• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shocking Harvard Poll: 67% Of Americans Say Biden Should Be Impeached If Hunter Biden Corruption Proves True

That's stupid. For selling access to his dad? Let's say that's true. What did the access provide? I'm going to need to see some proof that access to Joe was paid for through Hunter AND Joe then did a political favor for the person who paid. Then we can start talking about impeaching.
No, a political favor in return need not be proven. If, repeat if, it can be demonstrated Joe Biden expected to benefit financially from meeting Hunter’s paymasters then that’s enough: it’s a pay-for-access scheme, i.e. bribery.
 
The wording in that article is just another example of how the right willingly distorts the truth to establish a narrative and again we see it works! The "If these found to be true," part is very important!
A great point, and it explains the two positions we see in the media and even here on DP.

There are some, like me, who think an investigation is warranted in case these allegations are true.

Similarly, there are liberals here on DP who fight the idea of an investigation tooth-and-nail for the very same reason, i.e. in case these allegations are true.
 
A great point, and it explains the two positions we see in the media and even here on DP.

There are some, like me, who think an investigation is warranted in case these allegations are true.

Similarly, there are liberals here on DP who fight the idea of an investigation tooth-and-nail for the very same reason, i.e. in case these allegations are true.
It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Liberals, like me, aren't against an investigation " in case these allegations are true", that's insulting. Investigations, certainly criminal investigations, should not be based on assumptions and speculation. They must be predicated on evidence and a reasonable belief that there is a justifiable reason to proceed. Otherwise, people would be under investigation at the whim of the police/FBI DOJIn the case of the Joe Biden thing, I have seen no evidence of that. Political investigations are different, they can be predicated on a sneeze and I'm very sure there will be one.
 
It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Liberals, like me, aren't against an investigation " in case these allegations are true", that's insulting. Investigations, certainly criminal investigations, should not be based on assumptions and speculation. They must be predicated on evidence and a reasonable belief that there is a justifiable reason to proceed. Otherwise, people would be under investigation at the whim of the police/FBI DOJIn the case of the Joe Biden thing, I have seen no evidence of that. Political investigations are different, they can be predicated on a sneeze and I'm very sure there will be one.
But there is evidence, and you folks keep coming up with one excuse after another why we should not look at it with the power of subpoena and testimony under oath. The favorites over the last year or two have been these:
  • That laptop is Russian disinformation.
  • The laptop has chain of custody issues.
  • Hunter Biden doesn’t work for the government.
  • Why should we believe what a crack addict says?
  • The “Big Guy” could be anybody.

It’s all gibberish. Thanks to his own clumsiness we have access to Hunter’s unguarded, private conversations. If those conversations are accurate they establish two things:
  1. Joe Biden benefited financially from his son’s lobbying.
  2. Biden lied when he said he’s never been involved with he’s son’s business ventures, and VP Joe Biden accepted at least one off-calendar meeting with the people paying Hunter Biden.

That is enough to warrant further investigation, and the poll in the OP demonstrates this is not an unreasonable or politically biased view.
 
That's stupid. For selling access to his dad? Let's say that's true. What did the access provide? I'm going to need to see some proof that access to Joe was paid for through Hunter AND Joe then did a political favor for the person who paid. Then we can start talking about impeaching.
Evidence is on Hunter computer. The one Biden said didn't exist.
 
The wording in that article is just another example of how the right willingly distorts the truth to establish a narrative and again we see it works! The "If these found to be true," part is very important!

There is no doubt in my mind that Hunter tried to sell access to his father. However, unless there is proof Biden Sr was part of that and did offer a quid pro quo then there is no impeachable event. I do not believe there will be any impeachment hearing that would be a very dumb move on the GOP's part. I do believe they will open an investigation but not an impeachment.
Exactly right. " If it's found be true" Biden will be impeached.
 
I agree. That is shocking. Shockingly stupid.
 
The Republicans may want to impeach Biden however, doing so based on assumed/purported actions that occurred years prior to being elected President would be as damaging to Republicans as it would be for Dems. The shit slinging back and forth would be epic.

My bet would be that McConnell would not be keen on the idea.
Republicans don't want to impeach Biden because an even worse president will then take over. This kind of corruption and results of it in international relations can't be accepted.
 
But there is evidence, and you folks keep coming up with one excuse after another why we should not look at it with the power of subpoena and testimony under oath.
You see evidence. I see emails deliberately taken out of context to create a false narrative. Why don't they release the related emails? There is criminal investigation underway and there will likely be a political investigation undertaken after Nov 24. Barr himself said he saw nothing to justify a special counsel. What more do you want at this point?
That is enough to warrant further investigation, and the poll in the OP demonstrates this is not an unreasonable or politically biased view.
By whom?
 
i think when people understand that the OP is a Tucker Carlson and he is way better at pushing republican propaganda than most people then all these threads make sense. he does the volume thing and it works.
 
