Repubs go all in on impeachment inquiry

[Boiler Buck]

The Rs have a DREAM candidate in Biden to run against.....but they can't help theirselves. Silly Rs.

It's just an inquiry.......where you search for evidence. So I find the enclosed article title amusing....where they say "despite the lack of evidence " But that's the idiot press, trying to set a narrative ...lol.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-republicans-ready-vote-formalize-biden-impeachment-inquiry-2023-12-13/

 

[Riveting-]

The Joe Crow narrative started with his blatant lies during the 2020 campaign that he had never talked to Hunter about his 'business', to the WH saying Joe was never involved in the business, then that Joe never profited from the business. Yesterday Hunter added a new spin, that Joe was never "involved financially' in the business.

Hunter was reading a statement from his lawyers, so they must have decided the evidence is such that Joe obviously was "involved", but not financially.

Will the next iteration be: Joe was involved financially, but only to be sure that his drug addict son was not taken advantage of, because he is a father who loves his son so much?

What do you Joe Crow fans think? @BuilderBob6 , @HoosierfanJM (aka @PUBV ) ?

 

[BNIBoiler]

Hunter refused to fall into the trap of a closed door hearing. If they offer a open hearing, i bet he will come in to testify. You can't trust fools like Rep. Jordan running a hearing. If Hunter did the crime, yes prosecute and convict, even Joe. However, the repubs had years to find credible evidence and they just now having an inquiry to find the so called evidence. I bet after this so called inquiry, there will be no evidence to present like the evidence that the 2020 election was stolen.

 

[purdave]

The Joe Crow narrative started with his blatant lies during the 2020 campaign that he had never talked to Hunter about his 'business', to the WH saying Joe was never involved in the business, then that Joe never profited from the business. Yesterday Hunter added a new spin, that Joe was never "involved financially' in the business.

Hunter was reading a statement from his lawyers, so they must have decided the evidence is such that Joe obviously was "involved", but not financially.

Will the next iteration be: Joe was involved financially, but only to be sure that his drug addict son was not taken advantage of, because he is a father who loves his son so much?

What do you Joe Crow fans think? @BuilderBob6 , @HoosierfanJM (aka @PUBV ) ?

The Trump Justice Department investigated this crap for four years. When are you Morons going to accept there is nothing there. Get on with your lives.

 

[Riveting-]

The Trump Justice Department investigated this crap for four years. When are you Morons going to accept there is nothing there. Get on with your lives.

Not to burden you with too many facts, but much of the evidence was provided by Hunter himself via his laptop, which did not come into possession of the FBI until Dec 2019. The FBI then sat on it for a year.

If there is nothing there, why doesn't Hunter speak up and say what services he provided for the millions he received from entities in China, Russia, Ukraine and Romania? He could have done that yesterday in his ad hoc press conference. Why doesn't he speak up, in your opinion?

 

[BNIBoiler]

Not to burden you with too many facts, but much of the evidence was provided by Hunter himself via his laptop, which did not come into possession of the FBI until Dec 2019. The FBI then sat on it for a year.

If there is nothing there, why doesn't Hunter speak up and say what services he provided for the millions he received from entities in China, Russia, Ukraine and Romania? He could have done that yesterday in his ad hoc press conference. Why doesn't he speak up, in your opinion?

That's why you hire lawyers to represent you. That's not a time or place to speak about the situation. Perhaps the repubs need to lay out what evidence they got.

 

[Riveting-]

That's why you hire lawyers to represent you. That's not a time or place to speak about the situation. Perhaps the repubs need to lay out what evidence they got.

Are you aware of any of the evidence "they got"? Anything?

 

[BNIBoiler]

Are you aware of any of the evidence "they got"? Anything?

Nope. Mainly because I don’t give rat’s behind about Hunter Biden and his issues. I don’t watch Faux News hardly anymore. I take a peak now and then. So I don’t watch enough to hear any evidence that they say they have on Hunter. Definitely don’t watch the evening fools who are probably all over this Hunter crap. Again, if there evidence, lay it out. Procecute and convict instead of yappin’ about it.

