Impeachment hearing live updates: Republicans target Joe, Hunter Biden
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON−House Republicans are holding their first impeachment inquiry hearing on Thursday, fueled by allegations President Joe Biden has financially benefited from his family's foreign business dealings.
GOP lawmakers have long targeted Hunter Biden's work overseas. But while investigators have produced evidence revealing the president's son and his associates made millions from the affairs, they have yet to produce concrete evidence that shows the president personally benefited from those dealings.
Republican lawmakers have called three witnesses for the Wednesday hearing, including a forensic accountant, and former assistant attorney general and a legal scholar. They have also vowed to subpoena Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's brother, James Biden's, bank records as early as this week.
Follow along with live updates from USA TODAY reporters in Washington here.
Top Democrat knocks impeachment push: 'No smoking gun, no gun, no smoke'
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, delivered Democrats' opening rebuttal against House Republicans' accusations, pointing out the infighting that has embroiled House Republicans as they work to avert a shutdown.
"These are Republicans talking about Republicans. This isn't partisan warfare," Raskin said, flanked by staffers holding up signs reading out criticisms moderate GOP lawmakers have levied at their hard-right colleagues. He also displayed a clock counting down until the impending government shutdown while he spoke.
Raskin, echoing other Democratic sentiments, took aim at the lack of evidence directly tying the president to his son's business dealings.
"Back in the reality-based world, the majority sits completely empty-handed with no evidence of any presidential wrongdoing, no smoking gun, no gun, no smoke," Raskin added. "They got nothing on Joe Biden."
- Ken Tran
White House calls out impeachment inquiry as government shutdown looms
As House Republicans pursue their first impeachment inquiry hearing into Biden amid a looming government shutdown on Sunday, the White House issued a warning about the state of the country.
"There are 61 hours and 55 minutes until the government shuts down because of extreme House Republicans' chaos and inability to govern," the statement said.
"The consequences for the American people will be very damaging, from lost jobs, to troops working without pay, to jeopardizing important efforts to fight fentanyl, deliver disaster relief, provide food assistance, and more. Nothing can distract from that," it added.
- Sudiksha Kochi
Impeachment inquiry hearing kicks off
Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chair of the House Oversight Committee, kicked off House Republicans' first impeachment inquiry hearing into President Joe Biden. The leader accused Biden of being involved in his son's foreign affairs and selling the "Biden brand" for millions of dollars.
"What were the Biden's selling to make all this money?" Comer said. "Joe Biden himself."
- Ken Tran
Which legislative body has the power of impeachment?
How can a president be removed from office? First, the whole House of Representatives, not just one committee, has to approve articles of impeachment, or charges, against the president.
Next, the Senate would hold an impeachment trial. If the upper chamber finds the president guilty, they would be removed from office and can be barred from holding elected office again.
Three American presidents have been impeached in the House, but no leaders have been found guilty in the Senate.
How do you watch the first impeachment inquiry hearing?
As the House Oversight Committee holds the first hearing into President Joe Biden on Thursday, you can stream the proceedings here.
- Marina Pitofsky
Has Joe Biden already been impeached?
No, the inquiry launched by House Republicans is an investigation into the president over allegations that he benefitted from his family's foreign business dealings. It doesn't mean he has been formally charged, or that he'll be removed from office.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has called the formal impeachment inquiry a "logical next step" for House Republicans, even though Republicans were already looking into the president and his family's finances.
After Republicans wrap up their investigation, which could take anywhere from a few months to over a year, the House Judiciary Committee would have the option to draft formal articles of impeachment against the president. Those articles are the vehicle for an impeachment trial, which would be how lawmakers could potentially remove Biden from office.
- Savannah Kuchar and Marina Pitofsky
Which presidents have been impeached?
