House votes to formally open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden

[stevil]

So, I'm also interested in getting an answer to my question.

Do you think that things like calls for impeachment for a bunch of other random things (that literally started an hour after he was inaugurated) cheapened the process or created a bit of a "cried wolf" perception? As noted, there was a group that had already filed the trademarks for "ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow", had the websites ready to go, and was already working with a handful of congressmen, in anticipation of him getting elected, so that they could spin up the website and start throwing money at it literally the hour he took office?

I think it made people take it less seriously when there were impeachment calls over more serious things, because many people dismissed it for reasons of "yeah, but they've been calling for impeachments twice a month since he got elected".

Well, the facts are that while D Trump was president there were only two impeachment investigations.

Regardless of whether various people were calling for impeachment or not. There were only two incidents which were actually taken up by the House.

I suspect that if the DOJ under Bill Barr had taken up an investigation into the Ukraine Call, that the House Impeachment investigation may not have happened so quickly.

But yeah, I do think it is silly of some people to be calling for impeachments when they have no evidence of any substantial misconduct.

But typically the other members of the House shoot that down and an official investigation doesn't happen. So the process seems to work for the most part, where the bulk of the House generally only consider important issues with strong supporting evidence as was the case with both Impeachment trials of D Trump.

However, as is with the current House investigation into J Biden, The Republicans have decided to vote for an impeachment investigation without any supporting evidence of any wrongdoing by Joe. This allows them to go on a fishing expedition, it is a Witch Hunt, because they have named their target, but they don't have any legitimate reason or any supporting evidence to be targeting him.

Eventually this comes out in the wash though, as with the first public hearing, the Republicans (especially Comer) looked incredibly foolish when all the Republican witnesses answered AOC's question by saying they have no evidence of wrong doing and that Joe shouldn't be impeached.

But you never know with a fishing expedition, maybe the Republicans will stumble onto something, like that time they stumbled onto Bill Clinton having had a mutual affair and catching him lie about it.


I hope this answers your question of me.
I still have a couple of questions unanswered by you.

Do you think it is fine for the incumbent to use USA resources including DOJ, or foreign aide to get assistance in his next bid for president?
Do you want to open the door for all future incumbent presidents to do the same?
If not the impeachment process, how else would you stop them doing this?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you think it is fine for the incumbent to use USA resources including DOJ, or foreign aide to get assistance in his next bid for president?

No...

But I would say the same about members of the president's same political party leveraging their power in the Senate to compel private social media companies to make changes to content moderation policies in order to benefit their team.

Do you want to open the door for all future incumbent presidents to do the same?

That door's been open for a while. Maybe not "flung wide open", but open enough for people in high positions to leverage advantages.

In terms of people who've been, shall we say "endorsed" by foreign entities, that certainly didn't start with Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/17/what-happens-when-certain-foreign-leaders-endorse-american-presidential-candidates/

And neither has presidents using their Justice department to snoop on rival party members

More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration

A new document shows what lots of news outlets discredited.

thehill.com

And this went back to Clinton and Bush as well

AllPolitics - Dole Knocks Clinton On FBI Files, Russia Policy - June 16, 1996

If not the impeachment process, how else would you stop them doing this?

Vote them out and get someone else in there.

In a perfect world, I suppose we could use impeachment as a lever to pull the moment a president abuses power, but once the precedent has already been set that "it's allowed to slide", it comes across as hyper partisan when people use that as a reason for impeachment after letting it slide for other people. Not saying that makes it right...

But consistency is important to people.

For instance, if I was a judge, and had a history of letting people skate on DUIs, but then all of the sudden there's a guy I have a well-established personal grudge against, and throw the book at him when he gets caught. While punishing him is the appropriate move (that should've been happening all along), it's hard to feign objectivity if I've spent 20 years looking the other way on it for everyone else and it'd be hard to see it as anything other than overt bias and a double standard.


You won't get any arguments from me when suggesting that Trump was a bad president who wasn't fit for the office (that's why I didn't for him), but this desperation by some to prove that "he's unequivocally the worst ever, and therefore the only honorable thing for you do to do is abandon your principles on every other issue and vote for my guy so that democrats can do whatever they want" is the thing that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.


