The Jordan-Comer Follies

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence.

...and Donny's not a rapist. Just ask Whell.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by finnbow

House Oversight GOP claims they don’t need to find direct payments to Joe Biden to prove corruption in Hunter Biden business dealings.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/polit...den/index.html

Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence.

tRump must really be in deep shit.

[Rajoo]

The Repugnants are openly signaling their actions. Dated yesterday,

“I didn’t say I was doing an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy recently insisted to reporters.

But many House Republicans privately say that it appears to be a foregone conclusion: Biden will face an impeachment inquiry in the fall and could be just the fourth US president ever charged with high crimes or misdemeanors – and that it might all happen by year’s end.

Republicans say if they don’t move forward with an impeachment inquiry now, it will create the impression that House Republicans have essentially cleared Biden of any wrongdoing over his ties to his son Hunter Biden’s business entanglements, allegations they say show a pay-to-play scheme when the elder Biden was vice president, even as they have yet to corroborate that provocative allegation.

But the accusations alone, they say, are worthy of opening up a formal impeachment inquiry, which McCarthy and top Republicans argue would strengthen the House’s oversight power in legal battles to obtain more documents and testimony – potentially from Hunter Biden himself

So an impeachment of Biden not only in the works but a done deal. they just need to cook up some facts and in the process subpoena Hunter. We all know the Freedumb critters are itching to get at him.

If this goes through, will be interesting how Hunter will play this.
Perhaps he can mimic Trump and ask the Comers to submit a list of questions, thus avoiding a shitshow.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/08/polit...den/index.html

[RickeyM]

With zero chance of getting a conviction I guess all they have to do is taint Biden and change the minds of say, eight million voters who voted for Biden last time. Piece of cake. Not that they need anything like proof to seal the deal. Lets see if Joe is cagey enough to scorch the Republicans with this.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

With zero chance of getting a conviction I guess all they have to do is taint Biden and change the minds of say, eight million voters who voted for Biden last time. Piece of cake. Not that they need anything like proof to seal the deal. Lets see if Joe is cagey enough to scorch the Republicans with this.

It's all about evening the scorecard for their dear Cheeto Benito. If he can say Biden was indicted too, he can further bamboozle his cult.

[finnbow]

The Right would like to pretend that James Comer didn’t make a very specific allegation of bribery for which he keeps not presenting evidence, but that is, in fact, what happened...

Speaking on Fox News last month, Comer and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) implied that the alleged bribe was paid so that Biden, then vice president, would push for the firing of Ukraine’s prosecutor general. This has been debunked repeatedly, for nearly four years. The timeline presented on Fox didn’t match actual events, and Archer had testified that the eventual firing was understood to be detrimental to Burisma, not beneficial.

But it’s all Comer’s got. His team tried to dig up this bribe that they have convinced their allies exists, without luck. So he issues a news release about the “Biden family” and suggests that bribery claims don’t need actual proof and prepares for his next Sean Hannity interview.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...iden-analysis/

[RickeyM]

Well gee, he could have saved a lot of time and trouble by just going with this approach in the first place. It's not like the MAGAt's needed anything like proof.

[Rajoo]

I do not see how Biden's impeachment based on his son's entanglements in Ukraine is even legal. Isn't the basis for high crimes while the person is in office?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

I do not see how Biden's impeachment based on his son's entanglements in Ukraine is even legal. Isn't the basis for high crimes while the person is in office?

In TrumpWorld, it's all about the allegations. Evidence is irrelevant. Trump has admitted it multiple times. He asked Zelensky to start an investigation and he would take care of the rest. He asked the same thing of DOJ - just start an investigation of his (fake) election conspiracies and his GOP Congressbuddies would take it from there.

[finnbow]

Here's a Fox News "Exclusive" for you:

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., is urging House GOP leaders to hold a chamber-wide vote on impeaching President Biden days after a highly anticipated report accused the commander in chief of committing impeachable offenses.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/byr...mbshell-report

Meanwhile, in the reality-based world, their report supporting this impeachment is compared to a "middle-school student plucking sentences from random points in the middle of a book to give the impression of having read the whole thing."

Moreover, there is "No mention of the repeatedly hyped claim from Comer and Jordan that the Bidens might have accepted a multimillion-dollar bribe — because the sole person making that claim was indicted on a charge of lying about it."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-with-nothing/

Needless to say, this thing was received by everyone but Fox News as a wet fart on the very day that Biden gave his DNC speech. These clowns are as petty as they are dishonest and incompetent.