 

[Riveting-]

Nope. Mainly because I don’t give rat’s behind about Hunter Biden and his issues. I don’t watch Faux News hardly anymore. I take a peak now and then. So I don’t watch enough to hear any evidence that they say they have on Hunter. Definitely don’t watch the evening fools who are probably all over this Hunter crap. Again, if there evidence, lay it out. Procecute and convict instead of yappin’ about it.

Do you have any idea who would be responsible for prosecuting Hunter?

 

[BNIBoiler]

Do you have any idea who would be responsible for prosecuting Hunter?

Not really. Like I said, I haven’t kept up with the story. However, since they want to bring him into Congress to testify, I would guess the Justice Dept. Since you are all over this story, you tell me.

 

[Riveting-]

Not really. Like I said, I haven’t kept up with the story. However, since they want to bring him into Congress to testify, I would guess the Justice Dept. Since you are all over this story, you tell me.

You would guess wrong. Since you claim to be a Purdue grad, I would expect you to know - which is why I doubt you are a Purdue grad.

DOJ is supposed to be prosecuting Hunter for, among other things, tax evasion and lying on a gun application. They deliberately allowed the statute of limitations to run out on his prior failures to pay taxes. That DOJ is now after him suggests the dem insiders have decided to dump Joe, although I think DOJ will slow walk the new charges until after the election.

Congress is supposed to investigate corruption involving a president. Since the Repubs didn't control the House until Jan 2023, there was no investigation (by the dems) before that time. It has been a struggle for the repubs to get information from a corrupt WH, Treasury, etc because they are all covering for Joe - at least up to now. If Joe is being dumped, then the info may be more forthcoming now.

They don't talk about any of this on urban radio, do they?

 

[BNIBoiler]

They don't talk about any of this on urban radio, do they?

Naw. Black folks don’t care about Hunter Biden. When it comes to Hunter urban radio just report on the major developments like this hearing that he refused to attend and the court and legal cases he has been involved with prior to this. His arrest and stuff.

I was right. I said the Justice Dept.

 

[Riveting-]

Naw. Black folks don’t care about Hunter Biden. When it comes to Hunter urban radio just report on the major developments like this hearing that he refused to attend and the court and legal cases he has been involved with prior to this. His arrest and stuff.

I was right. I said the Justice Dept.

Your opposition to voter ID requirements shows that you don't speak for black folks.

 

[BNIBoiler]

Your opposition to voter ID requirements shows that you don't speak for black folks.

I never said that I speak for black folks. But being black, I have a greater understanding of what's going on in the black community whether I agree with it or not. I also said that I never said that I'm against voter ID requirements. Like I've said over and over, voter ID in of itself is good. But I've also said that it's the timing of the requirements is what is the issue. Again before Obama, nobody cared about voter ID. He gets elected and now it's an issue an the red states lose their minds an require an ID all of a sudden. Since 2020 I have more issue with removing drop boxes, changing absentee ballot requirements, reducing early voting days/hours, removing Sunday voting etc.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Not to burden you with too many facts, but much of the evidence was provided by Hunter himself via his laptop, which did not come into possession of the FBI until Dec 2019. The FBI then sat on it for a year.

If there is nothing there, why doesn't Hunter speak up and say what services he provided for the millions he received from entities in China, Russia, Ukraine and Romania? He could have done that yesterday in his ad hoc press conference. Why doesn't he speak up, in your opinion?

The laptop has actually yielded very little when it comes to what the committee is searching for…….which is supposed to be about Joe getting paid.

Are you really trotting out the BS “if you have nothing to hide” argument? Seriously, do you have a college education? Does your partisanship override all else?

Trump took the fifth over 400 times in the NY case. Why, if he had nothing to hide?

