House votes to formally open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden

[stevil]

This is a significant milestone in the Republican's journey to impeach Joe Biden.
I've been waiting days for the Far Right hyper partisans to create this thread. They seem to open a thread on pretty much any little thing whether it's real or gossip or conspiracy, that might look bad for any Democrats. But this thread on this very significant event has been strangely ignored by them. This should be a big WIN for the Republicans and big thorn in the side of Democrats, and yet no thread.

Anyway

House Formalizes Biden Impeachment Probe In Party-Line Vote—Here’s What That Means

Wednesday’s vote comes after President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, refused to testify behind closed doors before the GOP-led House Oversight Committee as it gathers evidence to impeach Biden.

www.forbes.com

I wonder if this is the first time in USA history where a formal impeachment inquiry has been opened without referencing any event or report of any wrongdoing.


I like boxing as a sport, so I have a little analogy here.
When a boxer comes out swinging from the get go, They rush in with big haymakers, hoping to get that KO.
But instead they leave themselves vulnerable, not having a solid strategy, not protecting themselves, not softening up their opponent.
That strategy generally is a disasterous one for themselves.

Anyway, time will show whether they get lucky with something or whether they end up looking very foolish, as Comer has looked very foolish so far.

 

[DaisyDay]

So we're past the "impeachment inquiry into an inquiry" stage and onto the "actual impeachment inquiry into whether there should be an impeachment"?

What compelling evidence came from the inquiry into the inquiry (IITI)?

 

[stevil]

What compelling evidence came from the inquiry into the inquiry (IITI)?

The one public hearing that they had was a total disaster for the Republicans.

Direct from the mouths of ALL the Republican witnesses in the only public hearing

Presenting cooked evidence in the public hearing

The nonsense of it all

 

[comana]

Maybe now we can get an explanation of how all of the “evidence“ connects to an actual crime?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

This is a significant milestone in the Republican's journey to impeach Joe Biden.
I've been waiting days for the Far Right hyper partisans to create this thread. They seem to open a thread on pretty much any little thing whether it's real or gossip or conspiracy, that might look bad for any Democrats. But this thread on this very significant event has been strangely ignored by them. This should be a big WIN for the Republicans and big thorn in the side of Democrats, and yet no thread.

Anyway

House Formalizes Biden Impeachment Probe In Party-Line Vote—Here’s What That Means

Wednesday’s vote comes after President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, refused to testify behind closed doors before the GOP-led House Oversight Committee as it gathers evidence to impeach Biden.

www.forbes.com

I wonder if this is the first time in USA history where a formal impeachment inquiry has been opened without referencing any event or report of any wrongdoing.


I like boxing as a sport, so I have a little analogy here.
When a boxer comes out swinging from the get go, They rush in with big haymakers, hoping to get that KO.
But instead they leave themselves vulnerable, not having a solid strategy, not protecting themselves, not softening up their opponent.
That strategy generally is a disasterous one for themselves.

Anyway, time will show whether they get lucky with something or whether they end up looking very foolish, as Comer has looked very foolish so far.

Impeachment inquiries seem to have become normalized...it happened twice to the last President, once just for asking about Hunter's shady business dealings in Ukraine, and the other time because , even though he didn't go, and told the people at a rally to walk to the Capitol and"peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard, he was impeached for the riot that ensued. The Secret Service would not let him go.

Both impeachments failed; he was not convicted. An impeachment is an accusation, by the way, not a judgment.

Waiting for evidence to be presented is the thing to do here. Merely opening up an inquiry is just the start.

"Republicans allege that Biden's son Hunter has profited in business dealings with foreign entities by arranging access to then-Vice President Biden. They also allege that the president himself has profited." Two whistleblowers came forward from the IRS with a lot of bank records. Biden put Joe Biden on the phone with business associates 20+ times, and there are dozens of shell companies and payments to various Biden family members, and hundreds of emails.

Well...let's see what happens.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-09-12/factbox-why-have-us-republicans-opened-an-impeachment-inquiry-into-joe-biden

 

[stevil]

it happened twice to the last President, once just for asking about Hunter's shady business dealings in Ukraine,

Well, the scheme to put extreme pressure on Zelenski who was already under large duress by Russia attacking him, was an exchange. You publicly announce an investigation into my political opponent on US tv and I will give you the weapons already promised to you, so that you can defend yourself against the Russians.

