Comer: No impeachment for Biden, criminal referrals instead

Go ask Jim where it’s from. They had him testify, what did he say?

 

lol joe doesn’t need to defend him going to lunch or places where Hunter had other guests

 

This is not a diversion and this is not mitigation. It shows your hypocrisy when it comes to your fake concern about Biden and "a national security matter". When you use one standard on Biden and his family and another on Trump and his family , your partisan motivations become clear for all to see. With no impeachment in the House and no indictment in any court, and no EVIDENCE, your innuendo is nothing more that partisan propaganda.

Speaking of "a national security matter" and your partisan motivations, when will the trial of the Orange Stain commence for his breaches of national security ?
He has been called before the Justice system to finally do so. YES even in the justice system when there is evidence against you you must refute it else it will be taken as fact. This is a Constitutional matter and a national security matter on top of the all the probable cause of many crimes being committed here.

 

Realistically speaking, even if a law enforcement body did want to criminally charge Biden based on Comer's investigation, said efforts would be highly unlikely to even make it passed the Prosecutorial Discretion process due to the evidence being that inadequate

 

If it's a national security issue, then impeach. Republicans keep saying they have Biden dead to rights, so what are they waiting for?

 

Diversions are not allowed here. If you want to start a thread about Clinton , then do so. And if you do, get your facts straight. Clinton was exonerated by the Senate. He never plead guilty to any crime so your statement about his guilt being in question is FALSE. As is your statement about a plea bargain, FALSE. Clinton entered into an AGREEMENT with the special prosecutor and he Arkansas bar to suspend his law license. In return , he wasn’t prosecuted for anything.

An innocent man in the eyes of the law. The victim of a Republican witch hunt.

 

There is more than enough evidence that has been uncovered...

https://twitter.com/RepDonaldsPress/status/1773511524201460064

 

Then impeach. What are republicans waiting for?

 

Dude, it's dead, dead as a doornail. Let the dead RIP.

 

All CIRCUMSTANTIAL...
Still...ZERO PROOF (Tying anything directly to Joe)...
Next...

 

What the Senate needs to do is, subpoena Comer and Jordan to have them come testify about what they know of
Alexander Smirnov and him spreading Russian disinformation information about the Biden's and all their finances.
You know somebody knew it was the Russians all along. And they kept pushing it any way.

 

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.

 

@TCassa89 , that is a very well reasoned and necessarily broad analysis of the case the Republicans are trying to make against Joe Biden. Without addressing the specifics of the material available ,since Republicans are only publishing the items that support their propaganda and none of the exculpatory or contradictory material, that analysis shows that a neutral prosecutor would not pursue this fatally flawed case.

Of course, that will all fall on deaf ears since the righties and MAGA types are not interested in justice , just revenge. Their seething , mindless hatred for the political party and administration that they perceive to have persecuted their Orange felon knows no bounds. Reason, law and morality are all suspended in their pursuit of Vendetta!

And when this all falls apart for them, they will renew their hatred by telling themselves it failed because of more dirty trickery. And the vendetta will continue afresh.

 

We glad you moved over and support it now, welcome aboard. And they are still waiting for the further records the Biden's are fighting to withhold and for them to testify in public which they are fighting doing even though one of them was previously demanding he be allowed to do so.

 

He said he will have a public hearing if Kushner attends. Why won't reoublicans acquiesce a simple request?

What do they have to hide?

 

This isn’t about Kushner. It’s a bs ploy ESPECIALLY after all the hullabaloo he raised about wanting a public hearing.

 

Yes he does when he was invited to the business meetings and those guest were expecting him to take part in them.

 

He could produce no records to show why other than access to The Big Guy. You tell me if I am wrong what legitmate business records did he produce showing the legitimate business product or service.

 

And Hunter's lawyer may be facing and ethics hearing for doing and one has NOTHING to do with the other nor do citizens being called to testify before Congress or the Courts have a right to demand other totally unconnected person be forced to come and testify about totally unconnected events.

You do realize this is just Hunter giving you one of these American citizens his middle finger again?

 

Oh then PLEASE do post this exculpatory and contradictory material and testimony by actual witnesses to events and especially that of Joe Biden. With links of course.

 

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.

 

Most cases are won on circumstantial evidence and then we have the actual testimony to back up the circumstantial evidence. And the Bidens have offered ZERO evidence in rebuttal.

 

Let Gomer and company release all their minutes without any redaction. Including all the testimony heard privately.

Knowing how Republicans and MAGA supporters operate, like suborning perjury, the American people need to hear it all.

Right ?

 

They dont have to force Kushner. They simply have to ask him. If Kushner has nothing to hide, he will sit their side by side with Hunter.

 

Still not hearing any crimes….