The Impeachment of Joseph R. Biden

You literally invoked Trump in the OP and this entire tangent was started by you decrying the differences in treatment between two wildly dissimilar situations.

This is not the Get Out of Defending my Position Free Card you think it is.

There is not a single piece of evidence cited in this opinion piece that Joe Biden personally broke any law or even any ethical standard.

Yeah. I mean the very first sentence argues that there is evidence just none raising to the level of circumstantial evidence. That’s quite a concession at the outset.

Zero evidence.

@Billy:

Yep, zero evidence that Joe Biden personally broke any law or even any ethical standard.

Here is what is cited in the article and keeping in mind that we are going to take the article's factual allegations as 100 percent true, but not its speculation:

1. $20 million was paid to "the Bidens" and associates. No evidence cited in the article that any of it made to Joe Biden, let alone that the $20 million involved was in any way illegal or ethical. It cites the WP as saying none of the money was traced to Joe Biden.

2. An IRS whistleblower said Hunter Biden claimed in text messages that he was using Joe Biden's name as leverage to pressure a Chinese company to pay him and that Joe Biden was in the room. But the whistleblower admits that prosecutors aren't convinced that Hunter Biden wasn't lying.

3. A Hunter Biden's business partner said that Hunter Biden got Joe Biden on the phone about twice a year over a 10 year period during business calls with foreigners and Joe Biden exchanged pleasantries those 20 times.
2.

4. The same business partner said Joe Biden attended two dinners where there were rich foreigners, but only conversed about the weather and other pleasantries.

5. Joe Biden hid numerous e-mails under psuedonym accounts while vice president.

6. An agent claims that the prosecution of Hunter Biden is being handled differently from other prosecutions.

None of this, even taken as true, with the exception of 5 is any reflection of Joe Biden's behavior at all. I assume that the e-mail thing is largely spin -- it is unfortunately commonplace for public officials to conduct official business not entirely on their official e-mail accounts.

And to the extent that any of these possibly implicate Joe Biden himself, investigating possible wrongdoing by Joe Biden is fairly easy. It should not be too tough to find Hunter's texts and to see exactly what was said when, and to match it up with Joe Biden's whereabouts. Nor should it be too difficult to track down the rich foreigners and find out if any of them paid Hunter because Hunter promised a quid pro quo, or because Joe Biden leaned on them, or because they wanted to curry favor with Joe Biden.

But of course, that would entail actual work and could result in clearing Joe Biden. It's far better for Republican purposes to just hint at vague corruption without proof.

FWIW:

Time reports that Biden did indeed use pseudonyms to e-mail, and said that such was common practice to avoid having hackers attack the actual e-mails of officials. I have to admit some level of skepticism on that front. The fact that these e-mails are in the possession of NARA means IMO that Biden wasn't trying to circumvent public records rules, so that takes 5 off the table as something inherently wrong or unethical.

At any rate, there is no evidence that any of the e-mails sent out under these psuedonyms show wrongdoing, just a hope/speculation that they might.

https://time.com/6310241/joe-biden-email-alias-vice-president/

Jesus Christ.

He gave his emails to the fucking records administration, and the Republican Noise Machine thinks that because the address wasn't "joebiden@whitehouse.gov," that's evidence of a coverup?

I see your problem. You used the word think. There is no thinking in the republican party. The moment any thopught happens a person would immediately wake up and feel shame at being a repug. The best we can hope for with repugs is they try to rebrand as libertarian or tea bagger when they get too close to thinking and need to pretend they changed who they are.

You know we've seen this movie before. Last time it was called, "Challenges to Obama's Presidential Eligibility are Growing..." There were absolutely ways that Republicans could have gotten Obama booted if they hadn't decided to go for the bullshit birther nonsense. But those things were "too complicated" and 100% would have resulted in some of their own winding up in the same kind of disgrace Obama would have if they'd have pursued those avenues. So they didn't.

Instead, they used it to milk rubes like Marso for all he was worth. Just as they're now using it to milk rubes like FF. Biden's been in politics for 50 fucking years, there's absolutely some dirt he could be taken down with. Problem is, that'd also take down a bunch of Republicans (and, sure, some Dems too, but nobody gives a fuck about that) at the same time. Can't have that. So, instead, they'll parade this shit around, knowing that idiots will dance to it and say, "Any minute now, they'll do the thing and Biden will be gone."

I know, dude, zero evidence.

This is some nice awareness, but it does not explain why you suck biden's cock like it is spewing chocolate cocaine. You are just as CHUDdy for Biden as the boy is for Trump. You both claim you understand what a shitbag they are, but you are lockstep with them backpatting and pretending they do a good job.

You are the FF of the left.

So, which dumbassery are we going for this time? A lame attempt at sarcasm? A confession that there's not dick on Biden? Or, just a desperate plea for attention? I don't know. But I do know that Biden isn't going to be removed from office by this Congress. And I wouldn't be surprised if the effort to impeach him by the Republicans backfired on them.

Lol you think the charges against Trump are unjustified, your opinions on what constitutes evidence are invalid

Those are shifts in opposite directions. "Not about businesses dealings" is much broader than "just talked about the weather." "No direct evidence" is much broader than "no evidence".