To carry out this scheme, D Trump sent his personal lawyer (not a public official, a diplomat or anyone with any business doing USA government business) to Ukraine to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden without any evidence, they fired the USA ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch for following proper protocol,
"Neither Giuliani nor Trump have specified their objections. But a former diplomat, recalling a recent conversation with Yovanovich, said she was removed after insisting that a request for Ukrainian officials to join in an investigation be relayed according to long-established protocol."

1. Giuliani had no right doing Government business
2. Trump and Giuliani were not following proper procedures
3. Trump and Giuliani were not providing any evidence of Biden wrong doing, they were just demanding investigations without any basis
4. They fired their own ambassador for following correct protocols
5. Ultimately, as their pressure campaign progressed, they just demanded Zelanski come onto US tv and state he was investigating Joe Biden, they didn't even need him to actually start an investigation.
6. This was all highly irregular, baseless and there were lots of people including Republicans reporting this as dodgy, and unethical.

and the other time because , even though he didn't go, and told the people at a rally to walk to the Capitol and"peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard, he was impeached for the riot that ensued. The Secret Service would not let him go.

There was this little thing called the Jan 6 insurrection attempt, where the capital was violently attacked by people believing they were helping Trump and doing Trump's bidding, Their goal was to stop the transition of power and hence overturn the election results. Trump saw all this on TV and waited 3.5 hours before asking them to leave. Once Trump asked, they then left. Trump called them patriots and said that he loves them.

Both impeachments failed; he was not convicted. An impeachment is an accusation, by the way, not a judgment.

Yes, the vast majority of Republican Senators were never going to vote to remove D Trump regardless of whether he committed crimes against the country or not.

Waiting for evidence to be presented is the thing to do here. Merely opening up an inquiry is just the start.

Normally an inquiry is carried out when there is suspicion backed up by some evidence of a crime or serious misconduct.
These Republicans have no evidence at all of either. They just want to investigate Joe Biden. This is the very definition of a witch hunt.

 

[stevil]

"Republicans allege that Biden's son Hunter has profited in business dealings with foreign entities by arranging access to then-Vice President Biden. They also allege that the president himself has profited." Two whistleblowers came forward from the IRS with a lot of bank records.

If you are referring to Gary Shapley and Joseph Zielger, they have not testified about any wrong doing from Joe Biden.
Instead they have testified that they disagree with decisions made by Delaware Assistant US Attorney Lesley Wolf of repeatedly blocking further investigation into Hunter Biden. They say she denied a request for a search warrant of Joe Biden's Wilmington home.
They say she also prevented investigators from asking about Joe Biden's connection to his son's finances and denied a request to interview Mr Biden's adult grandchildren about their connections to deductions claimed on Hunter Biden's tax returns.

Democrats pointed out that much of the justice department conduct to which the whistleblowers object, including investigative delays and procedural blocks, took place in 2020, during the Trump administration, when Joe Biden was a private citizen.

Hunter Biden: Who are the IRS tax whistleblowers?

Longtime IRS agents accuse the president's son of committing crimes and receiving special treatment.

www.bbc.com

So it seems to me that they are suggesting an investigation into Lesley Wolf who is a different person to Joe Biden. They have no evidence of Joe's involvement or of any wrong doing by Joe.

Biden put Joe Biden on the phone with business associates 20+ times,

Is it illegal or unethical to talk on the phone?

Or is there specific content of the phone call that is deemed problematic?

Devon Archer, the former partner, asserted that the elder Mr. Biden was not party to any of his son’s business deals
Mr. Archer told lawmakers during the session that Hunter Biden had put his father on speakerphone to talk to his business partners about 20 times over a decade, according to both Republicans and Democrats in the room.
Democrats said that Mr. Archer had described the conversations in which the elder Mr. Biden participated as short and casual — about topics like the weather — and his interactions as little more than stopping by a dinner or a hotel for a brief handshake or a few pleasantries over the phone.