People may not realize it, but it's a big ask.

Imagine if there were a democratic politician who was running who had the same amount of character flaws as Trump. Now imagine that the person they were running against was pro-oil, anti-choice, anti-healthcare, etc... Now imagine that everyone was telling you "you've gotta vote for the latter, it's the only honorable thing to do because the former guy is so bad". I'm guessing that wouldn't sit right, correct?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I'm more interested in getting an answer to the question I actually asked.
Do you think it is acceptable for the incumbent president to trump up charges based on no evidence on their political opponent with an upcoming presidential election?

Well whether or not Trump had seen it...evidence exists.

The FBI had been sitting on the deposition from a witness inside Burisma claiming Joe and Hunter received a 5$ million bribe each.

That's a witness so credible the FBI paid them 200k$ for the information. They also claim to have audio recordings of Biden though it's unclear whether they turned them over to the FBI or not.

As a proxy, do you think it is acceptable for the incumbent president to extort foriegn allies to trump up charges or simply announce on USA tv and investigation into the president's political opponent?

What does "extort" foreign allies mean in this sense?

Ukraine isn't really allied to the US.

It's not illegal, either in the Ukraine nor US for anyone to request an investigation into corruption.

Extortion is a crime involving stolen money.

For example, if the Ukraine is telling Joe that they'll expose his corruption if he stops funding their war....that's extortion.

Or to put it more succinctly, do you value fair and free elections? Or do you think it is fine for the incumbant to use USA resources including DOJ, or foriegn aide to get assistance in his next bid for president?

I think that depends upon what you define as election interference.

For example, do you consider the sort of disinformation and fake stories spread by Russians online in 2016 to be "election interference"?

Do you want to open the door for all future incumbant presidents to do the same?

Again, it's unclear how much evidence Trump knew about when he called up the Ukraine....but between the informant and laptop, there was evidence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, the facts are that while D Trump was president there were only two impeachment investigations.

True.

Regardless of whether various people were calling for impeachment or not. There were only two incidents which were actually taken up by the House.

True.

I suspect that if the DOJ under Bill Barr had taken up an investigation into the Ukraine Call, that the House Impeachment investigation may not have happened so quickly.

I suspect it wouldn't have happened at all. I would have to imagine Barr would have asked the FBI what they had....and if you imagine that Wray is an unbiased and fair FBI director, he would have to imagine Wray would have explained about the laptop, the emails, the paid informant and told Barr there's ample evidence for opening an investigation into bribery.

But typically the other members of the House shoot that down and an official investigation doesn't happen.

Typically.

So the process seems to work for the most part, where the bulk of the House generally only consider important issues with strong supporting evidence as was the case with both Impeachment trials of D Trump.

They didn't start the investigation with "strong evidence" they started the investigation off a secondhand rumor from an unknown source lol.

They continued the investigation....after they failed to find anything...off of fake information bought by Hillary Clinton's campaign team. Information the FBI itself didn't believe.

However, as is with the current House investigation into J Biden, The Republicans have decided to vote for an impeachment investigation without any supporting evidence of any wrongdoing by Joe.

The fact that you aren't willing to look at or consider evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact that you aren't willing to look at or consider evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Even some republicans admit that it doesn't exist. Comer announced that he had witnesses, but they told the committee that there was no such evidence.

House GOP’s impeachment witnesses say there's no evidence yet that Biden committed a crime​

House GOP’s impeachment witnesses say there's no evidence yet that Biden committed a crime

So, of course, the republicans have announced this means that they have to do more investigations.

"Just because our own witnesses admit that there's no evidence, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist."

 

[Pommer]

Sure sure sure....what's that loan for again?

Unless there’s a crime, we’re not supposed to be able to ask.
(IOW) “None of our business”.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Unless there’s a crime, we’re not supposed to be able to ask.
(IOW) “None of our business”.

Well three IRS agents stated that it appeared to be criminal activity. They blew the whistle regarding all this...and stated they were deliberately prevented from following the evidence whenever the evidence pointed to Joe Biden.

