Is Congress Obligated To Impeach Joe For All His Lies?

1. 87

   Sharlee01posted 17 months ago

   
   "Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued Friday it is Congress' obligation to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Biden after he "clearly lied" to Americans about his involvement in his son Hunter's business deals. The GWU law professor told "The Faulkner Focus" Friday that questions surrounding potential bribery "cannot go unanswered."
   
   CRITICS DOUBT WHITE HOUSE CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN WON'T PARDON HUNTER: 'SURE, SURE...'
   
   JONATHAN TURLEY: We often talk about the powers of Congress and not its obligations. What is the House supposed to do? You know, you have a president who has clearly lied, lied for years, lied to the American people, lied through his representatives at the White House during his presidency. He obviously did know about these deals. He had involvement with some of these meetings. There was money that went to China. And then you've got IRS agents saying that the fix was in, that this case was actively managed to avoid serious charges for the president's son. You have millions of dollars moving through a labyrinth of accounts. You have a trusted source saying that there was a bribery allegation. The crime that is the second one mentioned in the impeachment clause. So what are you supposed to do about that? And the answer is you have to investigate. And an impeachment inquiry gives the House that ability. It doesn't mean they're going to impeach. It means they're taking the responsibility seriously no matter what the administration may want out of this. The one thing the House cannot allow is for these questions to go unanswered. "
   
   House Republicans have floated launching an impeachment inquiry against President Biden amid newly surfaced allegations that suggest his involvement in the business dealings of his son. But can congressional lawmakers initiate the use of that constitutional tool for alleged treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors that transpired before holding the office of the presidency?
   
   "The answer is clear," Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Fox News Digital. "No one knows."
   
   Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
   
   But it doesn’t specify whether those alleged actions need to take place during the time the official holds the office."
   
   "The crucial impeachment language in the Constitution is not limited to ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ committed while ‘in office,’" senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation Hans A. von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. "That language is not there."
   
   Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy noted that "impeachment is a political process, not a legal one."
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/media/congress- … han-turley
   
   So, any thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 56

      KrisJahnsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      All I really see are uncorroborated allegations. At this point I don't think that they would even win an impeachment vote in the house.

      replyreport
2. 87

   Sharlee01posted 17 months ago

   Devon Archer is scheduled to give testimony next week -- LEAKS (unverified info)  have shared that his testimony will be firsthand knowledge that Joe Biden was a figure in Hunter's business dealings with foreign nations where bribery took place.
   
   Archer today claims he has been receiving death threats, and is fearful for his life...  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … s-Son.html
   
   Hunter Biden's friend to tell Congress then-VP Joe joined dozens of son's business meetings via phone:
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter … one-report
   https://nypost.com/2023/07/23/hunter-bi … o-testify/

   replyreport
   1. 56

      KrisJahnsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Seems as though Archer received a subpoena months ago to testify. I wonder why this testimony hasn't happened yet.  It looks like he needs to report to prison for a conviction on conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud totaling more than $60 million of tribal bonds.
      His credibility is obviously shaky, so if they get him in the hot seat I hope he can bring the receipts.
      
      https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-c … fy-1807322

      replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

   We should remove Biden for something he has directly had a hand in.
   He has allowed a porous southern border.
   Impeach him for not doing his most important job:
   Protecting the country!
   
   I have never cared about the stupid business dealings of Hunter's.
   This issue is minor (and par for the course,) compared to what Joe is actually doing with his presidency.
   
   The war in Ukraine is a waste of taxpayer money.
   A total waste.
   
   The Green New Deal is detrimental to the environment when you consider the effects of  all the batteries that will be abandoned in the earth after they are no longer rechargeable. The fact that China produces these electric car and truck batteries is a crime.
   
   We need to look at Biden closely for better reasons.
   
   Instead, because we cannot bear to, we look at his son.
   
   (They are both hard to look at. I would rather not.)
   
   Let's look at the effects of his policies.
   THE ACTUAL EFFECTS.
   
