Above video is short, like a minute or so…
Plus, he’s a doddering old fool, don’t forget.
I guess he has alternating days: criminal mastermind, MWF, doddering old fool, TThSa
Sleeps all day Sunday.
That’s a lot of criming and doddering. He needs a day off.
Why do you think Trump is so mad at him? Trump tries to be like the biden crime family, just can’t seem to hide it well enough.
Joe Biden is a Godfather: he’s a boss without a flaw—
For he’s the master criminal who can defy the Law.
He’s the bafflement of Republicans, and Conservatives’ despair:
For when they reach the scene of the crime—Joe Biden is not there!
(After “Macavity the Mystery Cat,” by T.S. Eliot.)
Here’s one development, this article is from April 5:
CNN: CIA refutes whistleblower claim pushed by Republicans leading Biden impeachment inquiry
The basic summary is in the first two paragraphs of the story:
House Republicans leading the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden were dealt their latest blow this week when the CIA informed them that an allegation they pushed was false, the latest example of House Republicans citing questionable information to make a serious claim.
Without the evidence or the votes to impeach the president, at this point there is no clear consensus on how – or even when – to end the Republican-led impeachment inquiry. This latest development comes after the Department of Justice charged a once trusted FBI informant with lying about the president and his son Hunter Biden’s involvement in business dealings, undercutting a major aspect of Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into the president.
The allegation made by Republicans was this:
House Oversight Chair James Comer and House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan accused the CIA in a letter last month of intervening in the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden by preventing IRS and DOJ investigators from interviewing a witness in their probe, based on information they say came from a whistleblower.
The CIA basically said it’s complete BS. And Democrats have said that the Republicans have refused to give any evidence for their claims.
The witness in question is Kevin Morris, one of Hunter Biden’s lawyers.
Republicans have raised questions about why Morris lent the president’s son millions of dollars and have sought to connect him to their impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Morris has explained the terms of the $6.5 million in loans and said they have nothing to do with the president.
They are 100% in “just asking questions” mode.
Ah, the old “shovelling horseshit in hope of finding a pony” technique. Which doesn’t work when you piled up the horseshit yourself in the first place.
Because the CIA is soooo trustworthy. Actually, they probably do have one of the worst PR profiles, right up there with the Post Office.
The GOP house doesnt have the votes, so they will just let it die a whimpering slow death.
They will not just let it die. It doesn’t have to be possible (let alone successful) to throw shade on the Biden campaign.
They wont bring it to the floor for a vote.
That doesn’t stop them from bringing it up all the time. This has nothing to do with legality, and everything to do with publicity.
Hasn’t the publicity been pretty shitty, though? Outside of MAGA news sources, of course. Seems to me they’ve been looking pretty ridiculous.
It isn’t meant to convince us.
That’s what I mean, though. Other than the usual MAGA cult members, who does this gin up outrage for? Doesn’t the sane cohort, even if they’re not left-leaning, snicker at the ongoing embarrassment?
Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think they’re covering themselves in glory in the eyes of the average non-MAGA citizen. They seem like the Keystone Cops of investigative bodies.
To be fair, these questions seem relatively similar to the questions being asked of Harlan Crow and his favors to Clarence Thomas.
“If you loan someone $6 million and it’s all one payment due four years in advance and the borrower doesn’t have a job, doesn’t have any income, doesn’t have any assets - is he going to pay it back? No, it’s not humanly possible,” Comer said.
It’s not clear to me, from either of these articles, whether Comer is being honest in the above question.
That said, in general, my feeling would be that a billionaire might loan out millions of dollars for friendship. I’d be curious whether Mr. Morris is a member of the billionaires club? Outside of that, it does feel like a suspiciously large amount of money to loan out to someone that you only just met - not like some childhood friend, that you grew up with - and to do so with no ulterior motives.
If Hunter was, genuinely, an unemployed recovering addict at the time and there was no terms on that loan, I feel like that does merit some questions.
However, I’d probably be looking at pending California legislation (particularly, pertaining to the entertainment industry) and California politicians, ahead of Joe Biden.
Why? In the context of an Biden impeachment investigation, what relevance do these questions have? What have they to do with President Biden?
So you’re saying that, if Congress has the free time to run an investigation and they’re presented with the choice:
- Credible allegations of corruption among Californian politicians.
- Unlikely, certain to be partisan make-believe scaremongering against the President.
That they should focus on the 2nd and, at the point that fails to pan out, go off to do other activities of similar ilk?
I’m not sure that I can get behind that. I’m okay with Congress working against corruption, wherever it may be, and preferring to go in the direction with the highest chance of success. I just noted it because, if I don’t, everyone will be saying that I must be bringing up the question of the loan to attack Joe Biden and because we should be calling out and paying attention to corruption in our government.
NOTE, I am NOT saying that we have credible allegations of corruption in California. It’s an example, for the sake of edification on your views.
Right; I’ve already concluded that Hunter Biden is kind of sleazy, and that I have no intention of voting for him for anything. But he’s not running for anything anyway, so what now?
I honestly can’t follow your logic here, and I’m no closer to understanding the relevance of these questions to an impeachment of President Biden.