What tafkats and Raoul said.

Such as it is. Surely an investigative report or select committee is the right venue for that absent anything more than conjecture and speculation. But that doesn’t have “impeachment” in the name, so it’s not good enough for the Trumpfather’s revenge scheme. Along the same lines, this is further evidence that this is transparent obvious nonsense. If it wasn’t, there’d be a real investigative committee.

If this author can't even avoid lying when evidence to the contrary is not even two paragraphs prior, I don't know how much we can rely on the rest of their commentary. It was not "no clear evidence" about "specific transactions", it's "no clear evidence of wrongdoing" and "no evidence that he was ever briefed on specific transactions".

Opinion.

News flash, family members of the President are allowed to make money, even trading on their family name, as long as they're not in government or affecting government policy.

Have you watched Joe Biden interact with people like ever? He absolutely enjoys small talk with foreign bigwigs. Speculation in any case, not evidence.

The amount was not undisclosed. It was $100,000/year, for "consulting services". What the hell does an ex-business partner of Hunter's have to do with whether Joe Biden has committed any crimes?

You know the time it takes to get a FOIA request fulfilled is measured in years and lawsuits for pretty much anything, right? And that if the emails were psedonymous, why do we know about them? Oh, that's right, because they're not, they're just aliases. They're just set up so that emails that actually need to get to the president don't have to go through joebiden@whitehouse.gov and all the bureaucracy that entails (bureaucracy designed to keep rando's emails from getting to POTUS's inbox.

That is not an opinion I think I should care about.

With absolutely zero indication that Joe Biden was involved. Is it a problem if DOJ officials are loathe to fully prosecute relatives of their bosses? Sure. But that's a bit inherent to the nature of the powers of the office. But the firewall between the White House and the DOJ does exist. Can we have congressional hearings on that? Sure. If one of those reveals that Joe Biden was involved in any of those decisions, breaching the firewall, sure, that's grounds for an impeachment inquiry. But no such evidence exists. Neither "whistleblower" has testified to the existence of any such evidence, their notes don't support their testimony, and others have given testimony of the same meeting contradicting them.

Enough something, but it's not evidence.

The Republicans are more than free to do whatever they want, of course. But the charges against Trump ended up being theater only because the Senate Republicans were spineless cowards. They still are.

Yes, public option is really dispositive of whether something actually happened or not, especially after months and months of Republicans constantly making shit up. Then again, I suppose that isn't really relevant, or Trump would have been removed from office in the first impeachment. But I can sure as hell condemn the Republicans for breaking ties with reality.

Of course people should be concerned. But this isn't vigilance anymore, it's Republicans throwing a smoke grenade, pointing where it landed, and shouting "fire" for months.

I think I've read enough of this author to completely discount his pieces in the future. Thanks for the warning.

If you prefer, I can split the thread starting with the posts where you start talking about Trump, but it'll be titled "Federal Farmer tries to derail the Biden impeachment thread with Trump shit, cries like a bitch when he gets his ass handed to him tangent".

Or you could finish what you started, or keep running away I guess. Take your pick.

All I am saying to the biden bros is as you defend your man do not forget he is obviously corrupt and there is a certain problem with nepotism and the biden boys. We should correct that, and lots of what he did was completely legal when it should at least eliminate someone from his position. Biden is not innocent and is clearly immoral, unethical, and might have broken some laws in a way so common we really should do something about enforcing those things on everyone. Biden is certainly not a solution to corruption.

There is no present solution that is around to this problem, and that is the real problem.

Is Hunter Biden impeached yet?

He'd have to go to Georgia to find a peach large enough since Roald Dahl gave the last one to some kid named James.

He might find the Tron CGI transformation laser cannon and then zap himself into computer gameland, find a pipe portal to the marioverse and then hump princess peach.

beware, that might be the plot of the next supermario movie.

there are a few ways he might get impeached.

He's certainly getting close to the point where I won't be voting for him!

I’m definitely not. Not after he took credit for the coke I left in the White House.

Wow illegal immigrant votes. 2020 election is invalid.

We're going to build a giant didgeridoo and make Australia pay for it.

Bump.

Bump.
Hey, at least the number of posts you’re running away from is going down.

Sadly, he's still running from the trauma of seeing his mom going down.

I’m not running away from anything because I’m not obligated to answer your questions.

And hence we're not obligated to take you seriously.

If, in the future, it strikes you that we have treated you unfairly, we shall simply point to this post.

11 pages and Joe Biden still hasn't been impeached?

WTF is going on here? Chop, chop, Congress!

You are if you want to convince anyone that anything you say isn't a total ass-pull at best, something you were fed by Fox News/Newsmax/OANN/talk radio and eagerly slurped down without bothering to think about it at worst.

Particularly the factual things, or the opinions that hinge on factual things being true.

Like, it WOULD HAVE been unfair if the news media didn't report on Trump's larger inauguration crowd than Obama's... but it's not true.

You do a lot of this. And your lies are suspiciously similar to Trump's, which is why no one actually believes you that you don't support him.

Remind me again how long your Trump criminal thread went on before he was indicted?