╌>

The Impeachment Inquiry

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  4 weeks ago  •  113 comments

The Impeachment Inquiry
"We keep hearing from certain corners that our democracy is at risk and democracy is on the ballot. Yet the same people preaching this mantra know better. They continue to lie directly to the American people without hesitation and remorse," Bobulinski said.

Link to quote: Five moments from fiery Oversight Committee impeachment inquiry hearing (msn.com)


Yesterday the House Committee considering the impeachment of Joe Biden held a hearing to hear from witnesses who at the very least showed that Joe Biden lied about not knowing of his son's business and proved beyond doubt that Joe met with Hunter's business associates. The left-wing media would have ignored it if it were not for the hostility unleashed by the Committee's prime witness Tony Bobulinski, who made a point to call certain democrat member liars. The other witnesses were Jason Galanis, another former associate of Hunter Biden, who was allowed to testify remotely, and the democrats "star" witness, who was once an "associate" of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but suddenly says he was part of a scheme to dig up dirt on Joe & Hunter Biden. (Gee, I wonder what made him decide to say what democrats apparently wanted him to say.) 

There was also an empty chair at the table for Hunter Biden, who once demanded a public hearing, put changed his mind after being deposed under oath and under the threat of perjury. Galanis is serving out a sentence related to a $60 million scheme to defraud a Native American tribe. He testified from prison.

The hearing got hot immediately after Bobulinsky called out democrats for being willing to lie to protect Biden:

"We keep hearing from certain corners that our democracy is at risk and democracy is on the ballot. Yet the same people preaching this mantra know better. They continue to lie directly to the American people without hesitation and remorse," Bobulinski said.

"Reps. Dan Goldman and Jamie Raskin, both lawyers, and Mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor with the SDNY from New York, will continue to lie today in this hearing and then go straight to the media to tell more lies," he added.

Five moments from fiery Oversight Committee impeachment inquiry hearing (msn.com)



The hearings key moments were when Rep Byron Donalds presented a flawless example of the money trail to Joe Biden.




And AOC making a complete ass of herself via not knowing that RICO is a crime:




Where does this go from here? :   There may be criminal referrals that the corrupt Merrick Garland will be forced to ignore.


In other news:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in the Middle East to try and pressure Israel into a cease fire.

Trump said he is considering the idea of abortion with a 15-week restriction as a reasonable compromise.

Biden’s campaign now has more that twice as much money as the Trump campaign.

California voters (whoever they are) narrowly approved a $6.4 billion bond to help homeless people with mental illness & addiction.

Democratic lawyers are now well funded and plan to challenge third-party candidates’ efforts to get on the ballot.

An appeals court heard arguments over a Texas law that lets the police arrest migrants who illegally enter the state. The law is blocked for now.

The E.P.A. issued new tailpipe pollution limits meant to ensure that most new cars are either electric or hybrid by 2032.

The Federal Reserve, in a move that is sure to juice up the economy, signaled that it was likely to cut rates three times this year.






Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

Good morning

GJH6JqhW8AA-bUl?format=jpg&name=large
It may be a time for March madness and Baseball's beginning, but it is also Louisiana Derby week.


As we feast on sports & gambling, Joe Biden continues his stumping of the key battleground states that his handlers are so worried about.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 weeks ago

gee, I don't have a problem watching maga dipshits in congress publicly humiliate themselves by demonstrating fealty to a criminal traitor in their lead up to losing another election.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    4 weeks ago

But you had no problem defending this lie:

US House Republicans on Monday released a  report  they said contradicted sensational January 6 committee testimony in which a former aide to Donald Trump described being told that as the attack on Congress unfolded, the then president was so eager to join supporters at the Capitol he tried to grab the wheel of his car.

“The testimony of … four White House employees directly contradicts claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson and by the select committee in the final report,”  read the report  by the House administration  subcommittee on oversight , which searched for alleged bias or malpractice in the January 6 investigation.

“None of the White House employees corroborated Hutchinson’s sensational story about President Trump lunging for the steering wheel of the Beast,” the report said, referring to the colloquial name for cars that carry the president.

Questioned by Liz Cheney, an anti-Trump Republican and January 6 committee vice-chair, Hutchinson said Engel did not dispute the account. It was soon  reported  that Engel did dispute it, and wanted to testify under oath.

The transcript was among those the January 6 committee did not release, citing security concerns. The transcripts were eventually released with redactions.

House Republicans’ report contradicts witness account of Trump’s wheel-grab | Republicans | The Guardian

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.2  goose is back  replied to  devangelical @1.1    4 weeks ago
dipshits in congress publicly humiliate themselves

Are you referring to AOC?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  goose is back @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

is she a maga dipshit now?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @1.1.3    4 weeks ago

She is a mega dipshit and a constant embarrassment

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.5  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.1.3    4 weeks ago

No...just a plain ole run of the mill leftist dipshit.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.6  goose is back  replied to  devangelical @1.1.3    4 weeks ago
is she a maga dipshit

Yes, she is a mega dipshit (helped you out on the spelling).

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
The hearings key moments were when Rep Byron Donalds presented a flawless example of the money trail to Joe Biden.

LOL Donald acted like had discovered the mother lode. In fact that story is many months old.

======================

www.politifact.com /article/2023/nov/14/whats-behind-republicans-claim-that-joe-biden-rece/

Here’s what we know about that $40,000 check to Joe Biden

Madison Czopek 11-14 minutes

  • A Nov. 1 memo of bank records showed that, in 2017, Sara Biden, the president’s sister-in-law, sent Joe Biden a $40,000 check marked “loan repayment.” The White House said it was repayment of a short-term loan. 

