and convictions? stay tuned.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @5.1.13    2 months ago

A simple "Yes" or "No" would have sufficed.  Nice deflection from the question.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.9    2 months ago

Evidence is proof of guilt. Is Trump guilty of sitting in the oval office dining room eating snacks and watching tv while the Capitol riot was going on ? YES. It has been proven by the eyewitness testimony of people who were there. 

That is proof. An indictment is an allegation. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    2 months ago
Evidence is proof of guilt.

Not necessarily.  Evidence can also prove innocence.  I know that's an unheard of fact for many on the left but it works both ways.  

Is Trump guilty of sitting in the oval office dining room eating snacks and watching tv while the Capitol riot was going on ? YES.

And not a bit of it illegal.  Just because it's not what YOU expected doesn't make any of it wrong.  

An indictment is an allegation. 

There you go.  An allegation.  One that has not been subject to a defense team providing EVIDENCE contrary to what the DA convinced a small group of people of.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.1.17  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    2 months ago

Evidence is proof of guilt.

OMG - where do you come up with such rationale?????

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.16    2 months ago
Not necessarily.  Evidence can also prove innocence.  I know that's an unheard of fact for many on the left but it works both ways. 

I meant evidence of guilt. Obviously evidence of innocence is evidence of innocence. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.1.19  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    2 months ago

NOT an allegation John - an indictment is a formal accusation against someone who is suspected of committing a serious crime, filed after the conclusion of a grand jury investigation. Under no circumstances does a grand jury indictment mean that someone is guilty of a crime which is what many of you on your side of the aisle are stating. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.17    2 months ago

The EVIDENCE is what proves guilt or innocence. A verdict can result in a guilty verdict against an innocent person. 

What I'm saying is not debatable for gods sake.  You guys are a complete trip, just not in a good way. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.19    2 months ago

You can try all you want to put words in my mouth but it aint gonna happen. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.18    2 months ago
I meant evidence of guilt.

That's not what you said.  Maybe you should go back and read what you said.  That would be a good start.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    2 months ago
Evidence is proof of guilt.

Not always, that's whack.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @5.1.13    2 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.19    2 months ago

He is obviously guilty on eveything.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.12    2 months ago

Yeah, Greg, how many times have I stated that legal guilt is determined by a trial?   

At least you recognize wrongdoing.

Trump truly might have believed what he said was true. 

If so, should we nominate someone who is that delusional?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.19    2 months ago

Semantic hairsplitting aside, do you (personal opinion question) think charges in the latest indictment are reasonable and justified by the evidence?   That is, do you think it is fair to hold Trump accountable for trying to steal the election with an unconstitutional fake electors scheme involving Pence?   Should he be held accountable for coercing state officials to disenfranchise voters?   ...

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Silent
5.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Greg Jones @5    2 months ago

no evidence?????

because Republican Retardoes refuse to reprimand the Dick that plays their hands,

we should all not be left with the rights inevitable unHappy Ending, asz they lube up so much, like an automatic clutching their Donald Dick, Fickin Goofy they be, and that Bitch is impregnated with at larges, cause three indictments are and close to a hundred charges, two impeachment’s, and the lies witnessed out of his own fckn mouth, should leave those fckn Goofy, to pay that bitch , child support for an eternity, for the scumbag LIAR child Trump. they all refused to ABORT

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.2    2 months ago

And another looming indictment in Georgia

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6  Right Down the Center    2 months ago

"This failure to release a transcript is the latest in your troubling pattern of concealing key evidence in order to advance a false and distorted narrative about your 'investigation of Joe Biden' that has not only failed to develop any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden but has, in fact, uncovered substantial evidence to the contrary," Raskin charged in his letter, which was obtained by The New Republic.

Poor baby.  Kinda shitty when the other side does exactly what your side did during the Jan 6th television spectacular?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Silent
6.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    2 months ago

there most certainly were Republicans on that panel. 

When they try and put known Trump worshipping buffoons on a serious investigative Congressional  panel, they were rightfully rejected, cause Trump and they were Lying, about who was lawfully elected

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Igknorantzruls @6.1    2 months ago

serious investigative Congressional panel,

No such thing. It is all about getting soundbites on cable news.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @6.1    2 months ago

Now, with the allegations against the former POTUS, the Biden Administration must now prove there were no irregularities or illegal activity with the 2020 election.  Do you honestly think they can do it?  

On a side note, challenging an election wasn't investigated like this until the Trump challenged it. 

