Inside McCarthy’s sudden warming to a Biden impeachment inquiry

[Trippy]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Sure, but real evidence leads to an indictment where there is a prosecutable offense. The lack of an indictment is a hint that there is no evidence of an offense. The DoJ will prosecute every prosecutable offense.

That's where we disagree, I have no faith in the honesty of Garland's DOJ.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Trippy said:

That's where we disagree, I have no faith in the honesty of Garland's DOJ.

And so we come back to the conspiracy theories as we always do with right. There's never a cogent argument for anything. Just deep state mantras.

 

That said, I guess I didn't trust Barr's DoJ either. I think we are going to hear more about Barr's DoJ soon.

Edited July 26, 2023 by ozimoron

[nauseus]

51 minutes ago, candide said:

The main claims of the whistleblowers (if true) are about events which occurred during Trump's mandate (they were alegedly prevented to investigate Hunter further, interview his children, etc...). How can it be a ground to impeach Joe?

These main claims concern Bidens, not Trumps!

[billd766]

8 minutes ago, Trippy said:

That's where we disagree, I have no faith in the honesty of Garland's DOJ.

That of course is your choice.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

These main claims concern Bidens, not Trumps!

They are related to Trump in the sense that the only reason these allegations and threats are being made is in the service of defending Trump.

[nauseus]

Just now, ozimoron said:

They are related to Trump in the sense that the only reason these allegations and threats are being made is in the service of defending Trump.

And you guys shout for evidence! 

[ozimoron]

Just now, nauseus said:

And you guys shout for evidence! 

McCarthy isn't carrying water for Trump?

[candide]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

These main claims concern Bidens, not Trumps!

The WB claims concern an alleged covering up by the DOJ. The whistleblower you mentioned did not claim to have evidence against Joe. And most of the alleged covering-up occurred under Trump. Impeach Barr!

[billd766]

35 minutes ago, nauseus said:

And you guys shout for evidence! 

And you guys never provide any.

[nauseus]

46 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

McCarthy isn't carrying water for Trump?

No he's carrying hooks for Biden.

[nauseus]

34 minutes ago, candide said:

The WB claims concern an alleged covering up by the DOJ. The whistleblower you mentioned did not claim to have evidence against Joe. And most of the alleged covering-up occurred under Trump. Impeach Barr!

The WB claims concern alleged suspicious transfers from at least five foreign countries to various shell companies that Hunter Biden is allegedly involved in, with other Biden family members also likely to be implicated. Who was president, when, does not change anything.

 

If Joe Biden is involved then the highest rank he would have had would have been VP. We will have to wait and see. 

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And you guys never provide any.

That seems to be the DOJ and FBI ploy.

[candide]

37 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The WB claims concern alleged suspicious transfers from at least five foreign countries to various shell companies that Hunter Biden is allegedly involved in, with other Biden family members also likely to be implicated. Who was president, when, does not change anything.

 

If Joe Biden is involved then the highest rank he would have had would have been VP. We will have to wait and see. 

Hunter.

The WB doesn't claim Joe received money. So It's irrelevant for claiming Joe should be impeached, as you did.

 

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, candide said:

Hunter.

The WB doesn't claim Joe received money. So It's irrelevant for claiming Joe should be impeached, as you did.

 

No. It doesn't and I didn't. However what I did say is this:

 

The WB claims concern alleged suspicious transfers from at least five foreign countries to various shell companies that Hunter Biden is allegedly involved in, with other Biden family members also likely to be implicated. Who was president, when, does not change anything.

 

If Joe Biden is involved then the highest rank he would have had would have been VP. We will have to wait and see. 

 

 

[Tug]

Obviously this charade is at the behest of trump pure and simple.McCarthy got his orders,it’s a distraction no proof as yet just accusations.typical trumpian play book ,as to the but but trump folks I’m not buying it obviously it’s done at trumps behest in a vain effort to to sully Biden’s reputation.what I find truly surprising is none of these detractors are on the threads critical of trump the presumptive Republican nominee.what gives?guess it’s hard to defend the indefensible and easy to cast enuendos ehh…….?

[candide]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No. It doesn't and I didn't. However what I did say is this:

 

The WB claims concern alleged suspicious transfers from at least five foreign countries to various shell companies that Hunter Biden is allegedly involved in, with other Biden family members also likely to be implicated. Who was president, when, does not change anything.

 

If Joe Biden is involved then the highest rank he would have had would have been VP. We will have to wait and see. 

 

 

Ok. There have been money transfers (actually they were known before the WB mentioned them).

 

Then It's a matter of "if": if this money was related to something illegal (no evidence of it yet), and if Joe was involved (also no evidence of it) in these activities (about which there is yet no evidence of illegality).

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Ok. There have been money transfers (actually they were known before the WB mentioned them).

 

Then It's a matter of "if": if this money was related to something illegal (no evidence of it yet), and if Joe was involved (also no evidence of it) in these activities (about which there is yet no evidence of illegality).

Yet.

[pomchop]

12 hours ago, Trippy said:

Oh we're talking about Trump now? FYI I hope he doesn't even get the nomination, and if he broke the law he should be prosecuted. 

But maybe we shouldn't change the subject so fast, I think we were talking about the Bidens. But I'm sure you still think that Hunters laptop is all just Russian disinformation, and there was Russian collusion with the former President, so there's no convincing you of anything. Open your eyes, stop having tunnel vision, there's always 2 sides of the story.

Yes two or more sides to every story...makes no difference what I or others "think".....that is why the courts require real EVIDENCE of laws being broken....not a bunch of BS or political conspiracy theories spouted on TV or the internet....so once again...why did trumps doj not convene a grand jury to bring charges against biden....they controlled doj, fbi, and attorney general for 4 years and the investigation took place under their watch...could it be that they had no real evidence?

 

good advice to stop having tunnel vision...follow the EVIDENCE.

 

 

[candide]

McCarthy edges back from the brink of a Biden impeachment inquiry 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/mccarthy-edges-back-brink-biden-201517982.html

[pomchop]

16 hours ago, candide said:

Well, when one camp's propaganda is that elections have been stolen, despite all the evidence it's a lie, and a majority of its voters believe it, the country is surely divided.

How many of the trump supports on this forum are willing to post a response of yes or no to two simple questions? 

 

Is there any evidence of significant voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election?

 

Did Joe Biden win the 2020 Presidential election?