  • Joe Biden neither held public office nor was running for president then.

  • Money laundering refers to financial transaction schemes that aim to disguise the origin of illegally obtained money. Available evidence does not show that the money Joe Biden eventually received from Sara Biden was obtained illegally.

Republicans investigating President Joe Biden’s family business dealings have focused on a $40,000 check written to Joe Biden before he was president.

"BREAKING → @GOPoversight has uncovered a $40,000 payment of laundered Chinese money directly to Joe Biden himself," Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.,   wrote   Nov. 1 on X, formerly Twitter. "Joe Biden isn't just implicated in his family's corruption scheme — he's a key financial beneficiary."

This claim comes from   a check   House Republicans made public on Nov. 1, along with a   memorandum of bank records   — the fourth memo released during the investigation — that they said "traced payments from Chinese companies to Joe Biden."

These bank records show that the money in question appears to have originated with a Chinese business that Biden’s son Hunter had engaged. But the best information we have suggests Scalise overreached by not providing proof of a crime.

"Money laundering" is a legal term that assumes the money was obtained through illegal means; there’s been no illegal activity shown. The $40,000 came to Joe Biden in a check written by his sister-in-law for what it says was a "loan repayment." 

Neither Scalise nor the Republicans’ House Oversight Committee spokesperson responded to PolitiFact’s request for comment. But we dug into Scalise’s claim to learn what is and is not known about the $40,000 payment — the latest piece of evidence Republicans have pointed to in a   range   of   accusations   over Biden family finances.

In September, after years of investigating the Bidens’ foreign business dealings, Republicans   opened an impeachment inquiry   into Joe Biden. The evidence Republicans have provided so far, including during the impeachment inquiry, has not proved Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing. House Republicans on Nov. 8   issued subpoenas   for Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s brother, James, as part of the inquiry.

Here’s what we know.

James_Biden_and_Hunter_Biden_combo_image_AP.jpeg

House Republicans on Nov. 8 issued subpoenas for Hunter Biden (right) and Joe Biden’s brother, James (left) as part of their impeachment inquiry. (AP) 

A $40,000 check to Joe Biden

The Republicans’ Nov. 1 bank memo outlines a web of transactions that involve a Chinese company, Hunter Biden’s businesses, and Joe Biden’s brother and sister-in-law. The Republicans’ framing is that Biden’s sister-in-law sent Joe Biden money that originated from sources linked to China.

  • On Aug. 8, 2017, Northern International Capital wired $5 million to an account for Hudson West III LLC, a company Hunter Biden formed with a Chinese business associate that   aimed to   help CEFC, a Chinese energy company,   establish   liquefied natural gas contracts in the U.S. That $5 million was the only money in the Hudson West III account then. The memo describes Northern International Capital as "a Chinese company affiliated with CEFC." 

  • Also on Aug. 8, 2017, Hunter Biden wired $400,000 from Hudson West III to Owasco P.C., Hunter Biden’s professional corporation. Owasco P.C. already had $100,000 in it from a wire transfer from CEFC Infrastructure, another company linked to China, bringing the account’s balance to $500,832.

  • On Aug. 14, 2017, Owasco P.C. transferred $150,000 to an account for Lion Hall Group, a   consulting   company linked to Joe Biden’s brother James. That account’s balance was $151,965.

  • Sara Biden, James Biden’s wife, withdrew $50,000 from the Lion Hall Group bank account on Aug. 28, 2017. That same day, either Sara or James Biden deposited $50,000 into their personal account. Sara Biden also withdrew $1,000 from the personal account, bringing the balance to $49,047 as of Aug. 28, 2017. 

  • On Sept. 3, 2017, Sara Biden signed a $40,000 personal check to Joe Biden. The check’s memo section said it was for "loan repayment."

In summary: In 2017, Biden’s sister-in-law sent Joe Biden money that originated from sources linked to China, according to the Republicans’ memo. 

Available bank records contain no evidence of wrongdoing by the president, nor do they provide evidence that Joe Biden knew where the $40,000 originated.

"The President, when he was a private citizen, loaned his brother money, and his brother promptly paid him back," said Ian Sams, a White House spokesperson. Sams said bank records in Republicans’ possession show that the check was repayment for a loan and cited   a press release   that Oversight Committee Democrats released Oct. 20.

In it, ranking committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., described the transactions as "personal transactions of the President’s family members that have no relevance to any legitimate congressional inquiry." 

PolitiFact reviewed the records for two bank wires, one for $40,000 and one for $200,000, from an account linked to Joe Biden to James Biden. The records were not explicit documentation of outgoing loans. 

Checks the Oversight Committee released show that James Biden then appeared to repay his brother in full, without interest, within two months of each alleged loan. 

Republicans also   released a   $200,000 check Sara and James Biden had written to Joe Biden on March 1, 2018; it also said "loan repayment" on the memo line. But because it was sent the same day   Americore Health LLC , a company that manages rural hospitals across the U.S., wired a $200,000 loan to James Biden, Republicans have   claimed   it proves Joe Biden benefited from his family’s "shady influence peddling of his name." FactCheck.org   covered it here.

"It’s certainly plausible" that the $40,000 check was a loan repayment,   said   Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the House Oversight Committee’s chair. But even if it were, he said, "it still shows how Joe benefited from his family cashing in on his name — with money from China, no less."

Check-to-Joe-Biden-9.3.17.png

On Nov. 1, House Oversight Committee Republicans released this personal check dated Sept. 3, 2017, from Sara Biden to Joe Biden. (House Oversight Committee)

What is money laundering? 

By definition, money laundering involves efforts to obscure the source of money that is obtained illegally, according to   government agencies ,   legal sources   and experts. 