   "Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery,
   
   --------> or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
   
   - and realize we need to stop him.

   replyreport
   1. 55

      KaniceKposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 87

         Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

         How odd, you seem to have forgotten the stats on the over 5 million that entered during the past two years.   Historic, and inexcusable.
         
         Poof all gone! Selective thinking is dangerous.
         
         What ya think of Joe's chances of getting impeached, for his lies?  I note you deflect frequently... Seems like you are trolling.

         replyreport
         1. 55

            KaniceKposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Deleted
            1. 87

               Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

               Seconds to respond --- I think this may be a bot.

               replyreport
         2. 55

            KaniceKposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Deleted
            1. 87

               Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

               Thought you would... LOL   Again seconds to respond...

               replyreport
4. 87

   Sharlee01posted 17 months ago

   Hopefully, some will respect the thread and comment on the subject.

   replyreport
5. 92

   IslandBitesposted 17 months ago

   Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) criticized House Speaker Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) recent comments on impeaching President Biden, saying the remarks were a political move meant to distract from budget negotiations.
   
   “What he’s doing is saying there’s a shiny object over there and we’re going to focus on that, we just need to get all these things done so we can focus on the shiny object,” Buck, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said in a CNN interview Wednesday.
   
   Buck said he supported investigation into Biden, but said any talk of impeachment right now distracts from the appropriations process and sends the wrong message.
   
   “This is impeachment theater,” Buck said. “I don’t think it’s responsible for us to talk about impeachment. When you start raising the ‘I word,’ it starts sending a message to the public, and it sets expectations.”
   
   https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4121 … -spending/

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I agree...  proof should be in hand before even talking about impeachment.

      replyreport
6. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months ago

   Tit for Tat. Democrats had concrete reasons to impeach Trump. (Blackmail and an insurrection to overthrow an election)  He only escaped because he had Republicans on his leash.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      As there was no "insurrection", completed or attempted, that was never a reason to impeach. 
      
      Even if there had been there was still to reason to impeach, for Trump was leaving by the time anything could be accomplished anyway.
      
      So the second impeachment was no different than the first; a bald attempt to remove a political rival.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

         Agree... There was no reason to impeach Trump at all. He was and still remains a threat to Washington elites, and I honestly don't put anything past this present bunch.

         replyreport
      2. 74

         Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months agoin reply to this

         I DON'T BELIEVE IN GHOSTS! I DON'T BELIEVE IN GHOSTS!

         replyreport
         1. 88

            wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Ah, but you certainly do.  At least as long as they come from a liberal source.

            replyreport
7. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months ago

   "While there are legitimate questions surrounding Biden’s involvement in his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, at this point, there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant impeachment. In the absence of clear-cut proof, voters would perceive an impeachment as an overreach by House Republicans, and the GOP could pay a steep political price in next year’s elections as a result. "  The Hill July 31, 2023

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      In my view, the author of your comment makes several assumptions and draws conclusions without presenting concrete evidence or sources.   Is it not important to critically evaluate claims and not make just baseless assumptions about political situations? To further break down the statement you offer ---
      
      "Legitimate questions surrounding Biden’s involvement in his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings"
      
      This part of the statement assumes there are legitimate questions without providing specific evidence or even examples to support the claim.    Could we not agree that it's essential to rely on verified information and credible sources when discussing such serious matters? 
      
      "At this point, there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant impeachment"
      
      Again this view makes a definitive claim without providing any evidence to back it up. And yes, It's crucial to recognize that investigations into any potential wrongdoing should be conducted impartially and based on evidence, not predetermined assumptions, as this author has done.
      
      "In the absence of clear-cut proof, voters would perceive an impeachment as an overreach by House Republicans"
      
      This is a speculative assertion and generalizes the views of all voters. More than ever, public opinion can vary significantly, and it's essential to consider individual perspectives, factual information, and assumptions. Plus,  we have no idea about evidence that the judicial committee might have or not have. So why assume there is no evidence?
      
      The GOP could pay a steep political price in next year’s elections as a result"
      
      Again, this is a speculative statement without any concrete evidence or data to support it. In my view,  political outcomes are influenced by numerous factors, and it is essential to consider the broader context of an election, including policy positions, economic conditions, and many other political events.
      