“The witness was very, very consistent that none of those conversations ever had to do with any business dealings or transactions,” said Representative Dan Goldman, Democrat of New York

Ian Sams, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Archer had testified that he “never heard of President Biden discussing business with his son or his son’s associates or doing anything wrong.”

“House Republicans keep promising bombshell evidence to support their ridiculous attacks against the president, but, time after time, they keep failing to produce any,” Mr. Sams said.

and there are dozens of shell companies and payments to various Biden family members, and hundreds of emails.

Are shell companies illegal? What does this have to do with Joe Biden? It is Joe that the Republicans have opened an impeachment inquiry to. So what evidence is there that Joe had done any criminal or unethical acts?

Well...let's see what happens.

So far Comer has made an utter fool of himself. Even Right wing propoganda shows see him as foolish.

 

[Tuur]

This is a significant milestone in the Republican's journey to impeach Joe Biden.
I've been waiting days for the Far Right hyper partisans to create this thread. They seem to open a thread on pretty much any little thing whether it's real or gossip or conspiracy, that might look bad for any Democrats. But this thread on this very significant event has been strangely ignored by them. This should be a big WIN for the Republicans and big thorn in the side of Democrats, and yet no thread.

Anyway

House Formalizes Biden Impeachment Probe In Party-Line Vote—Here’s What That Means

Wednesday’s vote comes after President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, refused to testify behind closed doors before the GOP-led House Oversight Committee as it gathers evidence to impeach Biden.

www.forbes.com

I wonder if this is the first time in USA history where a formal impeachment inquiry has been opened without referencing any event or report of any wrongdoing.


I like boxing as a sport, so I have a little analogy here.
When a boxer comes out swinging from the get go, They rush in with big haymakers, hoping to get that KO.
But instead they leave themselves vulnerable, not having a solid strategy, not protecting themselves, not softening up their opponent.
That strategy generally is a disasterous one for themselves.

Anyway, time will show whether they get lucky with something or whether they end up looking very foolish, as Comer has looked very foolish so far.

Feh. Republican supporters will rub their hands with glee; Democrat supporters will say "Crime? What crime?" and even if the House returns articles of impeachment, Democrats in the Senate have the votes not to convict.

A wild-card situation to watch for: There's a slim chance that the Democrat Party may see this as a means to prevent Joe Biden from running. Very slim, but it's still possible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Impeachment inquiries seem to have become normalized...it happened twice to the last President, once just for asking about Hunter's shady business dealings in Ukraine, and the other time because , even though he didn't go, and told the people at a rally to walk to the Capitol and"peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard, he was impeached for the riot that ensued. The Secret Service would not let him go.

Actually, the last president only had one impeachment inquiry. It was also about investigations into Hunter Biden.

For Trump's second impeachment, the Judiciary committee just wrote articles of impeachment. They were passed 1 week after the events that triggered the impeachment.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I hate to say it, but this is what happens when concepts/language/ideas/etc... get watered down and things that should be reserved for the most egregious scenarios gets tossed around willy-nilly for political expediency.

I can't be the only one who's noticed that various types of hearings/investigations/efforts have become embarrassingly more common over the past few decades, right?

I always have to preface this with saying that I'm not a Trump supporter (because anything less than 100% anti-Trump vitriol gets you labelled as a Trump sympathizer these days), but I think the double impeachment efforts against Trump didn't do our country any favors.

The first Trump impeachment attempt was weak sauce and came across more like "sucking sour grapes" than anything substantive...which ended up cheapening the 2nd attempt ironically (which should've been the one Democrats waited for in order to "make their move")

As soon as something like impeachment becomes "just some regular thing you do when you side doesn't win", that sets us off on a bad trajectory. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the next 3 presidents (regardless of party) end up getting impeached by people who are upset that their guy didn't win.

The Clinton impeachment efforts are really what cheapened this whole process.

The fact that it's only happened 4 times in the history of the country...yet 3 of those were in my (in perspective, short) lifetime tells me one of two things

1) either the quality of our candidates has gotten progressively worse over time
2) people have cheapened the process for purposes of one-upmanship

 

[stevil]

Feh. Republican supporters will rub their hands with glee; Democrat supporters will say "Crime? What crime?" and even if the House returns articles of impeachment, Democrats in the Senate have the votes not to convict.