"In order to have money laundering, you have to have a predicate crime — an initial crime that creates illegal profits," said Ross Delston, an attorney who specializes in anti-money laundering. "People throw the term 'money laundering' around a lot."

A link to China does not mean that money was obtained illegally, Delston said. And unless it’s illegally obtained, it would not be considered money laundering.

The bank memo Republicans released Nov. 1 included no new information that would prove the money Hunter Biden received from Northern International Capital or CEFC Infrastructure was obtained illegally. 

Thus far, none of the memos have provided evidence that the money paid to Biden family members and associates was illicitly obtained.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago
A Nov. 1 memo of bank records showed that, in 2017, Sara Biden, the president’s sister-in-law, sent Joe Biden a $40,000 check marked “loan repayment.” The White House said it was repayment of a short-term loan. 

And Joe Biden's accountant under the pains of perjury says there was no record of any loan.

Schwerin, 54, said during the Jan. 30 deposition with House impeachment investigators that “I don’t recall” Joe Biden having loaned out any money between 2009 and 2016, during which Schwerin helped the then-vice president prepare tax and financial disclosure forms.

“Certainly through the 2016 tax period, I don’t recall any loans that he made,” said Schwerin, who added that he “potentially” did not see any loans Biden made in 2017, when Schwerin was “still was helping [Biden] with his household finances … as he was becoming a private citizen.”

James Biden and his wife Sara wrote a $40,000 check to Joe on Sept. 3, 2017, after James and Hunter received $ 5.1 million from Chinese-state linked energy firm CEFC, the first brother  confirmed  to the House committees in a Feb. 21 deposition. The check was marked as a “loan repayment” from a July 28, 2017, wire.

No sign of $40K loan from Joe Biden to brother James, first family’s moneyman says — undercutting White House story (msn.com)


Politifact is a leftwing cover organization.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 weeks ago
Schwerin, 54, said during the Jan. 30 deposition with House impeachment investigators that “I don’t recall” Joe Biden having loaned out any money between 2009 and 2016, during which Schwerin helped the then-vice president prepare tax and financial disclosure forms. “Certainly through the 2016 tax period, I don’t recall any loans that he made,”

"Schwerin, 54, said during the Jan. 30 deposition with House impeachment investigators that “I don’t recall” Joe Biden having loaned out any money between 2009 and 2016, during which Schwerin helped the then-vice president prepare tax and financial disclosure forms.

“Certainly through the 2016 tax period, I don’t recall any loans that he made,”"

-

The 40,000 was in 2017, a period where the accountant seems to admit his knowledge of Bidens transactions might be incomplete. 

The GOP impeachment has collapsed. They dont have a single fact of misconduct by Joe Biden. It is fun watching them humiliate themselves on national tv though. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
But the public is more on to this bullshit now. 

And you somehow think that indicates there could have been a loan?

Funny how you stretch credulity all of a sudden.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
40,000 was in 2017, a period where the accountant seems to admit his knowledge of Bidens transactions might be incomplete

Was it? Where's the documentation of the loan?

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.4  goose is back  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
They dont have a single fact of misconduct by Joe Biden.

and then there is...........REALITY!

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 weeks ago
The check was marked as a “loan repayment” from a July 28, 2017, wire.

Per your own "evidence".  A wire transfer during a period of time the accountant wasn't familiar with.


Politifact is a leftwing cover organization.

Thanks for your unbiased opinion /s

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
2.1.6  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.5    4 weeks ago

ole Parnes really pushed the case forward though,,,

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

It's really amazing watch so many progressives parrot lies and ask for more. Remember where this started? With Joe Biden lying to the country on the debate stage that his son never had any business with China and that his son's laptop was "russian disinformation." Whether they were ignorant dupes or willful liars so many progressives  echoed every claim the Bidens made.  Much as they want to pretend it never happened, we remember. 

  And now Hunter has confirmed Bobulinski's testimony and we all know the Bidens were lying.  Not only was Hunter doing business with China, his father met with his partners and spoke to them. And the laptop documenting all of it, including Hunter threatening a CCP aligned official with his father if he wasn't sent millions. (which he was).  

 They've been proven to be fools. I guess that's why so many progressives attack the House committee with such bitterness.  Rather than being angry at the liars who lies they swallowed and pushed themselves, its easier to be mad at the people who expose the lies. It's a coping mechanism to avoid having to deal with the shame of being used, 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Bozolinski made a big deal about a meeting with Joe Biden in Los Angeles in which he says Biden asked about Hunter's business prospects. That is 2017. 

One of the Democrats asked Bozo "who was president in 2017"? 

Biden was a private citizen in 2017. 

In fact Bozo had never met Biden, at all, prior to 2017. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago
That is 2017.

So what?  He still had plenty of influence.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    4 weeks ago

He still had plenty of influence.

So what?  So do a lot of private citizens.  Not a high crime or misdemeanor.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Taking money from China and lying about it clearly qualifies.

Don't worry about an actual impeachment. It is getting late in the congressional calendar for that. What is more likely is that Joe Biden will have these hearings in the background going into an election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

of course. This is "Benghazi hearings 2.0".  But the public is more on to this bullshit now. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    4 weeks ago
This is "Benghazi hearings 2.0".

Lefties think that was some kind of victory.


But the public is more on to this bullshit now. 

I showed you what the public thinks in post 4.2.1

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
3.1.5  George  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    4 weeks ago
"Benghazi hearings 2.0"

Of course the republicans should have never investigated Hillary sacrificing an Ambassador to continue to run guns through Libya.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  George @3.1.5    4 weeks ago

Do you remember that the state department had the military members preparing for a rescue, changing out of their uniforms so as not to upset the Libyans?

