Hard-line House Republicans itching for shutdown, impeachment fights

[Social Media]

 

Hard-line Republicans in the House are itching for fights over opening an impeachment inquiry into President Biden and extracting deep spending cuts even at the risk of a government shutdown.  

Their eagerness to fight isn’t just with Biden and Democrats, but also with Republicans in their conference worried about the political risks of an impeachment fight and a shutdown.  

Those dynamics pose yet another challenge for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whose job is to unify his conference.  

“I’m tired of all these Republicans hiding behind, ‘Oh, but they’ll say it’s a shutdown. And they’ll say that you’re defunding law enforcement with [the Department of Homeland Security].’ That is all bullshit,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the House Freedom Caucus.  

“The truth is we’re using the power that we were given to force change because you don’t pay people not to do their job.” 

Allies of McCarthy are among those putting the pressure on him.  

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has repeatedly offered support for McCarthy, said she will not vote to fund the government unless the House opens an impeachment inquiry into Biden. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), decidedly not a McCarthy ally, suggested he could force a vote on ousting the Speaker if he does not push forward on investigations of Biden and other officials. 

 

FULL STORY

[Chomper Higgot]

Hardliners = one lunatic and one inveterate liar facing ever increasing legal problems.

 

Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gaetz for goodness sake.

 

Whatever happened to the GOP?

[Tug]

They have to have grounds to do such a thing they don’t just their terror of Trump demanding it

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

They have to have grounds to do such a thing they don’t just their terror of Trump demanding it

They don’t need grounds to attempt such a thing and they have McCarthy by the ‘one vote to call confidence’ nuts,

 

They do of course need evidence to pull it off and they don’t have any.

 

It’s all toothless theater to distract from the real crimes and real trials.

 

Pity the Republicans didn’t take either of the two impeachment opportunities they had, they did not and now they are bound head to toe with a heavyweight crook who’s about to be tossed into the pond of Justice.

 

Going down with him, it’s the choice they made.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[Tug]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They don’t need grounds to attempt such a thing and they have McCarthy by the ‘one vote to call confidence’ nuts,

 

They do of course need evidence to pull it off and they don’t have any.

 

It’s all toothless theater to distract from the real crimes and real trials.

 

Pity the Republicans didn’t take either of the two impeachment opportunities they had, they did not and now they are bound head to toe with a heavyweight crook who’s about to be tossed into the pond of Justice.

 

Going down with him, it’s the choice they made.

 

 

But but but I thought it was the dems weaponizing lol ???? not a snowballs chance in hell 

[impulse]

Wow.  Tag team lefties.

 

I don't favor an impeachment (yet), but I absolutely favor an impeachment inquiry, granting congress subpoena powers to get at the documents, emails, bank records and other evidence they seek  (and the Biden team is holding back on).

 

If there's nothing to hide, why not just release the evidence?  And fire the dozens of attorneys they've hired to squelch the evidence...

 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, impulse said:

Wow.  Tag team lefties.

 

I don't favor an impeachment (yet), but I absolutely favor an impeachment inquiry, granting congress subpoena powers to get at the documents, emails, bank records and other evidence they seek  (and the Biden team is holding back on).

 

If there's nothing to hide, why not just release the evidence?  And fire the dozens of attorneys they've hired to squelch the evidence...

 

What evidence?

 

Baseless accusations don’t deserve being given anything other than the finger.

 

 

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What evidence?

 

Baseless accusations don’t deserve being given anything other than the finger.

If there's no evidence, why not release the evidence?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

If there's no evidence, why not release the evidence?

 

MAGA thinking at its best.

Let’s have a learning moment, I’ll teach, you try to learn.

 

Its for accusers to produce the evidence.

 

[impulse]

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

MAGA thinking at its best.

Let’s have a learning moment, I’ll teach, you try to learn.

 

Its for accusers to produce the evidence.

If your kid came home and said "Dad, I'm not doing dope, but don't look in my top left drawer" would you have evidence before you looked in the top left drawer? 

 

The Repubs want to look in the top left drawer...  Biden's team of dozens of lawyers, aren't letting them.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, impulse said:

If your kid came home and said "Dad, I'm not doing dope, but don't look in my top left drawer" would you have evidence before you looked in the top left drawer? 

 

The Repubs want to look in the top left drawer...  Biden's team of dozens of lawyers, aren't letting them.

 

Back to Civics you go.

 

5th Amendment of the US Constitution has something to say in the matter.

 

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

If there's no evidence, why not release the evidence?

 

Because there is none, there is nothing to release. Unless you think the weaponized DoJ under Trump with Trump attack dog AG Barr and a special counsel looking into this suppressed the evidence.

