The Impeachment of Joseph R. Biden

I think you mean to say "Hunter Biden's bank records." If so, this is largely irrelevant to the notion of Joe's possible corruption.

If you actually meant Joe Biden's bank records, provide a link to show this is true.

It's been discussed a number of times already, but:
1. There was no meaningful investigation of Burisma going on back when that guy was fired.
2. Joe Biden was far from alone from wanting that prosecutor fired -- most of the western world did.
3. The reason they wanted him fired was not because he was being hard on Burisma or corruption in general, but quite the opposite.

It should be quite easy to investigate any sales of paintings that Hunter Biden made to see if there was anything fishy about those sales and more relevantly, if Joe Biden profited from those sales.

It's been covered that yes, he was apparently at a minimum sloppy in his document management and had retained some classified documents inadvertently. That's being investigated. If it turns out that there's evidence that he did deliberately keep any classified documents, he'll likely get his. What is the evidence of it the center being funded by the Chinese, let alone that there is anything illegal or unethical about such funding?

Or sounds like, for better or worse, a lot of family members. There's a limit to how much many of us talk about our businesses with relatives. Still no evidence that Joe received a dime from these wire transfers, that there is anything wrong with these wire transfers, etc.

You're straight-up misconstruing what Archer's testimony is, most likely. He said nothing about a "pay to play type scheme." Or if he did, provide a link.

In all of this, the few things you've said that Joe Biden has done that have any tangential substantiation are: hide in his basement, let Hunter live at one of his houses and tell Peter Doucey that he didn't talk to Hunter about his business dealings.

The difference between Biden and, say, Menendez is tangible: you have possible evidence of actual corruption tied to Menendez that is not so easy to shake off. Most people don't have gold bars lying around or jackets stuffed with cash. That is in stark contrast to the relative lack of evidence against either Biden.

One doesn't need a tape with a confession to prove or suggest corruption. But one needs a whole lot more than "Hunter is a sketchy guy who may have profiteered off of Daddy's name" to show that Daddy actually committed crimes.

Like for instance: some activity of Daddy that might have been the objective of the bribe.

It's always projection. Always, always, always what they are actually doing.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...transactions-involving-trump-kushner-n1007501

And who made sure Trump got the loans from Deutsche bank while he was moving around money to 'Russians' that should have been setting off red flags to the Treasury department for suspiscious activities with foreign nationals? None other than Republican Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's son, Justin Kennedy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trump-deutsche-bank-and-justice-kennedys-son/

Oh, and remember the spate of suicides associated with Deutsche Bank executives. You know, the whistle blower who committed suicide in 2014, and then his son turned over hundreds of documents about Deutsche Bank, Russia and Donald Trump, and then he too committed suicide? Then the two other guys in that division just offed themselves as well. Including one of the other of the two guys who signed off on billions of dollars of loans to Donald Trump.

https://www.newsweek.com/deutsche-bank-deaths-suicides-valentin-broeksmit-1701819

Hey Steals, you catch all of this? LOL.

I'm not doing the whole separating of quotes thing because it's a pain in the ass.
1. Yes I meant Hunter Biden's bank account. How is it irrelevant? If he's receiving micro payments and ten percent goes to the big guy and Joe Biden is the big guy then digging through those records is very much relevant.

2. According to Devon Archer, Shokin was a threat, but the Biden name was a bigger threat.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/04/vikto...risma-says-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer/
3. So, Joe and Hunter were the ones to benefit the most and according to the House investigation there were people who saw it as a conflict of interest and their concerns were ignored.
4. Again, not according to Devon Archer.

5. Well the paintings can be easily excused and we know at lest one of the people was a Democratic donor who Joe later gave a cushy job, but I suppose you don't see anything corrupt about that.
6. We'll see where this documents case goes, but I find it really interesting that leftforge doesn't have any questions about this , it's quite telling in fact.
7. You don't find it interesting that the White House has shifted language on Joe talking about his son's business dealings? I do. I think knew know Joe is full of shit.
8. Archer explained that it was the Biden name that got the ball rolling. I suspect this type of shit happens in DC. all of the time. Maybe not illegal, but certainly unethical. Again, I don't believe Joe wasn't aware of it.
9. Sure you want a smoking gun. We'll see what the impeachment inquiry finds, but I wouldn't spike the football just yet.
10. Again, we'll see. I just find it interesting the language shifting. I also find it interesting that every time another something comes up, Leftforge says zero evidence when I see, maybe not direct evidence, but it looks fishy. So yeah, I too am waiting for the smoking gun, the difference being I think it's there, leftforge does not and it's pretty clear that if it does show up, the usual suspects will continue to ignore it.

LOL:

U.S. Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) melts down as an NBC reporter questions GOP claims of DOJ political interference in favor of Joe Biden before he was president.

https://x.com/heartlandsignal/status/1707103282001277004

I saw part of that clip earlier and someone had added "Yakkety Sax" as a music bed.