Or how about this:

May 6, 2013 / 6:20 PM EDT  / CBS The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks - CBS News

We learned a lot during those hearings.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
o do a lot of private citizens.  Not a high crime or misdemeanor.

For starter's look up FARA. 

when did the Bidens register as foreign agents?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Tell that to Flynn who wasn't even accused of influence peddling when he wasn't working for government- but failed to disclose he had been working for several Russian companies when being considered for a new roll in government.

How soon leftists forget.

Hunter never filed as a foreign agent while working for both Ukraine and China- and that was during Brandon's time as VP. 

Hunter profiting from Brandon's position in government is illegal. Brandon had full knowledge of it; and is just as legally culpable.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.9  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

I don't remember you saying 'So what' to all the people who continued to bring up that the Trump Organization was trying to negotiate a deal to license the Trump name in Russia in 2015, a negotiation that ended after 3 months because it wasn't going anywhere. Trump was a private citizen at the time but that didn't stop several members from jumping on that bandwagon.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    4 weeks ago
efties think that was some kind of victory.

Exactly.  Hillary was caught lying.  She made up some BS about a "spontaneous demonstration of students" to avoid taking responsibility for the security failures.  The same people parroted those lies and when they could no longer defend the lies, they didn't get mad at for lying to them, but got mad at Republicans for exposing them.  Then, to cover their embarrassment, they decided the hearing were a failure because Republicans didn't put in her prison. That, going back to Bill Clinton, was the  Standard of Conduct for Democrats, anything they did that walked on the blurred line between illegal/legal activity was perfectly acceptable.  Get caught lying to avoid responsibility for an ambassador dying?  Lie and mishandle classified handled information and cover it up?  Who cares, so long as the Obama DOJ will protect you!

But enough Americans were bothered by her conduct revealed by the Benghazi investigation  to keep her from being President. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.10    4 weeks ago
What's good for the goose.......

Exactly. Biden and Trump are the same.  

Thanks for making my point.  It's awesome when Democrats use Trump to compare Biden to. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.12    4 weeks ago
Biden and Trump are the same.

They both made money from China?  Or was it Biden's extended family?  And was Biden in office during the alleged money from China, because Trump sure was.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.13    4 weeks ago

Trump's COMPANY made the money in legit business transactions. Biden? Oh yeah. Paperless loan to his brother. HEHEHEHEHE

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.15  bugsy  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.9    4 weeks ago
I don't remember you saying 'So what'

All I remember hearing was "clandestine Russian spies" over and over again......and could never prove it.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.12    4 weeks ago
It's awesome when Democrats use Trump to compare Biden to. 

But don't care that bIden has done the same thing.

All they know is "he beat our queen so we must get him at all costs.....and , oh, yea...he sends mean tweets."

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.14    4 weeks ago
Trump's COMPANY made the money in legit business transactions.

Keep spinning.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.17    4 weeks ago

No spin to it. Sorry about your luck.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 weeks ago
And AOC making a complete ass of herself

So it's another day ending in "Y".

California voters (whoever they are) narrowly approved a $6.4 billion bond to help homeless people with mental illness & addiction.

It would be kind of hard to fund that when, in essence, California is broke.

California audit finds state is broke: $55 billion more owed than available

California just filed its 2021-2022 audited financial statement, 350 days past the filing deadline. In its filing, the state admits that COVID-era unemployment fraud cost the state $29 billion that must be paid back to the federal government, and that in 2022, the state had $256 billion more in liabilities than it had in unrestricted resources.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    4 weeks ago

Yes, I read that the other day. I believe New York and Illinois are also in the toilet with debt.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    4 weeks ago

It's not a matter of IF New York and Illinois will have the same problem, it's a matter of WHEN.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    4 weeks ago

No matter how you spin it, yesterday was a huge fail for Jordan, Comer, Trump and the whole gop. Even conservative commentators were embarrassed and ashamed of the clown show they put on...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.2    4 weeks ago

Keep telling yourself that.

Here is what people think:

CNN  — 

Most Americans say they think President  Joe Biden  was involved in his son’s business dealings with Ukraine and China while he served as vice president under Barack Obama, according to  a CNN poll  conducted by SSRS.

A majority, 61%, say they think that Biden had at least some involvement in Hunter Biden’s business dealings, with 42% saying they think he acted illegally, and 18% saying that his actions were unethical but not illegal. Another 38% say they don’t believe Joe Biden had any involvement in his son’s business dealings during his vice presidency. Just 1% believe Biden was involved, but did not do anything wrong.

CNN Poll: A majority of Americans believe Joe Biden, as VP, was involved with son’s business dealings | CNN Politics

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @4.2    4 weeks ago

What a pathetic deflection to redirect me away from a Democrat run shithole not being able to pay their bills.

Keep up with what you are responding to.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

If you took everything the buffoon Bozolinski said, and accepted it at face value, it still would not amount to an impeachable offense. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    4 weeks ago

Was he the one testifying from prison?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    4 weeks ago

I'll leave it for others to answer John.

Is it an impeachable offense for the president to conceal taking money from foreign governments, some of whom are enemies of the United States?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.4    4 weeks ago

The one who got a 20-year sentence and is now saying Trump bad, was the one democrats had as a witness.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.5    4 weeks ago
Is it an impeachable offense for the president to conceal taking money from foreign governments, some of whom are enemies of the United States?

even were that true, Biden wasnt president at the time

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.5    4 weeks ago

Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease

Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.2.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.8    4 weeks ago

At least they had lease paperwork showing it was above board.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4.2.10  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.9    4 weeks ago

Yea, and after a year there is no evidence that Biden was not "above board", but wasn't Trump supposed to turn over his control of business so to not interfere with the presidency...? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.11  bugsy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.9    4 weeks ago
At least they had lease paperwork showing it was above board.