      This author makes speculative statements. Which yes, is very much acceptable as of late.  However, in my view, speculation on any given subject can lead to misinformation and a skewed understanding, especially in political situations.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months agoin reply to this

         "This author makes speculative statements."
         
         Are you not familiar with the publication, "The Hill"? They report the news - not speculation.
         
         You know, many here on HP imply that all of Trump's prosecutions are a product of "speculation" by his enemies. They are a product of his actions, many of which even he does not deny.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Your quote from what appears to be from an article from the Hill. First, perhaps the quote would be more plausible if you let the user here read the article in full.  Second, your quote is a view, the very conrext shares that.
            
            "While there are legitimate questions surrounding Biden’s involvement in his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, at this point, there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant impeachment. In the absence of clear-cut proof, voters would perceive an impeachment as an overreach by House Republicans, and the GOP could pay a steep political price in next year’s elections as a result. "  The Hill July 31, 2023"
            
            The Hill has many diverse offerings such as Policy, Business, Jobs, events, opinion, and so much more. In fact  ----
            
            I LOCATED  the article you quoted  ---  Right smack on the OPINION PAGE, as I felt it would be.
            
            The risks and prospects of impeaching Joe Biden
            
            BY DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 07/31/23 8:30 AM ET
            https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … joe-biden/
            
            Guess that answers the question if the article was an opinion piece. Also, this should tell you I know my way around the publication -- The Hill. Do you?
            
            
            Again back to Trump --- I feel very sorry for you in regard to what I see as a true problem, a true obsession with all that is Trump.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months agoin reply to this

               The article is an opinion piece. His quote, as of the time of his writing, is fact.  Some opinion pieces actually include facts.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Sorry OP are view oriented.
                  
                  "While there are legitimate questions surrounding Biden’s involvement in his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, at this point, there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant impeachment. In the absence of clear-cut proof, voters would perceive an impeachment as an overreach by House Republicans, and the GOP could pay a steep political price in next year’s elections as a result. "  The Hill July 31, 2023"
                  
                  So, I assume this author has all the information with respect to evidence, that Congress and the FBI have. and the DOJ has in regard to the Hunter investigations? WOW, he must have some great sources...
                  
                  And wow, he must also be psychic in regards to predicting how Americans will vote...  All his view...   " In the absence of clear-cut proof, voters would perceive an impeachment as an overreach by House Republicans, and the GOP could pay a steep political price in next year’s elections as a result"
                  
                  This author very clearly offers his view. It seems to be you that is placing facts into the context of his words.
                  
                  I will ask you to reread his words and point out facts. 
                  
                  
                  I repeat your quote holds nothing in regard to fact. Look up the words View or opinion.

                  replyreport
               2. 87

                  Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, they do, but your quote (the subject we are discussing) does not. When I pointed out that the article was an OP --- You responded
                  
                  --     "Are you not familiar with the publication, "The Hill"? They report the news - not speculation."
                  
                  Your words made me believe you felt the article was 'not speculation".
                  
                  I do realize many people today do fall into reading an OP, and believe that what is being shared is factual.   And yes OP often includes facts --- the paragraph you posted did not include any facts.
                  
                  Yet you seem to feel it did. Hence your statement to me --    "Are you not familiar with the publication, "The Hill"? They report the news - not speculation." 
                  
                  Again The Hill has many avenues they use to fit the right report into the right box. OP, business news, political news, event news, and much more.

                  replyreport
            2. 74

               Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months agoin reply to this

               The Hill's opinion submissions requirements: "All facts, figures and quotes should be reputably sourced via hyperlinks."
               
               " at this point, there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant impeachment." The Hill, July 31, 2023

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  That we know of... As I said pages back, we have no idea what the Congress, FBI or DOJ has in regard to evidence that is part of the ongoing investigations into Joe Biden or his son.
                  
                  So ultimately the author shared his view, he seems to feel there is no evidence due to what he sees thus far. 
                  