 

[SKYDOG]

I never said that I speak for black folks. But being black, I have a greater understanding of what's going on in the black community whether I agree with it or not. I also said that I never said that I'm against voter ID requirements. Like I've said over and over, voter ID in of itself is good. But I've also said that it's the timing of the requirements is what is the issue. Again before Obama, nobody cared about voter ID. He gets elected and now it's an issue an the red states lose their minds an require an ID all of a sudden. Since 2020 I have more issue with removing drop boxes, changing absentee ballot requirements, reducing early voting days/hours, removing Sunday voting etc.

The white race voted Obama in twice, so don’t understand your position on this. Race is less of an issue with the whites as it is with the blacks.

 

[Riveting-]

The laptop has actually yielded very little when it comes to what the committee is searching for…….which is supposed to be about Joe getting paid.

That is not what it is "supposed to be about." Obviously you have already adopted the new WH iteration of the spin, that Joe was not "involved financially" in Hunter's business. So even you now admit that Joe was involved, but just not "financially", and that what he stated repeatedly in the 2020 election was a blatant lie to the voters?

Are you really trotting out the BS “if you have nothing to hide” argument? Seriously, do you have a college education? Does your partisanship override all else?

You don't think that people who have nothing to hide should come out and make their case, saving the gov. millions of dollars in legal expenses? It is established he received millions from foreign entities without paying taxes on it, so he is going to be asked to explain in court what he did for that money. Why is he refusing to say it publicly, choosing instead to let it continue to drag his loving father down the longer it plays out?

Trump took the fifth over 400 times in the NY case. Why, if he had nothing to hide?

If you mean the NY case in which the judge has admitted there were no 'victims', Trump also made his case publicly saying he was engaged in routine real estate business, that lenders (obviously) do their own due diligence no matter what applicants tell them, and that there are no victims saying Trump didn't keep his deals and pay his bills.

Hunter could make the same kind of statement if he has nothing to hide, instead of refusing to comment at all on what he was being paid millions for.

 

[BNIBoiler]

The white race voted Obama in twice, so don’t understand your position on this. Race is less of an issue with the whites as it is with the blacks.

What are you talking about? Obama only got 39% of the white vote vs 47% for Romney. Even less than that in the south.

You have to give the repub strategists credit for doing their job and research.

 

[Riveting-]

What are you talking about? Obama only got 39% of the white vote vs 47% for Romney. Even less than that in the south.

You have to give the repub strategists credit for doing their job and research.

That was his re-election. Did you expect people to vote for him again just because he was black even though he had proven himself to be naive and weak in his first term? That is racist thinking on your part, again.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Hey, has any of this alleged Hunter nonsense actually happened since Biden became President?

Because a President can only be impeached for actions taken while they were President.

 

[Riveting-]

Hey, has any of this alleged Hunter nonsense actually happened since Biden became President?

Because a President can only be impeached for actions taken while they were President.

Wow, the repubs must not have thought of that. You need to let them know right away.

 

[SKYDOG]

What are you talking about? Obama only got 39% of the white vote vs 47% for Romney. Even less than that in the south.

You have to give the repub strategists credit for doing their job and research.

If an election has a black versus a white candidate, there is little chance a high percentage of blacks will vote for the white candidate.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Wow, the repubs must not have thought of that. You need to let them know right away.

Funny you should ask whether they have.

Senator Mullin (R) (Oklahoma) made the exact point today.

 

[BNIBoiler]

If an election has a black versus a white candidate, there is little chance a high percentage of blacks will vote for the white candidate.

Depends on the candidate. The party affiliation. And a whole bunch of other factors. That is a very broad generalization. I’m not sure what kind of facts you are using. Higher number of blacks voted for Obama over McCain and Romney. In Chicago, more blacks voted for Johnson than the white candidate. However, if that black person is a Republican and is running against a white democrat, more blacks will vote for the white democrat. That black Republican will have to be very moderate to even have a chance.

 

[Riveting-]

Funny you should ask whether they have.

Senator Mullin (R) (Oklahoma) made the exact point today.

Did he make a point about an impeachment investigation, or about an impeachment?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Did he make a point about an impeachment investigation, or about an impeachment?