And there was an actual physical business.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Igknorantzruls @4.2.10    4 weeks ago

Yes..........

After winning the 2016 presidential election and being inaugurated in January 2017, Trump resigned all management roles within  , and delegated company management to his sons Donald Jr. and Eric.

.

You were saying.................

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  author  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

Another highlight was when Jamie Raskin wanted to subpoena Bobulinki's Blackberry, so that members could go through everything on it. Comer put it to a voice vote. 

Has anyone ever noticed how democrats scream their aye or nay to fool people into thinking they had the majority?

Comer said the Yea's have it (Yea being no subpoena), Raskin laughed and said I request a roll call vote. Comer called for such a vote and the Yea's did have it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    4 weeks ago
Has anyone ever noticed how democrats scream their aye or nay to fool people into thinking they had the majority?

Usually the ones with something to hid are the loudest...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1    4 weeks ago

They can't ever seem to do anything in a spirit of goodwill.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

An odd expectation while the gop has operated in utter false grace throughout. The gop cannot articulate a crime to accuse Biden. They have no shreds of evidence. It was another gop clown show!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

Your threshold is to actually have a photo of Chairman Xi stuffing money into Joe Biden's pocket?

Funny that there is no such standard for his political opponents.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
ur threshold is to actually have a photo of Chairman Xi stuffing money into Joe Biden's pocket?

Exactly. Under the Biden standard, Trump can't be guilty unless he's on tape declaring "I am committing an insurrection"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    4 weeks ago

why would Trump ask tens of thousands of people to march to the capitol and "peacefully protest" ?

what would have been in that for him ? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.6  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

My threshold is the articulation of and the evidence of an impeachable offence. You know It is not illegal for the friends and family if powerful and influential people to make a living or to engage in business. Just ask Jared and Ivanka. The mere appearance of influence peddling is not a crime. This entire gop impeachment inquiry is an exercise in false grace and false accusations. Now the gop is utterly exposed...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @5.1.6    4 weeks ago
The mere appearance of influence peddling

Right there, is where you whole argument falls apart.  "The mere appearance of influence peddling".  When it comes to the Biden inquiry, it's not appearance they are seeing.  It's actual evidence influence peddling.  Not the made up shit the Democrats and left have been running with since 2016.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.8  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.7    4 weeks ago
...it's not appearance they are seeing.  It's actual evidence influence peddling.

Then why have they not called for a vote of Impeachment then? If they have the evidence you claim then why are they wasting time and dragging it out? Why are Republicans and record saying the committees don't have that evidence?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1.9  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @5.1.8    4 weeks ago
If they have the evidence you claim then why are they wasting time and dragging it out?

Maybe because they realize that without the hard direct evidence, there's no chance of the Democrat controlled Senate voting to convict. 

I said it when this all first started, I think the House investigation is more about bringing dirt to light for the November election than actually getting a conviction in the Senate.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.10  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.9    4 weeks ago
without the hard direct evidence

Exactly. They don't have anything close to impeachable. 

I said it when this all first started, I think the House investigation is more about bringing dirt to light for the November election than actually getting a conviction in the Senate.

This is all about revenge for what Dems did to Trump. Nothing more. Many of the Republicans in the House are on record saying they refuse to vote on impeachment without that hard direct evidence that so illudes Comer and Jordan.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilone @5.1.8    4 weeks ago

Carrying out the inquiry taking too long for you?  It's not like they are fabricating / altering evidence as the Democrats had done.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.1.12  Greg Jones  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.9    4 weeks ago
"I said it when this all first started, I think the House investigation is more about bringing dirt to light for the November election than actually getting a conviction in the Senate."

Precisely! Senate won't vote to convict anyhow. The whole point here is to show the American people how dirty, corrupt, and treasonous the Biden family and administrations are.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
5.1.13  goose is back  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    4 weeks ago
why would Trump ask tens of thousands of people to march to the capitol and "peacefully protest" ?

AHHHHH..........to "peacefully protest".

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.14  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.11    4 weeks ago
Carrying out the inquiry taking too long for you? 

After 15 months it's only the circus they wanted or they are incompetent. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilone @5.1.14    4 weeks ago

15 months of the FBI withholding documents and democrats stonewalling.  That part is always omitted.  From an appearance perspective, it appears they are covering something up.  And, the more they conduct themselves in this fashion, the more it comes out that they are, in fact, trying to cover things up.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.16  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.15    4 weeks ago
15 months of the FBI withholding documents and democrats stonewalling. 

Your deflection is noted and rejected. Comer and Jordan still have nothing but "the appearance" of something bad.

I was hoping they would have found something by January and Biden would have already announced his retirement, but damn I'm still sitting here disappointed. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilone @5.1.16    4 weeks ago
Your deflection[]

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.18  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.17    4 weeks ago
I must have hit a nerve.  

You'll have to do more than deflect from the expected incompetence of the House Populists to hit a nerve. "Apparently" the guy that hides in his basement, drools through speeches and might break a hip getting on AF1 is too smart for the likes of ol' Comey and Jordan...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.19  bugsy  replied to  evilone @5.1.16    4 weeks ago
Comer and Jordan still have nothing but "the appearance" of something bad.

More than likely there is true evidence of corruption from Joe, but Comer knows if he shows his hand now, he may get a vote in the House but knows there is no way Democrats in the Senate would vote to convict.

I believe That evidence will be shown in September-October when there will be no way Democrats can successfully spin it and the true corruption of Biden will be for all to see.