I'll agree that without any reason to believe a crime has occurred there shouldn't be any investigation.

However, Joe is a multimillionaire on a public servant's salary. There's been ample reason to conduct an investigation.

So now that we have that out of the way....

What's the loan for?

 

[stevil]

No...

But I would say the same about members of the president's same political party leveraging their power in the Senate to compel private social media companies to make changes to content moderation policies in order to benefit their team.

Sure, and we can discuss that too if you want. But specifically here, I am hoping we can both see the dangers in allowing a president or prime minister to extort other nations and allies, by using his position and the country's assets to get other nations to falsely investigate or pretend to investigate the president's political opponent before an upcoming election.

This is very undemocratic, very swampy and should be strongly stopped. This is forcing other nations to illegally interfere in your elections.

That door's been open for a while. Maybe not "flung wide open", but open enough for people in high positions to leverage advantages.

In terms of people who've been, shall we say "endorsed" by foreign entities, that certainly didn't start with Trump.

Do you have any specific references or links where another past USA president has extorted a foreign leader to trump up charges on his political opponent before an upcoming election?

Vote them out and get someone else in there.

Really, that's all your willing to do?
A president cheats, and extorts others or gets his AG to trump up charges which then influences voters and hence he wins the election.
Then he gets found out, and you will keep him in power, but wait 4 years for the next election?

WOW! Seems to me then that all presidents should be doing this scheme, they have nothing to lose. I mean, they cheat to win their second term, they aren't allowed a third term anyway.

In a perfect world, I suppose we could use impeachment as a lever to pull the moment a president abuses power, but once the precedent has already been set that "it's allowed to slide", it comes across as hyper partisan when people use that as a reason for impeachment after letting it slide for other people. Not saying that makes it right...

I live within a British parliamentary system. Which I think is much better that the USA system. Much better.
If a party wins power, their leader becomes prime minister.
If they do dodgy stuff, like strongly unethical or illegal stuff, then the party can protect the party's reputation by making a vote of no confidence and throwing this prime minister out or leadership and out of the party. They can then elect their own leader who becomes the Prime Minister for the rest of the term.
The party are not held hostage, they are not run by an all powerful dictator. They have the ability to protect the party and the party's reputation and the members of the party can hold their heads high, they don't need to support a crook.

The USA impeachment system really only works if the Party in power is willing to use it. They were willing to use it for Nixon, so Nixon quit. But these are very different times, the Republican party were too scared due to Trump's loyal base, to attempt to kick him out.
The tool is there, the party in power just needs the courage to use it, when put into a very difficult situation by their president.

But consistency is important to people.

For instance, if I was a judge, and had a history of letting people skate on DUIs, but then all of the sudden there's a guy I have a well-established personal grudge against, and throw the book at him when he gets caught. While punishing him is the appropriate move (that should've been happening all along), it's hard to feign objectivity if I've spent 20 years looking the other way on it for everyone else and it'd be hard to see it as anything other than overt bias and a double standard.

USA hasn't had many overtly crook presidents. Nixon got done, and now there is D Trump.
Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a crook. He had an affair. So what? He lied about (of course he did, people don't want to own up when the wife is watching)
Anyway, I don't get this idea you have that other presidents have been doing what D Trump has been doing.

You won't get any arguments from me when suggesting that Trump was a bad president who wasn't fit for the office (that's why I didn't for him),

I'm not even arguing that he was a bad president, I'm saying that he was deeply involved in several illegal and unethical and undemocratic activities to steal the 2020 election. I'm saying such activities are heinous and should be appropriately punished, so that no future president ever even considers trying anything like this again.

but this desperation by some to prove that "he's unequivocally the worst ever, and therefore the only honorable thing for you do to do is abandon your principles on every other issue and vote for my guy so that democrats can do whatever they want" is the thing that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Huh? I'm not saying that people should vote the other guy. I'm saying that presidents should be severely punished for extorting other countries to fake investigations into their political opponents in order to win the next election.

People may not realize it, but it's a big ask.

