Comer: No impeachment for Biden, criminal referrals instead

TCassa89 · Mar 31, 2024

Bluesguy said: ↑

Which makes The Big Party to the crimes under federal bribery law as has been explained and cited over and over and over. It doesn't have to be shown Biden received a penny of money personally, the law covers the enrich of close family and friends. But then we do have the bank records showing money flowing into The Big Guy's bank account and the testimony of the personal accountant.
Click to expand...

It's not bribery if said family members do not hold public office, and there was no quid pro quo from any party that did hold public office.

Natty Bumpo · Mar 31, 2024

Think for myself said: ↑

I am guessing that Comer is not a believer in the MAGA "absolute immunity" thing their leader crows about all the time.

Or just the selective application of the fictional thing.
Click to expand...

The notion that a defeated president is above the law, but a current POTUS isn't is an antic notion, indeed.

The goobers have soiled themselves.

Eleuthera · Mar 31, 2024

Steve N said: ↑

This is probably the best move Comer could make. Impeaching Biden will make him a victim and martyr to the left and then there’s the Harris factor.
Click to expand...

The trouble, of course, is that Biden's DOJ with Garland is more corrupt than Biden himself. DOJ won't lift a finger to prosecute the traitor, because they are all traitors.

fullmetaljack · Mar 31, 2024

The Mello Guy said: ↑

Still not hearing any crimes….
Click to expand...

And you won’t. @Bluesguy can’t name anything specific. All he has is @popscott ‘s debunked documents and perjured testimony. He can’t explain, specifically, what was sold and who bought it from whom.

All we get it , “they need to explain” and “clear it up”. Guess what ?

The Bidens don’t need to explain anything. They don’t need to clear anything up.
The only people asking for explanations are the MAGA types and Biden hating Republicans out for political revenge.

Andrew Jackson · Mar 31, 2024

TCassa89 said: ↑

It's not bribery if said family members do not hold public office, and there was no quid pro quo from any party that did hold public office.
Click to expand...

Exactly, TC...
But, of course, Biden's Haters seem to miss such simple concepts...

Eleuthera · Apr 1, 2024

TCassa89 said: ↑

It's not bribery if said family members do not hold public office, and there was no quid pro quo from any party that did hold public office.
Click to expand...

Would it be misprision of a felony for Joe for not reporting the bribery offenses of his family members?

misprision of a felony | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

popscott · Apr 1, 2024

TCassa89 said: ↑

This is laughingly bad, and the irony of it is this is a choice example used to demonstrate how strong the supposed evidence is, when it's actually a perfect example of how weak the supposed evidence is.

Lets break it down, shall we?

So for starters, if you're asked to bring forward the best evidence you have of criminal conduct, and the first thing you list as evidence is literally the word "evidence"... right then and there you're already off to comedically bad start. Listing the word evidence by itself in your list of evidence is the kind of thing you would expect from a political satire, and not a sincere argument. It's vague and meaningless

Second we have "bank records". Okay, bank records from who, and of what? Everybody with a bank account has bank records.. that doesn't exactly prove that a crime was committed. If you can't actually name the illegal transaction, then your second point listed is just as weak as when you listed the word "evidence" as your first example. A bank record is meaningless as evidence if it doesn't actually involve an illegal transaction

Third, we have "contemporaneous electronic comms" which I assume is supposed to be electronic communication. Once again, we are left without an answer of from who, and of what? Can we even name what the crime is here, and who committed it? These two latter examples don't exactly indicate a crime, we need something here to either prove that A. Joe Biden personally profited from something which his public office restricts him from profiting from, or B. There was an illegal quid pro quo of some sort involving the powers of Joe Biden's position in public office.

Fourth we have witness testamony. So who is this witness, and what information did they share? I certainly hope it's not the "key witness" who was charged with forging information to investigators, because that would almost certainly not be acceptable evidence in any Prosecutorial Discretion process. Your case wouldn't even reach the trial process, because the charges would never get approved

Finally, we have the closing statement claiming President Biden's "awareness, acquiscence, and participation in the self-enrichment schemes of his family"

So first thing to note about this last statement is among the use of the words "awareness, acquiscence, and participation" the only relevant word listed is "participation". Second thing to note is the description of the "self-enrichment schemes of his family". Which essentially admits that the bank records and electronic communication mentioned before does not involve profits for Joe Biden himself, but that his family (who do not hold public office) were the ones who profited. We have a claim that Joe Biden was involved, but there is no mentioning of what that involvement was, and if it included his position in public office. If we are only referring to a loan to a family member that was used, that would not be considered a crime, unless Biden himself profited from said loan, and said profit went against the investment restrictions of his position in public office, or involved public funds.. however, based on the phrasing of the post, it doesn't appear they are claiming that Joe Biden even profited at all to begin with. So then we are only left with whether or not Joe Biden himself used his position in public office in the profiting of his family members

If we had evidence that Joe Biden profited himself, or that he used his public office as a part of a quid pro quo in the profiting of his family members, that would be pretty straightforward proof of a crime. However, if Joe Biden's family were the only ones profiting, and it didn't involve Joe Biden himself using his powers in public office, then the whole thing is moot, it holds no legal relevancy.

If his family's business dealings were an example of a crime, then I have some bad news for the other president who has family who took part in business dealings while he was in office, and who were also holding positions of public themselves in said president's administration.
Click to expand...

and what does the DOJ investigation report say about it?

fullmetaljack · Apr 1, 2024

popscott said: ↑

and what does the DOJ investigation report say about it?
Click to expand...

Why would the DOJ have an investigation, much less a report ?

Log in or Sign up

Comer: No impeachment for Biden, criminal referrals instead

TCassa89 Well-Known Member

Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

fullmetaljack Well-Known Member

Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

popscott Well-Known Member Donor

fullmetaljack Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Comer: No impeachment for Biden, criminal referrals instead

TCassa89 Well-Known Member

Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

fullmetaljack Well-Known Member

Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

popscott Well-Known Member Donor

fullmetaljack Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches