leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 21 Posted March 21 (edited) 20 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I don't completely agree or disagree with AOC here but she has a point. The committee needs to get down to specifics. And that's following the money. These witnesses are one thing but the alleged crime is taking bribes and payoffs from foreign entities and governments. Not conducting business meetings and doling role call of who was there. Regardless of how elaborate the Biden money laundering operation is the transactions can eventually be traced, documented and explained. That's what the IRS whistle blowers were doing and claimed they had knowledge of when they were pulled off the case. I understand they testified as such. So I'd like to see the forensic evidence linking Biden to the source and distribution of the funds. Lay it out, follow the flow, and show where it lands in Joe's pocket. I think that's reasonable ask. AOC is an unreliable barometer of neutrality, and virtually everything she says must rightly be viewed with suspicion. That is to say, she may know of, or have evidence of wrongdoing but as a party loyalist chooses not to divulge. In that regard, she's no different than the R leading the committee, who may know with certainty that the only thing Joe Biden really did was lie about his involvement with the family business, work/negotiate and receive payouts from a company tied to a hostile regime, and potentially sell out American interests in exchange for a personal financial windfall. This leads me back to the committee. The appropriate R trajectory would be to investigate, selectively leak important information, follow the money, and use the information to pursue impeachment if impeachment was appropriate. If impeachment is not a reasonable outcome, the trajectory shifts to damaging JB politically, and tying his democrat supporters to behavior antithetical to the notion that they are working for the hardworking Americans they allegedly serve, and do so in a way that causes maximum damage to his image and reelection campaign. It's a delicate balance. Too soon, the people you need to convince lose interest. Too late, the opportunity to gain momentum has passed. At the same time, this is purely a Biden-created problem. As his dopey son ran about leveraging his father's political influence in foreign, corrupt countries, avoiding paying taxes and spiraling downward, it seems under the most favorable conditions for him, JB partnered with him for profit. He then lied and mislead his core supporters about his involvement, all while partnering with a country at odds with the values he supposedly supports. His out, politically speaking, would have been to fully embrace his role as private citizen, answer questions as to the amount of money he made from dealing with the Chinese, and speak eloquently about how he, as a multi-millionaire many times over, went over an above our tax code to pay his fair share. Edited March 21 by leh-nerd skin-erd 2
wnyguy Posted March 21 Posted March 21 1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said: I hope that everyone knows by now that even if they had the aforementioned canceled check from a foreign oligarch directly to JB's bank account with "for bribes" written on it and dated during a time which Joe Biden was VP....that this is still all going nowhere. Everyone realizes that this is where we are at now, right? The point of the inquiry, for me at least, is to get all of the actual EVIDENCE entered into the record on the slim chance we ever wrestle our country back from the marxists. Nothing more or less Look I can't stand Biden either but if these business dealings were done while he was out of office then what is the point? Go after him for his affairs in Ukraine while he was the VP. That makes sense.
BillsFanNC Posted March 21 Author Posted March 21 (edited) 10 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Look I can't stand Biden either but if these business dealings were done while he was out of office then what is the point? Go after him for his affairs in Ukraine while he was the VP. That makes sense. They are going after the Ukraine stuff while he was in office. The not in office stuff is a distraction Hunter didn't register under FARA while he conducted all of these deals. Joe met with some of these foreign oligarchs while Hunter wasnt registered. Same thing they sent Manafort to prison for. Felonies. Why do you think Joe lied over and over about knowing nothing about Hunter's businesses? Edited March 21 by BillsFanNC 2
BillStime Posted March 21 Posted March 21 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: There's a big difference between laundering bribes and payoffs through a complex network of banks and accounts (which the IRS investigators concluded was consistent with the methods of known money laundering operations) to hide the nature of the transactions that find their final destination in accounts of the Biden gang vs. transparent and legitimate business transactions booked on company ledgers and statements for clearly demonstrable accommodations and services. The payments were bookings for legitimate travel accommodations unless you've got hard evidence to the contrary. Which we all know you don't. But the Bidens? That's another story unless you can make up some fake crap on exactly what products and services Joe's crew provided to their "clients" for all that loot. Maybe its just because commies don't understand how private sector capitalism works and bribes are just part of their culture? Rep. Comer has indicated they've got data on about $60 million of payoffs that have found their way to the Biden's over the years. And over 170 suspicious transaction reports filed by banks with regulators that involve the Bidens. Seems like a lot of suspicious transactions. I expect when they're complete with the inquiry they'll bring this "evidence" to the House floor. Right. Why hasn't Biden been impeached yet? If there was substantial evidence, they would not have conducted yesterday's spectacle, which completely backfired.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 21 Posted March 21 14 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Look I can't stand Biden either but if these business dealings were done while he was out of office then what is the point? Go after him for his affairs in Ukraine while he was the VP. That makes sense. The point is to inflict damage on a political opponent. If they end up impeaching, that's the best outcome. If not, they revealed that Biden mislead the American people and partnered with a sketchy company tied to a hostile nation. 2 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 21 Posted March 21 (edited) 52 minutes ago, BillStime said: Right. Why hasn't Biden been impeached yet? If there was substantial evidence, they would not have conducted yesterday's spectacle, which completely backfired. An impeachment inquiry precedes an impeachment proceeding. Build case, present case, vote, outcome either to dismiss or to Senate trial. If its me I'm waiting until after the convention to proceed with any presentation of evidence and the case against Biden if only so they're stuck with Joe on the ballot and pulling a switch-a-roo will be close to impossible. Edited March 21 by All_Pro_Bills
Doc Posted March 21 Posted March 21 12 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: An impeachment inquiry precedes an impeachment proceeding. Build case, present case, vote, outcome either to dismiss or to Senate trial. If its me I'm waiting until after the convention to proceed with any presentation of evidence and the case against Biden if only so they're stuck with Joe on the ballot and pulling a switch-a-roo will be close to impossible. Yeah, I was all for impeachment. No need anymore.
