McCarthy to endorse Biden impeachment inquiry, setting up possible vote

[TangoNoCash]

You not only attempted to deflect, you're really bad at it, too.

First, I've rendered no opinion on the matter you raised, so you're in no position to claim my opinion is a hypocrisy.

Second, even though I'm someone who is clearly conservative, I supported both impeachment probes against Trump and believe he should have been convicted over the second.

I am not the one demonstrating hypocrisy here. The Sgt Schultz's in this thread are.

Really you don’t see it. Okay I guess. It’s literally the same thing. Selling presidential influence. One you are okay with and one you are not. Just calling a spade a spade. If you would have replied Trump should be held accountable too at least you’d be consistent in your opinion. You could have said that but it seemed intentional you didn’t. Sorry if I inferred that unfairly.

 

[ClaraD]

Congress has the power of subpoena. Did you not know that?

Subpoenas are not warrants signed by a judge and based on probable cause....nor is it due process.

 

[Buckeyes85]

It came from a laptop that is now widely acknowledged to be Hunter's Once admitted as evidence, Congress can subpoena his message carrier provider to help authenticate the message. More importantly, they can subpoena Hunter's and Joe's financial records to see if there's a flow of money.

There is sufficient evidence to warrant and investigation, and anyone not lost in a partisan fog can see it.

Hasn't the oversight committee already admitted they have no evidence of payments to Joe? And how long have they already been investigating, searching for this non existent money trail? And he IRS?

But again, if this is what the republicans want to waste their time on, more power to them.

 

[ClaraD]

You missed the point. Cole has already stated he would not consider money transfers from Hunter to Joe as evidence. How closed can one mind get?

a money transfer from a son to his father is not evidence of any criminal activity. Nor is a transfer from a parent to their child. You never send your kids money? or your grandkids?

 

[ClaraD]

Left-wing logic: Hypotheticals involving Joe Biden's guilt don't exist.

hypotheticals aren't evidence or proof...they are theories based on your assumptions or hopes...

 

[Mach]

I believe it's important to post this in every thread where our friends on the left feign ignorance about the evidence at hand concerning Joe Biden's involvement in his son's lobbying business. The evidence supporting at least a reasonable suspicion of bribery on Joe's part is there for anyone with an open mind. It includes:

They have no evidence of an impeachable offense to warrant an IMPEACHMENT inquiry.
They have been "investigating" this for years now, and they investigating AGAIN in various House committees like goofballs, knowing full well it's pure politics.
And what did they find? No impeachable offense.
So they move to impeachment? That makes no sense Nat, they don't have an impeachable offense, they already investigated, they didn't come up with the goods.

The Democratic led house had evidence of obstruction, a crime, and didn't agree to impeach. It wasn't until the whistleblower on the Zelkinsy call, when Trump tried to extort Ukraine for phony shit on Biden, that they had the goods...they had the phone call, so they opened an impeachment inquiry.

You admit they don't have such evidence for an impeachable offense for Biden.
It's obvious this occurred before he was president.

This, anyone reasonable can see its premature. We also saw how the negation took place. Gaetz and the Trump-first crowd bullied him with threats to remove him, he finally caved.

But look at you carrying water for them...for shame.

 

[Michael Cole]

Really you don’t see it. Okay I guess. It’s literally the same thing. Selling presidential influence. One you are okay with and one you are not. Just calling a spade a spade.

Except he's accusing Biden of selling vice-presidential influence. Crazy.

Not at all the same thing. Not in the same universe.

 

[ClaraD]

What is telling is that McCarthy isn't bringing it to a floor vote....he doesn't have the votes in his own party....he sure as hell doesn't have them on the Democratic side.

 

[beefheart]

You missed the point. Cole has already stated he would not consider money transfers from Hunter to Joe as evidence. How closed can one mind get?

You missed my point.

All you have is "if".

You have zero actual proof, its hilarious.

Hypotheticals are not evidence, they teach that early on in Law School.

 

[TangoNoCash]

Except he's accusing Biden of selling vice-presidential influence. Crazy.

Not at all the same thing. Not in the same universe.

It was a very charitable comparison. Probably too charitable.

 

[Mach]

What is telling is that McCarthy isn't bringing it to a floor vote....he doesn't have the votes in his own party....he sure as hell doesn't have them on the Democratic side.

He's not? Before he said he would need to put it to vote I thought.
Yeah, skipping the vote....that's terrible if that's the case...the sham is so paper thin and transparent, but Republican voters will attest that it's right and proper, snickering that it's what the "dems deserve after the way they treated Trump". Sad.

 

[Michael Cole]

It was a very charitable comparison. Probably too charitable.

No, your point is well taken. My point is that you're arguing rationally with someone who thinks vice-presidents rule the world. It's quite batty. You can't argue with batshit crazy.

We have here an unsupported assertion that Joe Biden, as a powerless vice-president, sold access to something or another, but now as a president with this actual power, has been conspicuously absent from the Crime Family business.

Trump has taken dumb people and made them crazy. Truly fascinating.