                  "While there are legitimate questions surrounding Biden’s involvement in his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, at this point, there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing that would warrant impeachment. "
                  
                  He has no idea of what evidence those investigations have or do not have...   His context is skewed. His context is very much as if he is trying to share a fact.  "There is no hard evidence".
                  
                  He might have said  There appears to be no hard evidence of wrongdoing.
                  
                  To repeat, this kind of Journiisum tends to project their readers to fall into feeling the context is sharing facts.

                  replyreport
            3. 81

               Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

               But, Sharlee, Trump is a candidate for President, how can one not be concerned?

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Don't get me wrong,  I recognize the tendency for people to constantly change the subject to Trump is a reflection of his significant impact on global politics and media coverage of him.   However, and this is just my feeling, constantly shifting the conversation to Trump can also limit the breadth of discussions and prevent meaningful conversations about many other important topics.  Is it not essentially important to recognize that there are numerous global issues, social concerns, and multiple political developments that deserve attention and thoughtful analysis beyond the scope of any one individual?
                  
                  While discussions about Trump's actions and policies are certainly valid, I mean the media covers all Trump 24/7.
                  
                  I just feel, balanced conversations that encompass a wide range of subjects contribute to a more well-rounded understanding of the world and allow for constructive dialogues on multiple fronts. 
                  
                  Every thread quickly becomes a Trump thread, while much of the time the OP subject becomes fodder due to "Hey look over here. Trump did
                  this".

                  replyreport
8. 76

   Valeantposted 17 months ago

   Devin Archer, the right's 'star witness' about Joe's connection to Hunter's business dealings testified to the exact opposite of what the GOP members of the House claim.  Joe and Hunter did not discuss business dealings on the calls Archer was privy to.  So, just like election fraud, chalk this up to the GOP and their media apparatus lying to their own supporters. 
   
   See the details here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvGf303r_GE

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Thus far this is what Comer revealed in regard to the Archer interview.
      
      Below are key takeaways from Devon Archer’s transcribed interview:
      
      Devon Archer testified that the value of adding Hunter Biden to Burisma’s board was “the brand” and confirmed that then-Vice President Joe Biden was “the brand.”
      
      Archer admitted that “Burisma would have gone out of business if ‘the brand’ had not been attached to it.”  He believed that Hunter Biden being on the board and the Biden brand contributed to Burisma’s longevity. People would have been intimidated to mess with Burisma legally because of the Biden brand.
      
      In December 2015, Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, and Vadym Pozharski, an executive of Burisma, placed constant pressure on Hunter Biden to get help from D.C. regarding the Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption.
      
      Hunter Biden, along with Zlochevsky and Pozharski, “called D.C.” to discuss the matter. Biden, Zlochevsky, and Pozharski stepped away to make the call. This raises concerns that Hunter Biden was in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
      
      Devon Archer testified that Hunter Biden put then-Vice President Joe Biden on the speakerphone during business meetings over 20 times.
      
      Archer testified that Joe Biden was put on the phone to sell “the brand.” These phone calls include a dinner in Paris with a French energy company and in China with Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR.
      
      Archer acknowledged that then-Vice President Biden had coffee with Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR, in Beijing. Then-Vice President Biden even wrote a letter of recommendation for college for Li’s daughter.
      
      Archer confirmed Joe Biden was referred to as “my guy” by Hunter Biden.
      
      In spring of 2014, then-Vice President Biden attended a business dinner with his son,   Hunter, and his associates at Café Milano in Washington, D.C. Elena Baturina, a Russian oligarch who is the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, attended the dinner. Notably, the Biden Administration’s public sanctions list for Russian oligarchs does not contain Baturina.
      
      Source   https://oversight.house.gov/release/com … %EF%BF%BC/
      
      One could assume that Chairman James Comer is being truthful and that the transcript of the interview will give witness to this posted statement. 
      
      In my view, Archer has provided very incriminating information in regard to POSSIBLE pay-for-play on the part of Joe Biden, and in my view,  certainly can't be ignored at this point.  We need a full investigation to PROVE or DISPROVE these serious allegations.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Willowarborposted 17 months agoin reply to this

         Archer has provided very incriminating information in regard to possible pay-for-play on the part of Joe Biden,
         
         Where would I specifically find this information?
         