  • 2000: Bush v. Gore 
  • 2004: Bush v. Kerry
  • 2016: Clinton v/ Trump.  Hillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election. 
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.2    2 months ago
Now, with the allegations against the former POTUS, the Biden Administration must now prove there were no irregularities or illegal activity with the 2020 election.

Why would they have to prove something that has nothing to do with the indictments?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.3    2 months ago

What the fuck?

Any irregular or illegal activity with the 2020 election was perpetrated by the former 'president' and his white nationalist goons,  

Again, WTF?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.3    2 months ago

Trumps claim is there were irregularities and / or illegal activity.  They have to prove there wasn't in order to win this case.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.4    2 months ago

I'd ask for proof of this but I've already seen that you fail to produce every time.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.5    2 months ago
Trumps claim is there were irregularities and / or illegal activity.

So what?  His claim has nothing to do with the indictments.

They have to prove there wasn't in order to win this case.

What color is the sky in the world you live? 

They have to prove that Trump took action to overthrow the results of the election.  It doesn't matter if there was some fraud or not, the indictment is for his illegal ACTIONS!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.7    2 months ago
His claim has nothing to do with the indictments.

Bless your heart.  You haven't been paying attention.  Maybe when you do some actual research you'll see what is actually going on instead of what you are being told to believe.

his illegal ACTIONS

You mean like hurting your feelings?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.8    2 months ago
Bless your heart.  You haven't been paying attention.

Please explain what his claims have to do with his actions of trying to overturn the election? 

Please take your fingers out of your ears and change channels.  Trump can claim fraud all day if he wants, if he does not take any action.  His ACTIONS to overturn the election is what he has been indicted for.

Actions like getting fake electors to claim he won.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.9    2 months ago

"Russian billionaire Yelena Baturina wired $3.5 million to one of Hunter Biden's companies. And then -- voila! -- she found herself at dinner with the Vice President of the United States."

4s1PV7GJ?format=webp&name=small

The Bidens reaped millions for talking about the weather? | Washington Examiner


Do you ever get the feeling that the FBI is NEVER going to investigate the Bidens?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.10    2 months ago
"Russian billionaire Yelena Baturina wired $3.5 million to one of Hunter Biden's companies. And then -- voila! -- she found herself at dinner with the Vice President of the United States."

Who the fuck cares?  Not only is this off topic, not a single republican investigation has shown anything questionable related to Joe Biden.  Hunter invites a donor to dinner, big deal!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.11    2 months ago

Pretty amazing that Hunter's "business" associates found themselves in the company of Joe Biden--the man who has claimed over and over that he NEVER discussed any of his son's business with him--or is it now was never IN business with him?

The Biden Family has profited handsomely from Hunter's efforts to sell his dad.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.12    2 months ago

It's amazing to watch. We've gone from nothing happened, its all "Russian disinformation," to 'so what if the Bidens (none of whom registered as a foreign agent) took millions of dollars in illegal donations  from a Russian oligarch and set up a dinner with the VP after getting the money'. 

How the cognitive dissonance of their Biden apologetics  compared to their Trump mania (A Republican said hi to a Russian in the bathroom at  a convention, he's a traitor!) doesn't kill more progressives is a true mystery for the ages. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.13    2 months ago

If they don 't recognize anything wrong about the whole thing, it is by deliberate choice to be uninformed or misinformed and dismissive of fact.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
6.1.15  gooseisback  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.11    2 months ago
Hunter invites a donor to dinner, big deal!

Wasn't it a big deal when Russia supposedly bought some facebook adds in favor of Trump.  That was a big deal....right?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisback @6.1.15    2 months ago
Wasn't it a big deal when Russia supposedly bought some facebook adds in favor of Trump.

You mean when the Russians were attempting to interfere in an American election?  You really don't see the difference?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.16    2 months ago

Some of us are just as concerned about some Facebook ads as we are concerned about the integrity of the President and if he has been compromised through his son's "business" dealings.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.11    2 months ago
, not a single republican investigation has shown anything questionable related to Joe Biden.

It is almost impossible to find a moron who directly deposited money in Joe Biden's bank account.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Expert
7  Drinker of the Wry    2 months ago
Hunter invites a donor to dinner, big deal!

Is that what Dems call Russian billionaires, a donor?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7    2 months ago
Is that what Dems call Russian billionaires

Doesn't Hunter refer to them as "my sugar bros"?

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
squiggy


38 visitors