Imagine if there were a democratic politician who was running who had the same amount of character flaws as Trump. Now imagine that the person they were running against was pro-oil, anti-choice, anti-healthcare, etc... Now imagine that everyone was telling you "you've gotta vote for the latter, it's the only honorable thing to do because the former guy is so bad". I'm guessing that wouldn't sit right, correct?

I wouldn't vote for a leader president or prime ministor that tries to illegally steal or overturn an election. It doesn't matter if I love their policies and hate the policies of the other party.
From my perspective, I would want that leader to go to prison and I would want another party member to become the leader of that party and then I would vote for that party. But if I found that that party knows about all the illegal stuff and still supports the criminal president or prime minister, then I would be very disappointed and wouldn't vote that party.

If you want to know more about me. I've voted right, I've voted left, I've voted centre. I'm not partisan. But then again USA is a very different environment to where I come from.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, and we can discuss that too if you want. But specifically here, I am hoping we can both see the dangers in allowing a president or prime minister to extort other nations and allies, by using his position and the country's assets to get other nations to falsely investigate or pretend to investigate the president's political opponent before an upcoming election.

This is very undemocratic, very swampy and should be strongly stopped. This is forcing other nations to illegally interfere in your elections.

It would be a bad thing if it was done to interfere with an election. If it was done because of crimes legitimately being investigated....that's different.

Do you have any specific references or links where another past USA president has extorted a foreign leader to trump up charges on his political opponent before an upcoming election?

The current president has his opponent facing half a dozen accusations right now. They issued a summary judgment....which means there was no trial....against him for fraud. There appears to be not even a single victim of fraud coming forward....quite the opposite.

If this gets thrown out on appeal....I think we can safely say it was political persecution.

Really, that's all your willing to do?
A president cheats, and extorts others or gets his AG to trump up charges which then influences voters and hence he wins the election.
Then he gets found out, and you will keep him in power, but wait 4 years for the next election?

What cheating took place?

We know that the intelligence community, which works with the media, lied about the laptop appearing to be "Russian disinformation"....and they presented that to the public as if it was fact...and they did it when the current president's campaign requested it.

WOW! Seems to me then that all presidents should be doing this scheme, they have nothing to lose. I mean, they cheat to win their second term, they aren't allowed a third term anyway.

Some people are willing to ignore crimes because they believe some greater good will come of it.

I live within a British parliamentary system. Which I think is much better that the USA system. Much better.

I'm not a fan of Australia's mandatory vote. It means no matter how bad things get....the guy in charge can claim legitimacy. If neither candidate is acceptable, you shouldn't vote for them.

If a party wins power, their leader becomes prime minister.
If they do dodgy stuff, like strongly unethical or illegal stuff, then the party can protect the party's reputation by making a vote of no confidence and throwing this prime minister out or leadership and out of the party. They can then elect their own leader who becomes the Prime Minister for the rest of the term.
The party are not held hostage, they are not run by an all powerful dictator. They have the ability to protect the party and the party's reputation and the members of the party can hold their heads high, they don't need to support a crook.

That's not only not what's happening here....but it wouldn't work here as a solution.

The USA impeachment system really only works if the Party in power is willing to use it. They were willing to use it for Nixon, so Nixon quit. But these are very different times, the Republican party were too scared due to Trump's loyal base, to attempt to kick him out.

The impeachment system isn't the only broken part. Most of the departments created to ensure criminality is kept to a minimum have no real power.

The tool is there, the party in power just needs the courage to use it, when put into a very difficult situation by their president.

Well unfortunately, our tools are broken.

However, the right still has some integrity. Pence threw away his political career to do the right thing. Santos flipped a blue district to red....and his party removed him because he ran on lies. The left openly lies to the public's faces. 2 years ago they claimed that CRT wasn't in schools...now many teachers admit it was a lie. That's one of many. A reporter asked Harris recently about Joe's mental decline....she said he's as sharp as ever.

USA hasn't had many overtly crook presidents.

Overtly.

Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a crook. He had an affair.

And likely raped.

So what? He lied about (of course he did, people don't want to own up when the wife is watching)
Anyway, I don't get this idea you have that other presidents have been doing what D Trump has been doing.

What has D Trump been doing?

Every president in my lifetime has been at least a war criminal.

