Jump to content

Hunter Biden’s attorney files ethics complaint against Marjorie Taylor Greene for showing sexual images


Social Media

Recommended Posts

image.png

 

Hunter Biden’s lawyer filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) Friday, requesting that an ethics watchdog “immediately” initiate a review of Greene’s conduct after she showed sexually explicit photos of Biden at a congressional hearing this week.

In a letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), Biden attorney Abbe David Lowell slammed Greene’s actions as “abhorrent behavior that blatantly violates House Ethics rules and standards of official conduct.”

 

“This week, your colleague has lowered herself, and by extension the entire House of Representatives, to a new level of abhorrent behavior that blatantly violates House Ethics rules and standards of official conduct. If the OCE takes its responsibilities seriously, it will promptly and decisively condemn and discipline Ms. Greene for her latest actions,” Lowell wrote.

 

FULL STORY

THEHILL-250.png

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

Hunter Biden’s lawyer filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) Friday, requesting that an ethics watchdog “immediately” initiate a review of Greene’s conduct after she showed sexually explicit photos of Biden at a congressional hearing this week.

Who is MTG to judge a character on sexually explicit photos when she herself seems more than happy to carry out her own interpretations to a cardboard cut out!

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, riclag said:

She did warn people though,

before she exposed the truth .

 

 

Greene warned viewers that :“parental discretion is advised” and cautioned that “the following images are disturbing” before she exhibited photographs of the now-53-year-old first son engaged in graphic sexual acts with a series of women”.

 

“During her line of questioning, the congresswoman was attempting to establish whether Hunter had violated the federal Mann Act of 1910, which prohibits the transportation of women across state lines “for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.”

https://nypost.com/2023/07/22/hunter-bidens-lawyer-files-ethics-complaint-against-marjorie-taylor-greene-after-she-flashes-his-x-rated-pics-at-hearing/

 

 

 

She wanted to make sure people would pay attention and watch it! ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

She was successful in establishing violations of the Mann act by using shock and awe, criminal  charges referred.imop 

 

 “between six and 10 criminal referrals“ to the Justice Department related to President Biden’s son, including evidence that Hunter Biden violated the Mann Act – a federal law that makes it illegal to transport women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. 
https://nypost.com/2023/07/20/ultimate-white-privilege-guy-hunter-biden-may-be-hit-with-10-criminal-referrals-comer

Who exactly "referred criminal charges" and under what authority?

 

Trump should be charged with transporting geriatric migrant women across the border for prostitution, IMOP. Can you see how this drivel works?

Edited by ozimoron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, riclag said:

She was successful in establishing violations of the Mann act by using shock and awe, criminal  charges referred.imop 

 

 “between six and 10 criminal referrals“ to the Justice Department related to President Biden’s son, including evidence that Hunter Biden violated the Mann Act – a federal law that makes it illegal to transport women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. 
https://nypost.com/2023/07/20/ultimate-white-privilege-guy-hunter-biden-may-be-hit-with-10-criminal-referrals-comer/

 

 

If It's an admissible evidence, then he should be indicted. No problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, candide said:

If It's an admissible evidence, then he should be indicted. No problem.

Is this a court?No!She has no business doing what she did.

The woman should be married to Trump,they would make a great couple!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jvs said:

Is this a court?No!She has no business doing what she did.

The woman should be married to Trump,they would make a great couple!

 

That's why I mentioned " if it is an admissible evidence". If it is admissible, it will likely be examined one day or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...
""