BillStime Posted March 21 Posted March 21 23 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Build case That's the problem - they can't get past the first part to build a case. It's embarrassing.
BillsFanNC Posted March 21 Author Posted March 21 2 hours ago, T master said: I'll bet BT & Tibs have a reasonable excuse for all of this ! Actually they don't. They do have a bunch of Trump and Putin memes though. 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The point is to inflict damage on a political opponent. If they end up impeaching, that's the best outcome. If not, they revealed that Biden mislead the American people and partnered with a sketchy company tied to a hostile nation. This. It's why the media constantly refrains the no evidence mantra. Damage control.
BillStime Posted March 21 Posted March 21 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The point is to inflict damage on a political opponent. Benghazi 2.0 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: If they end up impeaching, that's the best outcome. If not, they revealed that Biden mislead the American people and partnered with a sketchy company tied to a hostile nation. Right.
BillsFanNC Posted March 21 Author Posted March 21 Oh Hunter knew those pesky FARA laws could possibly be problematic He of course also knew the iron law of woke projection and two tiered justice is always in play.
BillStime Posted March 21 Posted March 21 2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Oh Hunter knew those pesky FARA laws could possibly be problematic He of course also knew the iron law of woke projection and two tiered justice is always in play. Where in Russia do you think that screenshot was generated? Any ideas? Maybe Julie Psyop knows?
BillsFanNC Posted March 21 Author Posted March 21 (edited) 33 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Oh Hunter knew those pesky FARA laws could possibly be problematic He of course also knew the iron law of woke projection and two tiered justice is always in play. Keep in mind of course that the Russians hacked Hunter's laptop and put the above text message on it. They also planted all the other thousands of emails and correspondence on the laptop that just happen to match what's found on recipients emails with matching meta data. There's a reason that they're called USEFUL idiots. Edited March 21 by BillsFanNC 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 21 Posted March 21 49 minutes ago, BillStime said: Benghazi 2.0 There were serious, systemic, ethical and procedural issues with how Team Obama handled Benghazi, but no need to litigate that if you are a fan of what happened there. I would suggest if anything, it’s SOP Congressional Committee 1,765.0+. 49 minutes ago, BillStime said: Right. Of course. That’s my magic.
BillStime Posted March 21 Posted March 21 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: There were serious, systemic, ethical and procedural issues with how Team Obama handled Benghazi, but no need to litigate that if you are a fan of what happened there. I would suggest if anything, it’s SOP Congressional Committee 1,765.0+. That could very well be true, but isn't it frustrating when your group overshadows your feigned indignation? During an appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, McCarthy bragged that the House GOP's investigation into the Benghazi attack had made Hillary Clinton's poll numbers plummet. Furthermore, he presented it as part of a "strategy to fight and win," rather than a nonpartisan effort to find the truth. What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen. "I give you credit for that," Hannity responded. "I'll give you credit where credit is due." House Republican says Benghazi committee was "designed" to hit Clinton Another GOP congressman says Benghazi panel meant to hurt Clinton A top House Republican was accidentally honest about the Benghazi investigation Second Republican Congressman Admits Benghazi Committee Was ‘Designed To Go After’ Clinton
reddogblitz Posted March 21 Posted March 21 On 3/20/2024 at 10:40 AM, The Frankish Reich said: I clicked "agree" because what you set forth would be a reasonable/defensible inquiry. So why aren't they doing that? Two possible reasons: 1. They don't really have anything on that. 2. They have something on that, but it's kind of boring and Joe has plausible deniability on it, so better to use the time to push the more easily digestible "he was making deals with communist China!" Now if you could find any sex in there somewhere we'd have something we can work with. 1
T master Posted March 21 Posted March 21 3 hours ago, BillStime said: That's the problem - they can't get past the first part to build a case. It's embarrassing. The problem is incompetence ! They have checks from monies that came from the chinese company that eventually were cashed by Joe Biden that was for a so called loan repayment that a loan that was never made . Then just the fact that Joe said he had NO knowledge of Hunters business dealings . Bald faced Lie so if he would lie about that he is surely lying about not getting the money because they showed checks that he signed !! So why can't they build a case for god sake a 1st grader can see that something isn't right and would be able to make a case . If Bragg & Fanny Willis can make a case with the BS they pull up this should be a slam dunk ! Not that getting impeached means squat because nothing at all will become of it as we have seen time & time again in the past from numerous other presidents that have been impeached .
Recommended Posts