I'm not even arguing that he was a bad president, I'm saying that he was deeply involved in several illegal and unethical and undemocratic activities to steal the 2020 election.

Seems possible he was involved in the fake elector stuff. Idk how much of the riot he is responsible for. The problem is...if one thinks spreading fake information, censoring political speech, and coordinating with media to do so is election interference...then the guy in office is guilty of election interference, along with many others.

I'm saying such activities are heinous and should be appropriately punished, so that no future president ever even considers trying anything like this again.

Considers? If you don't recall the "Ministry of Truth" this president proposed...look it up. Not only is the current president considering election interference....he tried to legitimize it.

Huh? I'm not saying that people should vote the other guy. I'm saying that presidents should be severely punished for extorting other countries to fake investigations into their political opponents in order to win the next election.

I don't think a fake investigation was the request. It was a request for a real investigation.

I wouldn't vote for a leader president or prime ministor that tries to illegally steal or overturn an election. It doesn't matter if I love their policies and hate the policies of the other party.

Is election interference "stealing" an election?

From my perspective, I would want that leader to go to prison and I would want another party member to become the leader of that party and then I would vote for that party. But if I found that that party knows about all the illegal stuff and still supports the criminal president or prime minister, then I would be very disappointed and wouldn't vote that party.

Then you wouldn't vote in the US.

If you want to know more about me. I've voted right, I've voted left, I've voted centre. I'm not partisan.

I find this unlikely.

But then again USA is a very different environment to where I come from.

Indeed. People pay attention to what happens in the US.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well three IRS agents stated that it appeared to be criminal activity.

Several FBI and IRS officials brought in for closed-door testimony by House Republicans in recent days said they don’t remember Weiss saying that he lacked the authority to decide whether to bring charges against the president’s son, or that Weiss said he had been denied a request for special counsel status.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/20/politics/irs-official-dispute-allegations-whistleblower-hunter-biden-tax-case/index.html

Even Comer's memo didn't provide any such evidence:
But the May 10 memo did not provide evidence that Biden took any official actions because of his family’s business decisions. None of the payments detailed in the memo were to the president himself. Additionally, the memo did not show that Biden knew about the payments at the time.

Claims about the Biden family’s foreign business, explained

After House Republicans released bank records from their investigation into Biden family business dealings, the phrases

www.politifact.com

(Phone call of Donald Trump trying to extort President of Ukraine to find dirt on his political opponent)

It would be a bad thing if it was done to interfere with an election.

No kidding.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Several FBI and IRS officials brought in for closed-door testimony by House Republicans in recent days said they don’t remember Weiss saying that he lacked the authority to decide whether to bring charges against the president’s son, or that Weiss said he had been denied a request for special counsel status.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/20/politics/irs-official-dispute-allegations-whistleblower-hunter-biden-tax-case/index.html

I'm sorry....what are you disputing here?

Even Comer's memo didn't provide any such evidence:
But the May 10 memo did not provide

May 10th.

evidence that Biden took any official actions because of his family’s business decisions. None of the payments

May 11th.

detailed in the memo were to the president himself. Additionally, the memo did not show that Biden knew about the payments at the time.

Claims about the Biden family’s foreign business, explained

After House Republicans released bank records from their investigation into Biden family business dealings, the phrases

www.politifact.com

(Phone call of Donald Trump trying to extort President of Ukraine to find dirt on his political opponent)

I'm sure by the time the evidence is laid out during impeachment....you'll be quoting articles from 2022 to claim its not real.

Seriously, are you not looking at the dates of your articles or hoping I won't?

No kidding.

Post something relevant.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sure, and we can discuss that too if you want. But specifically here, I am hoping we can both see the dangers in allowing a president or prime minister to extort other nations and allies, by using his position and the country's assets to get other nations to falsely investigate or pretend to investigate the president's political opponent before an upcoming election.

This is very undemocratic, very swampy and should be strongly stopped. This is forcing other nations to illegally interfere in your elections.

Depends on what you're going to consider "extortion".