         A reporter asked representative Briggs this question,
         "Did he talk about the bribe at all?" one reporter asked. This is likely a reference to an alleged bribe paid by Ukrainian gas company Burisma.
         
         "He didn't know anything about that," Biggs replied, while moving away from the reporters before getting into his car.
         
         Representative Goldman had this to say,
         "I just left the interview of Devon Archer "These are the facts: 1) Archer testified that Joe Biden NEVER discussed any business with Hunter and his associates."
         Goldman added: "2) there was no bribe from Burisma to Joe or Hunter."
         
         Where is the direct connection of President Biden to his son's business dealings?

         replyreport
      2. 74

         Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months agoin reply to this

         " We need a full investigation to PROVE or DISPROVE these serious allegations."
         
         You are getting several. They just aren't turning up what you want to hear.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I have no interest in conversing with you. I don't do catty well, I am very much a person that never beats around a bush. Just no interest in conversing with you -- at all.  Now that's what I call freedom of speech. Yeah

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months agoin reply to this

               It can be frustrating to hear another argument.

               replyreport
9. 87

   Sharlee01posted 17 months ago

   OPINION Published August 2, 2023 4:00am EDT
   
   "Biden impeachment inquiry? Three crucial GOP moves are needed to make it happen
   Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his fellow Republicans are talking about an impeachment inquiry
   
   " Republicans need to roll forward with impeaching Joe Biden, but slowly. Caution is essential because:
   
   In order to convince the American public that Joe Biden is guilty of corruption, the GOP needs to produce indisputable evidence. Right now, Kevin McCarthy’s party is (unusually) polling ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot, a solid indicator of electoral success; let’s keep it that way.
   
   An impeachment proceeding could divide Republicans. That will not help win the 2024 election.
   
   If the GOP convinces the public that Joe Biden took bribes and sold out his country, he will have to exit the 2024 race. The longer the investigation into his alleged corruption goes on, the less time Democrats will have to promote an alternative candidate. In that scenario, Kamala Harris steps in, a win for the GOP.
   
   Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is talking about starting an impeachment inquiry, and no wonder. The Speaker of the House is responding to mounting evidence that the president’s son Hunter Biden sold access to his father when the latter was vice president, and that Joe himself benefited from his son’s efforts. "
   
   Democrats pretend there’s no "there" there, but they are studiously ignoring BANK RECORDS  that show numerous members of the Biden family received tens of millions of dollars from foreign entities, more than 150 Suspicious Activity Reports filed by the Treasury FLAGGING cash deposits and wire transfers detailing those exchanges of money, the dense web of LLCs and businesses Hunter constructed seemingly to disguise the money transfers, emails and texts from Hunter detailing activities that include his father, reports from credible FBI informants who have reported both Hunter and Joe demanding $5 million bribes to help protect Ukraine energy company Burisma, and photographs of Joe Biden meeting with Hunter’s associates.
   
   Source
   https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/re … -companies
   return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.delawareonline.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F07%2F24%2Fhunter-biden-emails-and-what-they-reveal-about-delaware-business%2F70420802007%2F
   https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ … .16.23.pdf
   
   In addition, we now have Devon Archer claiming that Joe Biden personally was on 20 or more phone calls with associates in Ukraine, China and elsewhere and also attended dinners with many of Hunter’s clients.
   
   Most damning: Hunter Biden has never denied these accounts. And, other than his now non-credible assertions that he never discussed business with his son, neither has Joe Biden.
   
   The case against Joe Biden is building but not yet complete. The House Oversight Committee needs to connect the dots; they need to show that payments from Burisma and the $4.8 million received by Hunter from Chinese oil company CEFC and others actually benefited Joe Biden.
   
   They are close. In one 2019 text message, Hunter Biden whines to his daughter Naomi that he has had to "pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years"; he adds, "Unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary."
   