How I would have thought the system ought to work is that if the leader who is being indited did crimes or unethical things, then their own party would want to be rid of them, so as to keep the party's reputation solid. But part of the problem with the USA system is that then the leadership goes to the VP and party members might not be too fussed on the VP either. If both the President and the VP were guilty of doing crimes and unethical things, then leadership goes to the speaker of the House who could be a member of the opposition party. It's just all really weird.
And means that most likely than not, the party of the President will not vote to ouster them. So then they are stuck defending and supporting a criminal leader.

In the British parliament system it's much better. If any of the parties (including the ruling party) don't like their leader, then the party vote them out and vote for a replacement of their choosing. No Impeachment hearing theatrics, no pretend trial in the Senate. Just simple no confidence vote by the party that wants to change their leader, and then another vote by them to choose their own next leader. This happens from time to time, meanwhile with the USA system the impeachment process is a farce, a huge distraction, divisive and ultimately meaningless, just a complete waste of money, and just annoys the people of the county. Pitting supporters of each party against each other. Very divisive. No wonder USA is so divided and potentially on the edge of civil war.

A wild-card situation to watch for: There's a slim chance that the Democrat Party may see this as a means to prevent Joe Biden from running. Very slim, but it's still possible.

This is nonsense. If the Democrats voted out Biden for nothing, then surely the voters would get upset and turn against them in the next election. Surely??????
Oh hang on, the "Only in America" thing applies.

I mean, in what other country would a guy with 91 criminal charges, two impeachments, an insurrection attempt, a sexual assault ruling in court, an illegal alternative electors scheme on their record, could still be seen as a strong contender for the next election? Only in 'murica

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you are referring to Gary Shapley and Joseph Zielger, they have not testified about any wrong doing from Joe Biden.
Instead they have testified that they disagree with decisions made by Delaware Assistant US Attorney Lesley Wolf of repeatedly blocking further investigation into Hunter Biden. They say she denied a request for a search warrant of Joe Biden's Wilmington home.

Actually, it's worse than that. She supposedly warned the defense about the search warrant.

They say she also prevented investigators from asking about Joe Biden's connection to his son's finances and denied a request to interview Mr Biden's adult grandchildren about their connections to deductions claimed on Hunter Biden's tax returns.

True.

Democrats pointed out that much of the justice department conduct to which the whistleblowers object, including investigative delays and procedural blocks, took place in 2020, during the Trump administration, when Joe Biden was a private citizen.

Hunter Biden: Who are the IRS tax whistleblowers?

Longtime IRS agents accuse the president's son of committing crimes and receiving special treatment.

www.bbc.com

Why were they investigating Hunter under Trump? The FBI was holding the laptop and telling everyone it was fake.


.

So it seems to me that they are suggesting an investigation into Lesley Wolf who is a different person to Joe Biden. They have no evidence of Joe's involvement or of any wrong doing by Joe.

Amazing how you know all this.

Is it illegal or unethical to talk on the phone?

Or is there specific content of the phone call that is deemed problematic?

We've moved from Joe wasn't involved in his son's business dealings....

To Joe wasn't financially involved in his son's business dealings.

Devon Archer, the former partner, asserted that the elder Mr. Biden was not party to any of his son’s business deals
Mr. Archer told lawmakers during the session that Hunter Biden had put his father on speakerphone to talk to his business partners about 20 times over a decade, according to both Republicans and Democrats in the room.
Democrats said that Mr. Archer had described the conversations in which the elder Mr. Biden participated as short and casual — about topics like the weather — and his interactions as little more than stopping by a dinner or a hotel for a brief handshake or a few pleasantries over the phone.

“The witness was very, very consistent that none of those conversations ever had to do with any business dealings or transactions,” said Representative Dan Goldman, Democrat of New York

Ian Sams, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Archer had testified that he “never heard of President Biden discussing business with his son or his son’s associates or doing anything wrong.”

“House Republicans keep promising bombshell evidence to support their ridiculous attacks against the president, but, time after time, they keep failing to produce any,” Mr. Sams said.

That's the rhetoric on the left.