I would posit that making foreign aid conditional (in ways that could shape public opinion) is treading that same line. It may not be calling for a foreign entity to full blown investigate, but it's still tantamount to "Money for PR" (good or bad)

For instance, if a president is more amicable to a particular foreign leader, and as a result, that foreign leader says some kind things about them or some unkind things about their opponent, it's basically achieving the same ends.

Example, when Justin Trudeau (a member of Canada's liberal party, and a person who American Democrats seem to think quite fondly of is doing co-interviews with Obama, and taking thinly veiled swipes at Trump, that would have the propensity of shaping the minds of some US voters as much as a would-be Ukrainian investigation into Biden.

Really, that's all your willing to do?
A president cheats, and extorts others or gets his AG to trump up charges which then influences voters and hence he wins the election.
Then he gets found out, and you will keep him in power, but wait 4 years for the next election?

WOW! Seems to me then that all presidents should be doing this scheme, they have nothing to lose. I mean, they cheat to win their second term, they aren't allowed a third term anyway.

Presidents have done variations of this scheme...if you look at the link below (which delves into your other question).

George HW Bush lied about knowledge of the Iran Contra deal (which many credit with his victory because if he had acknowledged it, it would've shaped voter opinion), and then preemptively pardoned the people who could've blown the lid off, which brought any further investigations to a screeching halt.

USA hasn't had many overtly crook presidents. Nixon got done, and now there is D Trump.
Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a crook. He had an affair. So what? He lied about (of course he did, people don't want to own up when the wife is watching)
Anyway, I don't get this idea you have that other presidents have been doing what D Trump has been doing.

I would disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

There's been a lot of sketchy dealings over the years, some involving the president's staff, some involving the presidents themselves, many of which are way more troubling than the Clinton/Lewinski situation.

I wouldn't vote for a leader president or prime ministor that tries to illegally steal or overturn an election. It doesn't matter if I love their policies and hate the policies of the other party.
From my perspective, I would want that leader to go to prison and I would want another party member to become the leader of that party and then I would vote for that party. But if I found that that party knows about all the illegal stuff and still supports the criminal president or prime minister, then I would be very disappointed and wouldn't vote that party.

As you noted before, in the US we don't have the luxury of doing a "hot swap" for another party member like you do in parliamentary systems.

You get to vote for the party, we have to vote for the person.

 

[The Barbarian]

Post something relevant.

Pointing out that Comer's own witnesses denied any evidence for crimes. You think more recent witnesses dispute that? Show us.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That is some very dishonest spin. Donald was shaking down Zelenskyy to get him to open a fake investigation into Hunter so it would hurt President Biden in the election.

That is an even greater dishonest spin. House Resolution 24 clearly states that he was impeached for incitement of insurrection.

So Trump was asking about Hunter Biden's false dealings. You presented the spin right here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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.

You are correct. They just pushed through with the second impeachment, without bothering with an inquiry. Both impeachments were unsuccessful in obtaining the the desired result, a conviction.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

You are correct. They just pushed through with the second impeachment, without bothering with an inquiry. Both impeachments were unsuccessful in obtaining the the desired result, a conviction.

To be fair, every single impeachment of a President has failed to get a conviction.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

To be fair, every single impeachment of a President has failed to get a conviction.

That's because Nixon just resigned before impeachment.

Bill Clinton DID perjure himself, but they decided his blatant sexual activities with underlings weren't important enough for a conviction.

 

[KCfromNC]

Comer has orders to gin up something.

One might think he'd be smart enough not to accuse others of doing exactly what has done : James Comer, Like Joe Biden, Also Paid His Brother $200K

Or then again, after looking at how poorly the rest of the "investigation" has gone for the GOP, maybe one wouldn't.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are correct. They just pushed through with the second impeachment, without bothering with an inquiry. Both impeachments were unsuccessful in obtaining the the desired result, a conviction.

What investigation was needed? They impeached him for inciting the crowd to attack them. It was all on tape in front of them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pointing out that Comer's own witnesses denied any evidence for crimes.

6+ months ago. You're literally referring to statements made before current evidence was released.

You think more recent witnesses dispute that? Show us.

Lol I already did...remember?

I added context to the statements of one of the officials you quoted to show you are wrong.

Do you remember that?