   Other evidence that Joe benefited from Hunter’s purported corrupt dealings is contained in emails that document Hunter in 2010 paying for repairs and upkeep to Joe’s house while the latter was V.P.
   
   Also, Hunter’s business partner Eric Schwerin emailed Hunter that he received Joe Biden’s "Delaware tax refund check," indicating access to and likely management of the vice president’s finances. Also, as the New York Post reported last year, "In May 2018 during a drug and alcohol binge in Los Angeles, Hunter Biden accidentally transferred around $25,000 to an escort named "Gulnora." He was immediately visited by the Secret Service — suggesting that the money came from a joint account with his father. Hunter received a series of text messages from a former agent who repeatedly urged him to come out of his hotel room and reminded him "this is linked to Celtic’s account." "Celtic" was Joe Biden’s Secret Service code name when he was vice president."
   
   Not many grown adults co-mingle their finances with their parents. As noted, the House is close.
   
   It isn’t easy. The CEO of Burisma, who claims to have paid Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each to help him shake off a corruption investigation, acknowledged that finding the money could take ten years, so artfully was it laundered. 
   
   Also, the Biden White House has obstructed the investigation. Beginning in the spring of 2022, before they had won the majority, Republicans in the House had asked Biden’s Treasury Department for records that might aid their investigation, like the SARS reports. They were stonewalled.
   
   Almost certainly, Rep. James Comer, who, as head of the Oversight Committee is leading the investigation, will dig up what is needed to show conclusively that Joe Biden was in on the kill.
   
   Providing indisputable evidence of corruption is not only necessary to convince the public of the need for an impeachment effort. It may also be necessary to get moderate Republicans on board.
   
   Republican Rep. Nancy Mace from South Carolina recently talked to Fox News about the risk that impeachment might endanger the GOP majority in the House, as it could cause members in districts won by Joe Biden in 2020 to lose their seats. She likened the effort to walking the plank.
   
   Senate Republicans are also divided on the prospect of impeaching Joe Biden.  Senate Republican Whip John Thune and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, are among those who have balked. Since Democrats hold the majority in the Senate, where an impeachment trial would take place, the effort is unlikely to be successful.
   
   These concerns are valid, but so is the drive to hold Joe Biden accountable. Speaker McCarthy has made it clear that he currently endorses an "inquiry" in that it would assist in investigating Biden wrongdoing. That is the right call."

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      "I have no interest in conversing with you."

      replyreport
10. 76

    Valeantposted 17 months ago

    The GOP should for it.  Considering the amount of concern they showed when their own leader openly profitted from his government position through his businesses (DC Hotel, Secret Service charges at his golf clubs), not sure that Joe Biden getting a piece of the action from his son's business deals from years ago really matters all that much when compared to the alternative who is now facing charges for trying to overturn our democracy.

    replyreport
11. 76

    Valeantposted 17 months ago

    This article has a link to the actual transcript of Devon Archer.  Best to get the information straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
    
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/devon-archer … 30398.html

    replyreport
12. 85

    tsmogposted 17 months ago

    Tucker Carlson releases his full interview with Devon Archer. It is about an hour long.
    
    https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/04/tuck … Np40gunCnX

    replyreport
13. 87

    Sharlee01posted 17 months ago

    This may be why impeachment talk is heating up -- Documentation is piling up, and there is nothing better in regard to evidence than documentation.
    
    https://nypost.com/2023/08/22/state-dep … re-report/
    
    "Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
    
    Former President Barack Obama’s State Department and several other administration officials were happy enough with Ukraine’s former top prosecutor’s anti-corruption efforts to sign off on $1 billion in US aid weeks before a pressure campaign spearheaded by then-Vice President Joe Biden forced him from office, documents show.
    
    The government memos, obtained by Just the News and released on Monday, contradict the prevailing narrative put forward by Democrats arguing that Biden’s threat in December 2015 to withhold US loan guarantees for Ukraine in exchange for the ouster of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin from office was consistent with US policy goals.
    
    Several officials in the weeks leading up to Biden’s December 2015 visit to Kyiv had said they were “impressed” with the “progress” Shokin’s office had made in the preceding months.
    