[impulse]

53 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Because there is none, there is nothing to release. Unless you think the weaponized DoJ under Trump with Trump attack dog AG Barr and a special counsel looking into this suppressed the evidence.

McCarthy has asked for very specific documents, e-mails and bank records.  Biden's attorneys are declining to provide them.

 

“If you look at all the information we have been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”....An impeachment inquiry, he said, “provides Congress the apex of legal power to get all the information they need.”

 

The "information we have been able to gather so" far includes over 100 bank suspicious activities reports, 1023 forms, testimony from IRS and FBI whistleblowers, e-mails from the laptop, and a myriad of others. 

 

You can reasonably claim the evidence isn't conclusive.  (That's why they want subpoena power).  But to claim that there is none, is patently false.  But that's the narrative being put out by the Dems and the MSM.  With the exception of the usual suspects, that I refer to as the right wing coconut telegraph.
 

Oops.  Forgot my link:  https://apnews.com/article/mccarthy-hunter-biden-impeachment-inquiry-government-shutdown-56d9ccc7f090ea220a47e877e503179e

Edited September 11, 2023 by impulse

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

McCarthy has asked for very specific documents, e-mails and bank records.  Biden's attorneys are declining to provide them.

 

“If you look at all the information we have been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”....An impeachment inquiry, he said, “provides Congress the apex of legal power to get all the information they need.”

 

The "information we have been able to gather so" far includes over 100 bank suspicious activities reports, 1023 forms, testimony from IRS and FBI whistleblowers, e-mails from the laptop, and a myriad of others. 

 

You can reasonably claim the evidence isn't conclusive.  (That's why they want subpoena power).  But to claim that there is none, is patently false.  But that's the narrative being put out by the Dems and the MSM.  With the exception of the usual suspects, that I refer to as the right wing coconut telegraph.
 

Oops.  Forgot my link:  https://apnews.com/article/mccarthy-hunter-biden-impeachment-inquiry-government-shutdown-56d9ccc7f090ea220a47e877e503179e

Why quote a post when you chose not to answer the real issue.

"Unless you think the weaponized DoJ under Trump with Trump attack dog AG Barr and a special counsel looking into this suppressed the evidence."

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Why quote a post when you chose not to answer the real issue.

"Unless you think the weaponized DoJ under Trump with Trump attack dog AG Barr and a special counsel looking into this suppressed the evidence."

I was referring to the first part of your post that said there is none, so nothing to release.   That is provably false.

 

I don't even understand your reference to Trump and Barr in this topic of a Biden impeachment fight.  

Edited September 11, 2023 by impulse

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, impulse said:

I was referring to the first part of your post that said there is none, so nothing to release.   That is provably false.

 

I don't even understand your reference to Trump and Barr in this topic of a Biden impeachment fight.  

Your bad 

[impulse]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Your bad 

If you're asking whether the FBI withheld evidence during the Trump administration, that's a documented fact.  They had the laptop for a looong time.  Knew it was authentic, for a loooong time.   Yes, that's indicative of suppressing the evidence.  They suppressed for so long, in fact, that the statute of limitations has run out on several charges. 

 

It wasn't until after the Repubs won the house that the dominoes started falling.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by impulse

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

If you're asking whether the FBI withheld evidence during the Trump administration, that's a documented fact.  They had the laptop for a looong time.  Knew it was authentic, for a loooong time.   Yes, that's indicative of suppressing the evidence.  They suppressed for so long, in fact, that the statute of limitations has run out on several charges. 

 

It wasn't until after the Repubs won the house that the dominoes started falling.

 

Except that there is no evidence of criminality on the laptop. And given that it was John Ratcliffe, a notorious extreme right winger who headed the unit that had custody of it, your charge of suppression makes little sense. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

McCarthy has asked for very specific documents, e-mails and bank records.  Biden's attorneys are declining to provide them.

 

“If you look at all the information we have been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”....An impeachment inquiry, he said, “provides Congress the apex of legal power to get all the information they need.”

 

The "information we have been able to gather so" far includes over 100 bank suspicious activities reports, 1023 forms, testimony from IRS and FBI whistleblowers, e-mails from the laptop, and a myriad of others. 

 

You can reasonably claim the evidence isn't conclusive.  (That's why they want subpoena power).  But to claim that there is none, is patently false.  But that's the narrative being put out by the Dems and the MSM.  With the exception of the usual suspects, that I refer to as the right wing coconut telegraph.
 