Are shell companies illegal? What does this have to do with Joe Biden?

Well typically the point of shell companies is money laundering.

It is Joe that the Republicans have opened an impeachment inquiry to. So what evidence is there that Joe had done any criminal or unethical acts?

They have a whole website detailing the evidence.

So far Comer has made an utter fool of himself. Even Right wing propoganda shows see him as foolish.

Comer: Docs show Biden received payments from Hunter’s business

This comes as GOP leadership moves forward on formally authorizing an impeachment inquiry into the president.

www.google.com

That's the most recent claim...straight up monthly payments.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How I would have thought the system ought to work is that if the leader who is being indited did crimes or unethical things, then their own party would want to be rid of them, so as to keep the party's reputation solid. But part of the problem with the USA system is that then the leadership goes to the VP and party members might not be too fussed on the VP either. If both the President and the VP were guilty of doing crimes and unethical things, then leadership goes to the speaker of the House who could be a member of the opposition party. It's just all really weird.
And means that most likely than not, the party of the President will not vote to ouster them. So then they are stuck defending and supporting a criminal leader.

In the British parliament system it's much better. If any of the parties (including the ruling party) don't like their leader, then the party vote them out and vote for a replacement of their choosing. No Impeachment hearing theatrics, no pretend trial in the Senate. Just simple no confidence vote by the party that wants to change their leader, and then another vote by them to choose their own next leader. This happens from time to time, meanwhile with the USA system the impeachment process is a farce, a huge distraction, divisive and ultimately meaningless, just a complete waste of money, and just annoys the people of the county. Pitting supporters of each party against each other. Very divisive. No wonder USA is so divided and potentially on the edge of civil war.


This is nonsense. If the Democrats voted out Biden for nothing, then surely the voters would get upset and turn against them in the next election. Surely??????
Oh hang on, the "Only in America" thing applies.

I mean, in what other country would a guy with 91 criminal charges, two impeachments, an insurrection attempt, a sexual assault ruling in court, an illegal alternative electors scheme on their record, could still be seen as a strong contender for the next election? Only in 'murica

Vote him out? And run who?

Newsome...even by the standards of the left....didn't do well against DeSantis.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Lots of people said during the last administration that democrats were setting a precedence for frivolous investigations and impeachment for future administrations. Looks like they were right.

 

[stevil]

Lots of people said during the last administration that democrats were setting a precedence for frivolous investigations and impeachment for future administrations. Looks like they were right.

Except for the fact that none of the impeachments of D Trump were frivolous.

Just compare what the witnessess said in the public hearing of D Trump vs the public hearing of J Biden.

 

[stevil]

Why were they investigating Hunter under Trump? The FBI was holding the laptop and telling everyone it was fake.

No, that's an outright lie. The FBI were not telling people that the laptop was fake.

Amazing how you know all this.

Not amazing at all. You just need to bother reading the reports. It's all there, they talk about things that Lesley Wolf did, they don't talk about things Joe Biden did.

We've moved from Joe wasn't involved in his son's business dealings....

To Joe wasn't financially involved in his son's business dealings.

Well, that's not true. Where is evidence Joe was involved in Hunter's business dealings?

They have a whole website detailing the evidence.

They have presented innuendo, but no direct evidence of anything tied to Joe.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I remember House Republicans arguing you can’t hold an impeachment during an election year.

Not that I was expecting them to keep to that.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Except for the fact that none of the impeachments of D Trump were frivolous.

Just compare what the witnessess said in the public hearing of D Trump vs the public hearing of J Biden.

Nonetheless what's happening now was accurately predicted years ago.

 

[A2SG]

Lots of people said during the last administration that democrats were setting a precedence for frivolous investigations and impeachment for future administrations. Looks like they were right.

Maybe that just gave them the excuse they were looking for.

-- A2SG, except they seem to be having a bit of trouble gathering that pesky evidence....

 

[stevil]

Nonetheless what's happening now was accurately predicted years ago.

You're saying that people predicted that if Democrats get into power then Republicans will put forth frivilous investigations and impeachment hearings and investigations?

I guess that says a lot about people's opinion of the Republican party, their maturity and their idea of their role in government