    One of the documents setting forth conditions for the loans drafted one month before the vice president’s trip, listed no issues with granting the funds and said nothing about firing the prosecutor. Source to see document  --  https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f … onsIPC.pdf
    
    Reports of the threat to condition the loan guarantees also came as a surprise to US officials in January 2016, as Biden’s warning apparently leaked in the Ukrainian press.
    
    Officials scrambled at the time to update their proposal with almost identical conditions to the previous year’s, but made no mention of the need to remove the prosecutor.
    
    The memos show Biden may have acted alone — and in fact counter to US policy — when he told then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to get rid of Shokin.
    
    An FBI whistleblower has alleged Biden pushed for Shokin’s ouster because he was investigating gas company Burisma, where his son Hunter had an $80,000-a-month seat on the board of directors despite having no expertise in its business.
    
    The source said that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky claimed he had “bribed” the Bidens for $5 million each — partly to get Shokin fired.
    
    Joe Biden always has claimed Shokin was himself corrupt, and that he was just following an international consensus to get him removed.
    
    But an Oct.1, 2015 missive from the Interagency Policy Committee, which advised Obama’s White House on anti-corruption reform efforts in Ukraine, makes no mention of this, and in fact praises that, “Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee” of loans.
    
    Victoria Nuland, the State Department’s top point person on Ukraine at the time, even sent Shokin a letter that summer praising the prosecutor for his work combating corruption in the former Soviet republic.
    
    “We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government,” Nuland writes in the June 2015 letter.
    
    “The challenges you face are difficult, but not insurmountable. You have an historic opportunity to address the injustices of the past by vigorously investigating and prosecuting corruption cases and recovering assets stolen from the Ukrainian people. The ongoing reform of your office, law enforcement, and the judiciary will enable you to investigate and prosecute corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair, and transparent manner.”
    
    The glowing reviews of Shokin’s job performance by Washington continued into that fall.
    
    “All, thank you for a productive meeting yesterday. Please find a SOC below. It was agreed: The IPC concluded that (1) Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee and (2) Ukraine has an economic need for the guarantee and it is in our strategic interest to provide One,” former White House Director of International Economic Affairs Christina Segal-Knowles wrote to government officials advising the Interagency Policy Committee in September 2015.
    
    “As such, the IPC recommends moving forward with a third loan guarantee for Ukraine in the near‐term, noting State/F’s preference to issue the guarantee as late as possible to allow more clarity on the budget context and Embassy Kyiv and Treasury’s assessment that Ukraine needs the guarantee by end‐2015,” she added.
    
    By November 2015, there were still no suggestions in government memos that Shokin needed to be sacked or that the prosecutor was failing to go after corruption in Ukraine.
    
    Biden’s public statements around the same time also contradicted his ultimate decision to leverage Shokin’s position.
    
    In a Nov. 5, 2015, phone call with Poroshenko, the vice president “reiterated the US willingness to provide a third $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine contingent on continued Ukrainian progress to investigate and prosecute corruption,” according to a White House readout.
    
    US officials continued to make the case for Ukraine to receive the loan guarantee and even invited senior leadership of Shokin’s office to join them in Washington for meetings in January 2016.
    
    During their visit, reports emerged in Ukraine that US aid to the country would be tied to Shokin’s ouster, which stunned US officials on the IPC task force.
    
    “Yikes. I don’t recall this coming up in our meeting with them on Tuesday, although we did discuss the fact that the [Prosecutor General’s Office Inspector General] condition has not yet been met,” Eric Ciaramella, a CIA official who would later blow the whistle on Donald Trump’s infamous call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky demanding an investigation into the Biden family, wrote in a memo.
    
    Ciaramella would add, “We were super impressed with the group, and we had a two-hour discussion of their priorities and the obstacles they face,” referring to the DC meeting with Shokin’s aides.
    
    Shokin was booted from his post in March 2016, amid accusations that his office was blocking major cases against allies and influential figures.
    