Oops.  Forgot my link:  https://apnews.com/article/mccarthy-hunter-biden-impeachment-inquiry-government-shutdown-56d9ccc7f090ea220a47e877e503179e

And what information is the House demanding? If it's information from the ongoing Justice Dept investigation, then it's standard policy  not to jeopardize a criminal investigation by sharing information developed in an ongoing investigation.

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Except that there is no evidence of criminality on the laptop. And given that it was John Ratcliffe, a notorious extreme right winger who headed the unit that had custody of it, your charge of suppression makes little sense. 

You can reasonably say the evidence on the laptop is unconvincing, or that it's not conclusive.  But to claim that there is none is patently false. 

 

Just one example:  Hunter's e-mail to his sister complaining about having to give half his earnings to Pop.  If Hunter was getting dirty money by selling access to Pop, that incriminates Pop.  It may not be convincing.  May not even be true.  But it is evidence, nonetheless.

 

The pictures of nekkid hookers, crack smoking and other Hunter foibles don't interest me at all.  But they may have interested millions of voters in 2020.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

You can reasonably say the evidence on the laptop is unconvincing, or that it's not conclusive.  But to claim that there is none is patently false. 

 

Just one example:  Hunter's e-mail to his sister complaining about having to give half his earnings to Pop.  If Hunter was getting dirty money by selling access to Pop, that incriminates Pop.  It may not be convincing.  May not even be true.  But it is evidence, nonetheless.

 

The pictures of nekkid hookers, crack smoking and other Hunter foibles don't interest me at all.  But they may have interested millions of voters in 2020.

That's got to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of "evidence" that anyone has ever offered. In that email,  Hunter Biden complained that for the last 30 years he's been giving half of his earning to his father. Given that Hunter Biden wrote this when he was either 49 or 50, that would mean from the time he was 19 or 20 he's been giving half his income to his father. Does this sound remotely believable? Does context mean anything to you? Clearly he's using hyperbole to complain about the fact that he's expected to financially contribute to the upkeep of the second home.

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

That's got to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of "evidence" that anyone has ever offered. In that email,  Hunter Biden complained that for the last 30 years he's been giving half of his earning to his father. Given that Hunter Biden wrote this when he was either 49 or 50, that would mean from the time he was 19 or 20 he's been giving half his income to his father. Does this sound remotely believable? Does context mean anything to you? Clearly he's using hyperbole to complain about the fact that he's expected to financially contribute to the upkeep of the second home.

I have no insight into the "context"  You don't either, except what the MSM is spoon feeding you.  Those are facts that should be investigated.  The "dots" if you will.  Hence, the need for an impeachment inquiry.  To either connect those dots (and they are many), or to clear Biden's name.

 

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

I have no insight into the "context"  You don't either, except what the MSM is spoon feeding you.  Those are facts that should be investigated.  The "dots" if you will.  Hence, the need for an impeachment inquiry.  To either connect those dots (and they are many), or to clear Biden's name.

 

If you have no insight into the context, that's only because you actually haven't read the emails. What don't you understand about the fact that Hunter Biden had written that he's been giving half of his income to his father for the last 30 years?  That would mean this began when he was 19 or 20 years old. Obviously, taking this literally, not hyperbolically, is ridiculous. And further, what don't you understand that this was said in the context of Hunter Biden complaining about his father asking him to contribute to the upkeep of a home. 

[candide]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

I have no insight into the "context"  You don't either, except what the MSM is spoon feeding you.  Those are facts that should be investigated.  The "dots" if you will.  Hence, the need for an impeachment inquiry.  To either connect those dots (and they are many), or to clear Biden's name.

 

That's what the right-wing NYpost has been "feeding".

"The expenses are spelled out in an email to Hunter from business partner Eric Schwerin from June 5, 2010, titled “JRB Bills.” They concerned the upkeep of Joe Biden’s palatial lakefront home in the wealthy Greenville enclave of Wilmington, Del. JRB are President Biden’s initials."

"There were $1,239 in repairs to an air conditioner at “mom-mom’s cottage,” and another $1,475 to a painter for “back wall and columns at the lake house.” There was also another $2,600 for fixing up a “stone retaining wall at the lake” and $475 “for shutters.”

And also

"There’s also evidence Joe Biden sometimes reimbursed his son."

https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-reveal/

 

Now you can vanish again as you did at the previous occasions I mentioned these facts to you.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by candide

[impulse]

15 minutes ago, candide said:

That's what the right-wing NYpost has been "feeding".

"The expenses are spelled out in an email to Hunter from business partner Eric Schwerin from June 5, 2010, titled “JRB Bills.” They concerned the upkeep of Joe Biden’s palatial lakefront home in the wealthy Greenville enclave of Wilmington, Del. JRB are President Biden’s initials."