Either way he knows he would never get a conviction in the Senate, no matter how irrefutable evidence may be,

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.20  evilone  replied to  bugsy @5.1.19    4 weeks ago
More than likely there is true evidence of corruption from Joe

This is supposition. You are assuming things based on partisan bias without evidence. I have no allusions that Comey might want to try and force a House vote near election day, but that doesn't mean the rest of the House will follow him off the cliff. That majority margin is razor thin these days and some of those boys need reelection in swing states. I think all your going to get is noise.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilone @5.1.18    4 weeks ago
You'll have to do more than deflect from the expected incompetence of the House Populists to hit a nerve.

Then dispute the information and not the source.  So far you've failed to do so.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.22  bugsy  replied to  evilone @5.1.20    4 weeks ago
This is supposition

Hence the "more than likely" and not just "there is".

"You are assuming things based on partisan bias without evidence"

Or maybe it is your partisan bias that refuses to see the evidence

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @5.1.16    4 weeks ago
Comer and Jordan still have nothing but "the appearance" of something bad.

Except for the testimony and evidence saying otherwise. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
6  MrFrost    4 weeks ago

This inquiry was over before it started... 100% politically motivated witch hunt funded by Putin. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @6    4 weeks ago
100% politically motivated witch hunt funded by Putin. 

I'll leave that up for others to judge.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
6.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    4 weeks ago

I'll leave that up for others to judge.

Already been proven Vic. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

That Putin funded it?

256

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
6.1.3  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

who pushed Smirnoff's testimony again ?

Who did Parnes testify was behind this push to find dirt on Biden again...?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.2  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @6    4 weeks ago

Where have you been for the last eight years and counting of Democrat bullshit investigations?

At least Republicans are allowing Democrats (that the Democrat leader of the House selected) to be on the committees; aren't hiring producers to manufacture their narrative into a prime time event; and aren't destroying evidence that refutes their position.

Let me know when Republicans move to impeach- like the Democrats did twice based on nothing but bullshit.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @6    4 weeks ago
This inquiry was over before it started

At the way the Democrats are acting, I'd say the opposite.  The more the inquiry exposes the more panicked they get. 

It's kind of fun to watch, actually.  Especially when their band of useless idiots get involved defending Traitor Joe and his crackhead kid.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7  evilone    4 weeks ago

Dem Rep Jared Moskowitz askes for vote on Biden Impeachment...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8  Snuffy    4 weeks ago
Trump said he is considering the idea of abortion with a 15-week restriction as a reasonable compromise.

Personally I think a legislated compromise is a great idea, but I doubt it will happen. The extremists still run the parties and the current party definition (from both sides) is to kill any reasonable compromise in the pursuit of the ideal. We see that daily here as well.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @8    4 weeks ago
Personally I think a legislated compromise is a great idea, but I doubt it will happen.

Personally there was nothing wrong with the old viability standard, but here we are. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @8.1    4 weeks ago

I have no problem with the old 24 week standard, the 15 week standard seems to be the consensus with a lot of European countries.

Last year (wow, it's already March. Damn.) I brought up a compromise I would have liked to see and there were a lot of progressives who would only bitch about it rather than discuss it. Was a shame. All they continued to do was bitch about how Roe v Wade was lost, constitutional rights, etc. Hell, even RBG said the SCOTUS ruling that set Roe v Wade was a bad decision. Around 70% of the voting public does support some sort of abortion rights, but the way our two-party system is currently working there's no hope for any compromise. 

As long as we continue to elect the dumbest bigots and idiots to Washington, there's no hope for change. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.2  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.1    4 weeks ago
Hell, even RBG said the SCOTUS ruling that set Roe v Wade was a bad decision.

Taking the whole of RGB interview, she said that the privacy argument used to decide Roe didn't progress women's rights, but it was the only sound legal foundation they had to get it done.

All they continued to do was bitch about how Roe v Wade was lost, constitutional rights, etc.

HIPPA laws were passed on the foundation of Roe. So if Roe is gone where does HIPPA stand? At some point soon someone's going to figure they can monetize health information and then all bets are off the table.

Around 70% of the voting public does support some sort of abortion rights, but the way our two-party system is currently working there's no hope for any compromise. 

Compromise is a dirty word these days. The populists have too big a voice and too little logic.

As long as we continue to elect the dumbest bigots and idiots to Washington, there's no hope for change. 

It will take time for the majority to notice that the populists don't know how to run a country of 300 plus million people. If history is any indication it may take an actual act of bloodshed for them to take that notice. I hope not, but the majority of people still seem more interested in who's on Dancing with the Stars than who's running their city councils or what their House Rep is voting on.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.3  devangelical  replied to  evilone @8.1    4 weeks ago

yeah, but how are they going to get the rwnj thumpers and xenophobes into the voting booth without a wedge issue?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.4  evilone  replied to  devangelical @8.1.3    4 weeks ago
yeah, but how are they going to get the rwnj thumpers and xenophobes into the voting booth without a wedge issue?

The Dems use the same wedge issues, they just take the other side of the coin. This is why were are where we are now. The two major parties have whipped up their partisan populist bases on wedge issues and hostility. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @8.1.2    4 weeks ago
Hell, even RBG said the SCOTUS ruling that set Roe v Wade was a bad decision.
Taking the whole of RGB interview, she said that the privacy argument used to decide Roe didn't progress women's rights, but it was the only sound legal foundation they had to get it done.

Yep.

All they continued to do was bitch about how Roe v Wade was lost, constitutional rights, etc.
HIPPA laws were passed on the foundation of Roe. So if Roe is gone where does HIPPA stand? At some point soon someone's going to figure they can monetize health information and then all bets are off the table.