Oh, come on. Everybody say it with me! "Tick tock, honey! You've been clocked!" If he doesn't get outed as a member of the gay community in the future, I will be shocked. Not Frye is shocked, but "I didn't know closets still went that far back" shocked.

The Freudian slip of confusing Hunter and Joe is telling. They are not the same. The sins of the son are not visited upon the father. And really, there is just innuendo that the son's payments are in fact sins. That foreign business interests hypothetically paid Hunter way more money than he is qualified for in order to curry favor with Biden is not illegal or unethical in and of itself. It only begins to be questionable if in fact Joe Biden began to flex U.S. muscle specifically in order to benefit his son, his son's business partners or clients or if Joe Biden directly profited from Hunter Biden's business dealings. That is the missing link that critics of Hunter and Joe Biden haven't even begun to establish other than "Joe Biden bragged about getting rid of the Ukrainian prosecutor." And we've discussed that: the West broadly was seeking to get rid of that guy because he was pro-corruption not anti.

If concrete evidence emerges that Joe Biden personally profited from foreign investors or Joe Biden took actions that benefited Hunter Biden or his clients and business partners that represented a departure from previous administration policy/common sense, then I will certainly will change my tune.

The article you linked about Devon Archer's statements to Tucker Carlson itself has Archer saying that no one discussed ousting the prosecutor as a favor to Burisma, and acknowledges the reality that the West wanted the prosecutor fired for his own corruption. And of course, I don't necessarily take Devon Archer's opinions or testimony as gospel. It's entirely possible that he's lying and covering up massive corruption by the Bidens, and it's also possible that his statements are being taken out of context. I'm probably not going to give much credit to what he said in an interview with Tucker Carlson over hours of sworn testimony, though.

I don't really know anything about the Democratic donor who got a cushy job that you are referring to, but generically and unfortunately yes, there is nothing illegal about hiring big donors to posts. That's what a large percentage of ambassadors are and have been forever.

The Left doesn't have questions about it because it is perfectly plausible that Joe Biden administratively screwed up and mixed classified documents with regular documents and didn't catch it till now. Now if it emerges that he deliberately hid those classified documents to prevent them from being discovered, or if there were a recording of him boasting about having the classified documents and showing them around, I'm pretty sure no one on the Left would defend such behavior. But that is the difference here -- we want to see at least some concrete evidence of wrongdoing before condemning someone, and we're willing to do that regardless of who the accused is.

I don't really think that the language the White House uses to describe the relationship between Joe's knowledge and involvement in Hunter's business dealings is particularly relevant until there is actual proof of such knowledge and involvement. Not just "Looks like Hunter got rich off his daddy's name" or even "Hunter got paid while living at Daddy's house."

I don't want a "smoking gun." I want a factual basis for suspecting a) Hunter Biden did anything illegal in his business dealings trading on his father's name b) Joe Biden either profited from Hunter's illegal business dealings or participated in them in some way other than existing and making benign small talk with foreigners. I don't think that's an unreasonable ask.

Luke Skywalker was a Sith Lord too.

You’re thinking of Lu’uke Skywalker

Embarrassing...

The House's first witness in the oversite hearings for the possible impeachment of Joe Biden has been called. Prof Jonathan Turley.

And the first thing he said is that he believed there is no evidence of impeachable actions by Joe Biden.

That's all folks. Thanks for coming and don't forget to tip your waitstaff!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-key-biden-corruption-witness-145613704.html


Republicans’ Key “Biden Corruption” Witness Torches Their Entire Claims

Hmm...still sounds fishy to me. I should probably continue to subscribe to stupid conspiracy theories and secretly hope for a Trump victory in 2024.

That position is already covered around here.

It is worth highlighting another quote from the article:

Reminded me of every FF argument here:

1) Present a bunch of dubious arguments.

2) Get called out on the validity of one of those claims.

3) Proclaim the questioner was "never going to accept the argument".

Like Smith, FF sometimes progresses (I use the term loosely) to:

4) get told that we might accept his argument, but could he explain why he's focusing on argument X?

5) say it's the questioner who is focusing on argument X and ask why they aren't looking at argument Y.

6) get reminded that argument X was something they brought up, and in fact, lead with.

Too much comparison and not enough contrasting.

Heh. One of our reps.



https://x.com/Acyn/status/1707461196247425294?s=20

Neil Cavuto: Waste of six hours, not a single piece of evidence.

https://x.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1707502708121338167

Goddamn this woman is hot.



https://x.com/acyn/status/1707464799209070665?s=46&t=QiuV69xq9AIYylUGTRqITA

The hearing was such a bomb that Fox News has buried coverage eleven stories down the page.

https://www.foxnews.com/

Is it a Freudian slip, or just plain old dishonesty?

Fake proof from the Republicans? Say it aint so?!

Newest Far Right Cope for the total disaster of a first day of hearings:

McCarthy never wanted to impeach in the first place and set it up to fail.

https://x.com/krassenstein/status/1707745309021835715

you forgot to log back into your @Steal Your Face account asshole.

Thanks for doxxing FF asshole. Now everyone knows who the boy is.