You see evidence. I see emails deliberately taken out of context to create a false narrative. Why don't they release the related emails? There is criminal investigation underway and there will likely be a political investigation undertaken after Nov 24. Barr himself said he saw nothing to justify a special counsel. What more do you want at this point?
Gosh, how did I miss that one? Please add this to the roster of excuses:
  • Those messages are taken out of context.

Fact: you don’t know the full context so you’re in no position to assert they are taken out of context. That is what an investigation will likely provide: the genuine context.

By the only institution that can investigate allegations of wrong-doing against a sitting US President: Congress.

Seriously, why ask this question? It’s not like we haven’t been down this road recently — twice.
 
You see evidence. I see emails deliberately taken out of context to create a false narrative. Why don't they release the related emails? There is criminal investigation underway and there will likely be a political investigation undertaken after Nov 24. Barr himself said he saw nothing to justify a special counsel. What more do you want at this point?

By whom?

The investigation is complete and it's now before a grand jury.

How do you know anything is out of context? Do you know the context?
 
The investigation is complete and it's now before a grand jury.

How do you know anything is out of context? Do you know the context?
Amazing, isn’t it? They simply cannot arrive at the obvious conclusion. It’s one act of cognitive dissonance after another.
 
Fact: you don’t know the full context so you’re in no position to assert they are taken out of context. That is what an investigation will likely provide: the ci context.
A Natfact maybe but not a fact. As long as Hunter's daughters emails in the dialogue between the two of them are deliberately excluded, then his are out of context.
 
The investigation is complete and it's now before a grand jury.

How do you know anything is out of context? Do you know the context?
The fact a grand jury is involved does not mean the investigation is over.

Have you seen and of Naomi Bidens emails in the exchange with his daughter, or just his? When only one side of a conversation is presented it is out of context.
 
The fact a grand jury is involved does not mean the investigation is over.

Why would they go to a grand jury in the middle of the investigation?
Have you seen and of Naomi Bidens emails in the exchange with his daughter, or just his? When only one side of a conversation is presented it is out of context.

Nope. Have you? I bet the FBI and lawyers in the grand jury have.

If everything is out of context and nothing potentially illegal was uncovered, there'd be no reason for a grand jury.
 
A Natfact maybe but not a fact. As long as Hunter's daughters emails in the dialogue between the two of them are deliberately excluded, then his are out of context.
Well, let’s test the veracity of this particular “Natfact.” You claimed those messages were taken out of context; you did not say they might have been taken out of context.

I assert that you do not know the context and thus your claim they are out of context is Natfactually unproven. So be specific, what is incorrect about my “Natfact?”
 
Why would they go to a grand jury in the middle of the investigation?


Nope. Have you? I bet the FBI and lawyers in the grand jury have.

If everything is out of context and nothing potentially illegal was uncovered, there'd be no reason for a grand jury.
My comments were relative to what is in the public domain not what the FBI and DOJ may have. I'm sure what they have is completely in context......that is what professional investigators do.

I think the investigation into Hunter is coming to an end but until there is an indictment, or not, it is ongoing. The investigation could have multiple prongs too. One on tax evasion and money laundering, another on his actions with foreign governments.
 
assert that you do not know the context and thus your claim they are out of context is Natfactually unproven. So be specific, what is incorrect about my “Natfact?”
Assert away! Until the rest of the emails in this dialogue are released the ones we have access to are by definition "out of context"

"out of context"
  1. without the surrounding words or circumstances and so not fully understandable.
    "comments that aides have long insisted were taken out of context"
 
My comments were relative to what is in the public domain not what the FBI and DOJ may have. I'm sure what they have is completely in context......that is what professional investigators do.

I think the investigation into Hunter is coming to an end but until there is an indictment or not. The investigation could have multiple prongs too. One on tax evasion and money laundering, another on his actions with foreign governments.

Again, why would they go to a grand jury in the middle of the investigation? That doesn’t make any sense.

And based on what we know, we can make a logical conclusion that there was potentially some illegal activity found with Hunter Biden. Right?
 
That's stupid. For selling access to his dad? Let's say that's true. What did the access provide? I'm going to need to see some proof that access to Joe was paid for through Hunter AND Joe then did a political favor for the person who paid. Then we can start talking about impeaching.
Are you saying it should be LEGAL to provide access to the presidential administration for money from just anyone?
 
Back
Top Bottom