IMO HIPPA was taken too far. Because of it, too many health care givers are reluctant to report any potential issues to authorities for fear of that law. Perhaps one day in the future someone will submit a logical reduction in those laws but I wouldn't expect to see any real changes in my lifetime.

Around 70% of the voting public does support some sort of abortion rights, but the way our two-party system is currently working there's no hope for any compromise. 

Compromise is a dirty word these days. The populists have too big a voice and too little logic.

As long as we continue to elect the dumbest bigots and idiots to Washington, there's no hope for change. 

It will take time for the majority to notice that the populists don't know how to run a country of 300 plus million people. If history is any indication it may take an actual act of bloodshed for them to take that notice. I hope not, but the majority of people still seem more interested in who's on Dancing with the Stars than who's running their city councils or what their House Rep is voting on.

Agreed so very much. It's too bad our school system no longer teaches civic responsibility, critical thinking or real history any more. The emphasis has been given over to passing standardized tests and feeling good about one's choices.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @8.1.4    4 weeks ago
The Dems use the same wedge issues, they just take the other side of the coin. This is why were are where we are now. The two major parties have whipped up their partisan populist bases on wedge issues and hostility. 

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @8.1.2    4 weeks ago
IPPA laws were passed on the foundation of Roe.

That's not true at all. 

o if Roe is gone where does HIPPA stand

HIPPA is the law until Congress says it isn't.  Same as it was before Dobbs.  There's no connection between the two. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.7    4 weeks ago
IPPA laws were passed on the foundation of Roe.
That's not true at all. 

I would submit that Roe v Wade was part of the thought process behind the HIPPA laws. The primary purpose of HIPPA's privacy regulations and security regulations is to protect the confidentiality of patient health information. It's easy for me to see that the passage of Roe v Wade was an attempt to codify privacy (after all, that's what the Progressives keep telling us). There may not be a direct connection between Hippa and Roe v Wade, but there is a connection none the less.

o if Roe is gone where does HIPPA stand HIPPA is the law until Congress says it isn't.  Same as it was before Dobbs.  There's no connection between the two. 

Now this is very much true because HIPPA was a set of laws passed by Congress whereas Roe v Wade was an opinion passed by SCOTUS. The removal or overturning of one does not impact the other in any fashion.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.8    4 weeks ago
ould submit that Roe v Wade was part of the thought process behind the HIPPA laws. because HIPPA was a set of laws passed by Congress whereas Roe v Wade was an opinion passed by SCOTU

I don't think these two statements can be reconciled. Roe was a Court decision in 1973.  HIPPAA was passed by a Republican Congress (that by and large opposed Roe)  and signed by a Democratic President in 1996, decades later.  Its very hard for me to see a connection between the two.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.9    4 weeks ago

I didn't say the two were connected, but that the people who wrote the HIPPA laws could have had Roe v Wade as part of their mindset as they were writing. 

In 1965, SCOTUS recognized the 'right to privacy' in Griswold v Connecticut. In Griswold, the Supreme court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicity stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. privacy | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, using in part the decision from Griswold to determine that 

 the Court used the right to privacy, as derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, and extended the right to encompass an individual’s right to have an abortion: "This right of privacy . . . founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." privacy | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

In 1996, the Court still carried that the 'right to privacy' was an implied right in the Constitution.

The HIPPA laws were created in August, 1996.

The Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade occurred June, 2022.  

I'm not trying to say the two were connected but could very well have been in the mindset of the people who wrote the HIPPA laws. The 'right to privacy' is a big part of HIPPA.

Now if SCOTUS revisits Griswold as some have suggested, this could be a huge impact on HIPPA laws.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
8.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

I heard they wanted "end of democracy" but that was already taken.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.10    4 weeks ago
he HIPPA laws were created in August, 1996.

Again, the HIPPA law was legislated by a Republican Congress that largely rejected Roe and the claim that abortion has anything to do with a right to privacy. Privacy was not a concept invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960s and there's no evidence that I am aware of that Republican (or even Democratic) legislators had Roe as part of their mindset.  It wouldn't make any sense for a Republican Congress to base  legislation on principles that it rejects.  

 SCOTUS revisits Griswold as some have suggested, this could be a huge impact on HIPPA laws.

No. It would have zero effect on HIPPA.  That's not how our  Constitution works.  Griswold created a right to privacy, but  Congress's power to legislate HIPPA  is not premised on Roe, or Griswold but rather its power to regulate interstate commerce.  Griswold could be overturned tomorrow and HIPPA would remain the law of the land until Congress replaced it, (unless the Supreme Court radically rewrote  commerce clause jurisprudence which would affect pretty much every aspect of federal power. But again, that has nothing to do with Griswold)

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.12    4 weeks ago
he HIPPA laws were created in August, 1996.
Again, the HIPPA law was legislated by a Republican Congress that largely rejected Roe and the claim that abortion has anything to do with a right to privacy. Privacy was not a concept invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960s and there's no evidence that I am aware of that Republican (or even Democratic) legislators had Roe as part of their mindset.  It wouldn't make any sense for a Republican Congress to base  legislation on principles that it rejects.  

You're missing what I tried to say. I agree that privacy was not invented by SCOTUS in the 60's, but when they ruled on Griswold they recognized that the 'right to privacy' is laid out by the Amendments I listed. And no, there's no evidence that any legislator had Roe as part of their mindset when the HIPPA laws were written but there's also no evidence they didn't. The 'right to privacy' is a big part of HIPPA which was really brought forth by the Griswold case and reinforced by Roe. 