"There were $1,239 in repairs to an air conditioner at “mom-mom’s cottage,” and another $1,475 to a painter for “back wall and columns at the lake house.” There was also another $2,600 for fixing up a “stone retaining wall at the lake” and $475 “for shutters.”

And also

"There’s also evidence Joe Biden sometimes reimbursed his son."

https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-reveal/

 

Now you can vanish again as you did at the previous occasions I mentioned these facts to you.

Just couldn't resist making it personal, huh?

 

So you're admitting that they were commingling funds?  Which makes Joe a willing beneficiary of what Hunter was doing?  A few grand for upkeep hardly comports with the claim of "half".  Maybe it's nothing.  But it's certainly piqued my curiosity.

 

How did they 'splain away the other known shell companies and the funds sent to the grandkids?

 

Bottom line, if there's nothing to hide, why is the Biden team so intent on hiding it?  Enquiring minds want to know.  Lefties, probably not so much. 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by impulse

[candide]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

Just couldn't resist making it personal, huh?

 

So you're admitting that they were commingling funds?  Which makes Joe a willing beneficiary of what Hunter was doing?  A few grand for upkeep hardly comports with the claim of "half".  Maybe it's nothing.  But it's certainly piqued my curiosity.

 

How did they 'splain away the other known shell companies and the funds sent to the grandkids?

 

Bottom line, if there's nothing to hide, why is the Biden team so intent on hiding it?  Enquiring minds want to know.  Lefties, probably not so much. 

 

 

Paying for the aircon repair (and likely being reimbursed later) is hardly a proof of corruption or collusion.

 

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

McCarthy has asked for very specific documents, e-mails and bank records.  Biden's attorneys are declining to provide them.

 

“If you look at all the information we have been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”....An impeachment inquiry, he said, “provides Congress the apex of legal power to get all the information they need.”

 

The "information we have been able to gather so" far includes over 100 bank suspicious activities reports, 1023 forms, testimony from IRS and FBI whistleblowers, e-mails from the laptop, and a myriad of others. 

 

You can reasonably claim the evidence isn't conclusive.  (That's why they want subpoena power).  But to claim that there is none, is patently false.  But that's the narrative being put out by the Dems and the MSM.  With the exception of the usual suspects, that I refer to as the right wing coconut telegraph.
 

Oops.  Forgot my link:  https://apnews.com/article/mccarthy-hunter-biden-impeachment-inquiry-government-shutdown-56d9ccc7f090ea220a47e877e503179e

please provide some evidence against Biden.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, candide said:

That's what the right-wing NYpost has been "feeding".

"The expenses are spelled out in an email to Hunter from business partner Eric Schwerin from June 5, 2010, titled “JRB Bills.” They concerned the upkeep of Joe Biden’s palatial lakefront home in the wealthy Greenville enclave of Wilmington, Del. JRB are President Biden’s initials."

"There were $1,239 in repairs to an air conditioner at “mom-mom’s cottage,” and another $1,475 to a painter for “back wall and columns at the lake house.” There was also another $2,600 for fixing up a “stone retaining wall at the lake” and $475 “for shutters.”

And also

"There’s also evidence Joe Biden sometimes reimbursed his son."

https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-reveal/

 

Now you can vanish again as you did at the previous occasions I mentioned these facts to you.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

This is a nothingburger. In fact, it's the definition of a nothingburger.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

If you have no insight into the context, that's only because you actually haven't read the emails. What don't you understand about the fact that Hunter Biden had written that he's been giving half of his income to his father for the last 30 years?  That would mean this began when he was 19 or 20 years old. Obviously, taking this literally, not hyperbolically, is ridiculous. And further, what don't you understand that this was said in the context of Hunter Biden complaining about his father asking him to contribute to the upkeep of a home. 

Please provide a link supporting the above assertions.

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

You can reasonably say the evidence on the laptop is unconvincing, or that it's not conclusive.  But to claim that there is none is patently false. 

 

Just one example:  Hunter's e-mail to his sister complaining about having to give half his earnings to Pop.  If Hunter was getting dirty money by selling access to Pop, that incriminates Pop.  It may not be convincing.  May not even be true.  But it is evidence, nonetheless.

 

The pictures of nekkid hookers, crack smoking and other Hunter foibles don't interest me at all.  But they may have interested millions of voters in 2020.

The problem with the laptop is chain of custody.

 

Also, note that Hunter Biden has been intensely investigated by the IRS for years, and none of these accusations are supported by the IRS.