 

[multivita-man]

Who didn't see this coming especially since McCarthy's leadership is threatened.

McCarthy to endorse Biden impeachment inquiry, setting up possible vote

2 hours ago

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) will endorse an impeachment inquiry into President Biden this week, a source familiar confirmed to The Hill, setting the scene for a formal vote in the chamber — even though it remains unclear that there is enough support to launch a formal investigation.

McCarthy intends to tell Republican lawmakers that House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have found enough information to back up the need for a formal impeachment inquiry, the source said.


He will also argue that the launching for a formal inquiry will aid in their effort to try to obtain bank records and documents related to the Biden family.

McCarthy plans to call an impeachment inquiry the “logical next step” in the GOP-led investigations, the source said.

The House GOP conference is set to meet behind closed doors twice this week, Wednesday and Thursday. During Thursday’s meeting, Comer and Jordan are scheduled to speak about their investigations. It is unclear during which meeting McCarthy will throw his support behind an inquiry, the source noted.

The kicker is, this particular nod to his radicals may not be enough to save his Speakership. There are other individual radicals with their own individual demands. Most want an impeachment inquiry - that's the "easy" part.

All of the radical base wants an impeachment, never mind the fact they have ZERO evidence of anything that Biden did or didn't do, which isn't lost on the moderates who are also getting tired of Speaker McCarthy for exactly the opposite reasons the radicals are. They fought hard to win over suburban centrists, and they're worried they're going to give their seats right back to the Dems, and they might be onto something.

Meanwhile, some radicals want impeachment of DHS Sec Mayorkas; some don't or don't care. Some want to defund the FBI, DOJ, IRS; and some don't or don't care.

It only takes one individual Republican to remove McCarthy from his Speakership.

Fun times. Maybe, just maybe, idiot centrists will finally get it through thick skulls that Republicans aren't interested in governing. They don't give a shit about inflation, or the debt, or healthcare, or the border, or gun violence. This is just a stupid game to them.

 

[SCrider]

Opening impeachment hearings will give the House impeachment committee access to the Biden family's bank records. ALL of them. At least a dozen Biden family members received money or otherwise had bills or expenses paid by Hunter. They will all be targeted.

They may need to open a Biden crime family wing at Club Fed.

Why would an impeachment inquiry go after private citizens? does not make sense on any level.

 

[SCrider]

Left-wing logic: Hypotheticals involving Joe Biden's guilt don't exist.

If they had any evidence they would not need hypotheticals.

 

[SCrider]

I never claimed that they were. Building straw-men won't help you.

You keep asking what if's

 

[Mach]

Yes, I cited the evidence supporting why I believe an investigation against Joe Biden is warranted, and all that evidence is in the public domain. It's you who's done nothing here. But I think we both know that.

They investigated and found no crime.
You claimed no evidence of a crime, yet that's sufficient?

They have moved to an impeachment inquiry, without evidence.

Why isn't it being put of for a vote?
Why was Meadows not initiating this himself, and instead had to be strong-armed?
These are partisan Republicans who supported *Trump* of all people...who have not wanted to proceed here, and why not?

 

[NatMorton]

Really you don’t see it. Okay I guess. It’s literally the same thing. Selling presidential influence. One you are okay with and one you are not. Just calling a spade a spade. If you would have replied Trump should be held accountable too at least you’d be consistent in your opinion. You could have said that but it seemed intentional you didn’t. Sorry if I inferred that unfairly.

Which one did I say I was okay with? Cite the post or stop lying.

 

[NatMorton]

Subpoenas are not warrants signed by a judge and based on probable cause....nor is it due process.

Um, Congress can issue a subpoena -- which they can -- so why do they need a warrant?

You're really not thinking these things through.

 

[NatMorton]

Hasn't the oversight committee already admitted they have no evidence of payments to Joe? And how long have they already been investigating, searching for this non existent money trail? And he IRS?

But again, if this is what the republicans want to waste their time on, more power to them.

Let's start with Hunter and then follow the money.

 

[NatMorton]

a money transfer from a son to his father is not evidence of any criminal activity. Nor is a transfer from a parent to their child. You never send your kids money? or your grandkids?

It depends on the number of digits to the left of the decimal point.

 

[SCrider]

Um, Congress can issue a subpoena -- which they can -- so why do they need a warrant?

You're really not thinking these things through.

And one of the chairs of this impeachment inquiry ignored his subpoena, How should the House deal with that?

 

[NatMorton]

They have no evidence of an impeachable offense to warrant an IMPEACHMENT inquiry.

There's a circumstantial case for bribery, and that certainly qualifies as a high crime.

 

[SCrider]

Let's start with Hunter and then follow the money.

You want Congress to investigate a private citizen in hopes of finding something about his father. think about that for a minute.

 

[Mach]

Let's start with Hunter and then follow the money.

The are claiming sufficient evidence to warrant congressional authority under an impeachment inquiry of JOE BIDEN.
But you want to start with Hunter. Sounds reasonable.

They have been hounding hunter for what..7 years+?