An impeachment. Are you saying that the US Congress can and should have an impeachment investigation for something and someone they have no power to impeach on?

 

[Riveting-]

An impeachment. Are you saying that the US Congress can and should have an impeachment investigation for something and someone they have no power to impeach on?

Apparently they can because the House is doing it now even though the senate will never vote in favor. That is what happened with the first Trump impeachment.

In this case, I think the House is acting properly because of the evidence obtained by Comer and others. Don't you agree?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Apparently they can because the House is doing it now even though the senate will never vote in favor. That is what happened with the first Trump impeachment.

In this case, I think the House is acting properly because of the evidence obtained by Comer and others. Don't you agree?

Hahahahahahaaaaaaa

“Evidence?” And even if there was something nefarious it would be barred from use in an impeachment proceeding because it is irrelevant to the time Biden has been President.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA You are an incredibly naive sucker.

 

[Riveting-]

Hahahahahahaaaaaaa

“Evidence?” And even if there was something nefarious it would be barred from use in an impeachment proceeding because it is irrelevant to the time Biden has been President.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA You are an incredibly naive sucker.

You have evidence that the millions Hunter received from foreign entities has not influenced Joe Crow's policies as president?

That would be more key info you need to let the repubs know as soon as you can.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

You have evidence that the millions Hunter received from foreign entities has not influenced Joe Crow's policies as president?

That would be more key info you need to let the repubs know as soon as you can.

 

[Riveting-]

More memes as you pursue your dream to be the forum influencer.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

More memes as you pursue your dream to be the forum influencer.

Only when you do that incredibly stupid whattaboutism with the irrefutable.

Gawd you are annoying, naive, and obtuse.

 

[SIBoiler2]

Only when you do that incredibly stupid whattaboutism with the irrefutable.

Gawd you are annoying, naive, and obtuse.

And you're a professional liar from IU. Checkmate.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

And you're a professional liar from IU. Checkmate.

Oooooohhh.

Naive Trump-the-con lover Riveting found a sucker friend to try to fight his battles for him.

Scary trumploving sucker battle-fighter chimes in with middle school playground “checkmate!” An 11 year old is mad that Riveting is sad!!!!!

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!

Guess who else fell for Trump’s big con?
$148 million in the hole RUDY!!

 

[SKYDOG]

Oooooohhh.

Naive Trump-the-con lover Riveting found a sucker friend to try to fight his battles for him.

Scary trumploving sucker battle-fighter chimes in with middle school playground “checkmate!” An 11 year old is mad that Riveting is sad!!!!!

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!

Guess who else fell for Trump’s big con?
$148 million in the hole RUDY!!

The amount the judge awarded them is beyond ridiculous. People that get injured and need care for the rest of their lives usually don’t get that much.

 

[Riveting-]

Only when you do that incredibly stupid whattaboutism with the irrefutable.

Gawd you are annoying, naive, and obtuse.

Your whatabout whataboutism whine is always a clear sign you are conceding.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Your whatabout whataboutism whine is always a clear sign you are conceding.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

The amount the judge awarded them is beyond ridiculous. People that get injured and need care for the rest of their lives usually don’t get that much.

The jury awarded it, not the judge.

Guessing it’s a moot point because Rudy has nowhere near that much. Now the game becomes chasing Rudy’s assets while he desperately tries to hide them.

Rudy will likely be fearless in deliberately hiding assets because he’s likely gonna be in jail anyway. Though he is completely estranged from his kids/family so I’m not sure who he’ll be hiding assets for.

 

[Riveting-]

The jury awarded it, not the judge.

Guessing it’s a moot point because Rudy has nowhere near that much. Now the game becomes chasing Rudy’s assets while he desperately tries to hide them.

Rudy will likely be fearless in deliberately hiding assets because he’s likely gonna be in jail anyway. Though he is completely estranged from his kids/family so I’m not sure who he’ll be hiding assets for.

I wonder if Hunter has contacted him.

 

[Riveting-]

As are your memes, which you use to cover your ignorance.

Whataboutthat?