    After the 2016 election, however, some US embassy officials in Kyiv expressed private reservations about Biden’s son serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings while the vice president oversaw the nation’s policy, according to several “confidential” emails also obtained by Just the News.
    
    “The real issue to my mind was that someone in Washington needed to engage VP Biden quietly and say that his son Hunter’s presence on the Burisma board undercut the anti-corruption message the VP and we were advancing in Ukraine b/c Ukrainians heard one message from us and then saw another set of behavior with the family association with a known corrupt figure whose company was known for not playing by the rules,” Deputy Chief of Mission to Ukraine George Kent wrote to then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch on Nov. 22, 2016.
    
    Biden bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018 that during that December 2015 trip to Kyiv, “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.
    
    “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
    
    First son Hunter Biden’s former business partner Devon Archer told former Fox News host Tucker Carlson earlier this month that Shokin was “a threat” to Burisma which paid Hunter Biden up to $1 million per year to sit on its board of directors from 2014 through 2019.
    
    “He was a threat. He ended up seizing assets of [Burisma owner] Nikolai [Zlochevsky] — a house, some cars, a couple properties. And Nikolai actually never went back to Ukraine after Shokin seized all of his assets,” Archer said, while noting that “It certainly wasn’t made clear to us at the board level… that [getting Shokin fired] was a favor to be done.”
    
    https://justthenews.com/podcasts/john-s … mpeachment

    replyreport
14. 87

    Sharlee01posted 16 months ago

    Once again more smoke appears around the Biden's, more documents...
    
    
    PAPER TRAIL
    Explosive records escalate Biden family scandal amid GOP's impeachment drive
    
    HUNTER BIDEN
    Burisma's Devon Archer met with then-Secretary of State Kerry just weeks before Shokin was fired
    Shokin told Fox News in new interview he believes he was fired due to Burisma probe
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/burism … okin-fired

    replyreport
15. 87

    Sharlee01posted 16 months ago

    "Dems leave Congress with 'very little choice' over Biden impeachment inquiry: Jonathan Turley
    Emails reveal Devon Archer met with then-Secretary of State John Kerry weeks before Burisma investigator was fired
    
    George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley reacted to the "very troubling picture" of mounting Hunter Biden evidence on "America Reports." The latest evidence revealed that Hunter Biden's business partner, Devon Archer, met with Secretary of State John Kerry weeks before the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired. Turley on Monday criticized Democrats for calling to stop the investigation as more evidence is revealed.
    
    JONATHAN TURLEY: There is a lot [of details], but there's this disconnect. The more evidence we get, the louder the call is from the Democrats to stop any further investigation. Well, it really doesn't make much sense. I mean, we now have a very troubling picture that is composed of financial records with over $20 million that are being transferred through a myriad of accounts that seem overly complex. It seems like the only purpose of those accounts is to hide those transfers. You have what I think now is accepted as, sort of, open influence peddling by Hunter Biden. That narrative has shifted. Now, you have the media admitting that he was selling influence and access, but they insist that's an illusion. Well, how do we know that? I mean, you don't know if it's an illusion or not until we get to the bottom of this. And this meeting is just the latest such example. We need to know more about the meeting. But that information is not forthcoming. And that is why Merrick Garland and others are making the case for an impeachment inquiry. They're leaving Congress with very little choice.
    
    Hunter Biden’s former business partner and fellow Burisma board member, Devon Archer, met with then-Secretary of State John Kerry just weeks before the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma was fired in 2016.
    
    Former Ukrainian prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was fired on March 29, 2016, less than four weeks after Archer met with Kerry at the State Department in Washington, D.C., according to a State Department email.
    
    "Devon Archer coming to see S today at 3:00pm - need someone to meet/greet him at C Street," reads the redacted email on March 2, 2016, which was previously released via the Freedom of Information Act.
    
    At the time of the meeting, Archer and Hunter Biden had been sitting on the board of Burisma for about two years, and then-Vice President Joe Biden had recently wrapped up a trip to Ukraine where he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if Ukrainian officials didn’t fire Shokin, claiming he was too lax on prosecuting corruption.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/dems-leav … jonathan-t

    replyreport