And I worked for 23 years in a major health insurance company and I can state that patient privacy is a huge part of HIPPA. If Griswold were overturned it would not automatically overturn any HIPPA laws but I can definitely state that there would be a future impact to HIPPA. HIPPA has four major parts:

To improve efficiency in the healthcare industry, to improve the portability of health insurance, to protect the privacy of patients and health plan members, and to ensure health information is kept secure and patients are notified of breaches of their health data. What is the Purpose of HIPAA? Update 2024 (hipaajournal.com)

While it was initially passed with the dual goals of making health care delivery more efficient and increasing the number of Americans with health insurance coverage, patient privacy and data security were always meant to be part of it. HIPPA laws were passed in 1996 and the Secretary of HHS was tasked to create standards for the privacy of individually identifiable health information. Those recommendations were to be presented to Congress within a year. But the initial rules were very complex and confusing and it took a long time to rework them into what we have today. So the 'Final Rule' on security and privacy was published in 2002. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.13    4 weeks ago
laws were written but there's also no evidence they didn't.

In the absence of evidence, it's hard to conclude that a relationship exists. I can't prove a negative. 

d I can state that patient privacy is a huge part of HIPPA. I

I agree patient privacy was a major motivation behind the law.  

an definitely state that there would be a future impact to HIPPA. HIPPA has four major parts:

It can't.  They are independent of each other.  If the Court had created a HIPPA like right to medical privacy based on a Constitutional right to privacy discovered by the Court in Griswold, than that "right" would be in danger if Griswold were overturned.  But Congress passed HIPPA (including the privacy provisions)  based on its power delegated under Article 1 of the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce.  Thus only Congress can take the "rights"created by the law away unless, as I mentioned, the Supreme Court were to radically curtail Congress's power to regulate commerce.     

Think of it this way.  The "right" to abortion was created by the Supreme Court in Roe. When that case was overturned, the right went away.  IF Congress had passed a law implementing Roe,  there  would have no actual change to abortion law in the country when Roe was overturned. The statutorily created "right" to an abortion would still exist in all 50 states. It's only because Congress did not exercise its powers under the interstate commerce clause and pass such legislation that it didn't happen.  Congress has already acted with regards to HIPPA so that's not an issue here.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.1.15  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.14    4 weeks ago
an definitely state that there would be a future impact to HIPPA. HIPPA has four major parts:

It can't.  They are independent of each other.  If the Court had created a HIPPA like right to medical privacy based on a Constitutional right to privacy discovered by the Court in Griswold, than that "right" would be in danger if Griswold were overturned.  But Congress passed HIPPA (including the privacy provisions)  based on its power delegated under Article 1 of the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce.  Thus only Congress can take the "rights"created by the law away unless, as I mentioned, the Supreme Court were to radically curtail Congress's power to regulate commerce.     

Think of it this way.  The "right" to abortion was created by the Supreme Court in Roe. When that case was overturned, the right went away.  IF Congress had passed a law implementing Roe,  there  would have no actual change to abortion law in the country when Roe was overturned. The statutorily created "right" to an abortion would still exist in all 50 states. It's only because Congress did not exercise its powers under the interstate commerce clause and pass such legislation that it didn't happen.  Congress has already acted with regards to HIPPA so that's not an issue here.  

Yes and no. I've already said that there would be no immediate impact to HIPPA if Griswold were overturned. What I said was there would be a future impact to HIPPA. The future impact would require either Congress to decide to change the laws or for SCOTUS to accept a case against HIPPA that had them state the law was not constitutional. 

I'm thinking much bigger than just the immediate impact of SCOTUS overturning Griswold. Other than that we really don't have an argument here. IMO there are changes that are needed in the HIPPA laws. For instance the submission of data to the NICS system is hampered by HIPPA. But until Washington if fixed I don't expect to see any real changes here either.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.15    4 weeks ago
I've already said that there would be no immediate impact to HIPPA if Griswold were overturned. What I said was there would be a future impact to HIPPA. The future impact would require either Congress to decide to change the laws or for SCOTUS to accept a case against HIPPA that had them state the law was not constitutional. 

Yes, but that's true whether Griswold is overturned or not. Congress can get rid of all HIPPA protections tomorrow if it wanted to regardless of Griswold. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.1.17  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.16    4 weeks ago

Yes that's also true.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.2  Split Personality  replied to  Snuffy @8    4 weeks ago

Trump went from 6 weeks last week to 15 days over the weekend to a total national ban today.

Does this "campaign" seem competent?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @8.2    4 weeks ago

As I recall, Trump was against 6 weeks and for a time unsure of restrictions all together.

I have only one question for you: Do you believe in restrictions of any kind?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.1    4 weeks ago

Yes 

24 weeks worked reasonably well for 50 years

One country, one standard of healthcare.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.2.3  Snuffy  replied to  Split Personality @8.2    4 weeks ago

Meh. A politician in the middle of a campaign speaking at an event where he says what he thinks the attending audience wants to hear. 

How shocking..  I mean, the next thing you know he'll be speaking in a Southern accent or pulling a bottle of hot sauce out of his pocket. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Snuffy @8.2.3    4 weeks ago

Like Biden, lol...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
10  A. Macarthur    4 weeks ago

ENJOY!

On October 22, 2020, Bobulinski appeared at a Trump campaign event, where he accused candidate Joe Biden of being involved in illegal activities. Bobulinski was later invited by Trump to attend the final 2020 US presidential debate, which also took place that day.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  author  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

Do you think Lev Parvas will have to serve 20 years in prison after that performance. The people who can surely get him off are democrats. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
11.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    4 weeks ago

I truly doubt it........................now

 
 

Who is online


68 visitors