Three presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives: Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
Johnson was impeached in 1868 after he fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, an ally of the so-called "radical Republicans" in Congress who opposed Johnson's Reconstruction policies. Clinton was impeached in 1998 for perjury before a federal grand jury and obstructing justice, revolving around evidence that Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern at the time, and tried to cover it up.
Trump was impeached twice. In 2019, he was impeached after he allegedly withheld funds to Ukraine in an attempt to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden, his political rival. Trump was impeached again in 2021 for his alleged incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.
−Sudiksha Kochi
House GOP investigators say an inquiry is 'just that, an inquiry'
Democrats in Congress and the White House have assailed House Republicans for elevating their ongoing investigations to the level of an impeachment inquiry, arguing GOP lawmakers lack the evidence to begin an inquiry.
Republican lawmakers involved in the process say otherwise, claiming the inquiry will give investigators stronger authority to uncover evidence that President Joe Biden was involved in his son Hunter Biden's overseas business dealings.
In a memo to lawmakers in the committees handling the impeachment inquiry, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chair of the Oversight committee, along with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio., chair of the Judiciary Committee and Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chair of the Ways and Means Committee, explained to members the inquiry "is just that, an inquiry."
"This impeachment inquiry will enable the committees to gather information necessary to assess whether President Biden has engaged in impeachable conduct," the memo reads. "The decision to begin this inquiry does not mean that the committees have reached a conclusion on this question.
−Ken Tran
Who are the witnesses in the impeachment inquiry hearing?
The hearing is not expected to present new evidence, but it will offer up House Republicans' arguments for why they are proceeding with an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and provide an overview of what GOP investigators have uncovered thus far.
House Republicans plan to have three witnesses testify to explain the basis of the inquiry and what lawmakers have found regarding the foreign business dealings of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son:
- Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant
- Eileen O'Connor, former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's tax division
- Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University
House Democrats have tapped Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, to testify against the inquiry and argue House Republicans have yet to offer up substantial evidence to open an impeachment inquiry.
−Ken Tran
Marina PitofskyKen TranSavannah KucharSudiksha KochiCandy WoodallUSA TODAY
Tags
Who is online
481 visitors
You can see it now live.
Witnesses are being introduced.
Comer is expected to show two dozen pieces of evidence at this first hearing.
It is 10:40 AM EST and we only have 11 members logged in.
Maybe they are avoiding this.
That's not it John.
You are not a part of it, so it may be best that I keep it to myself.
Being on NTers and watching this hearing at the same time are not mutually inclusive actions.
Automatically thinking they are, is just obtuse.
Are people shunning you Vic? That would not be nice.
That's still not it.
They will return in a few minutes.
I guess I'll have to ask someone that knows more than you do.
He just arrived, but he doesn't know either.
The key person is missing.
Your mysterious elusiveness is boring.
I don't blame you. I don't like mysteries either.
Chairman Jim Jordan's opening statement:
"This is a tale as old as time. Politician takes action that makes money for his family, and then he tries to conceal it. Never forget four fundamental facts.
Hunter Biden gets put on the board of Burisma and gets paid a lot of money. Hunter Biden's not qualified.
Fact number two: to sit on the board, not my words, he said he got on the board because of the brand because of the name.
Fact number three: the executives at Burisma ask Hunter Biden to help them with the pressure they are under from the prosecutor in Ukraine.
Fact number four: Joe Biden goes to Ukraine on December 9, 2015, and gave this speech attacking the prosecutor that started the process of getting that guy fired.
Those facts are consistent with what the confidential human source told the FBI, and the FBI recorded in the 1023 form, the same form that the Justice Department didn't want to let this Committee see. And all those facts all of that was further confirmed yesterday with the information that the Ways and Means Committee released from the whistleblowers Shapley and Ziegler... Joe Biden fired the first prosecutor, and the second prosecutor came in and dropped the charges. That's exactly what they wanted to be done. And the final step is the Biden Justice Department tries to sweep it all under the rug. They slow-walk the investigation. They let the statute of limitations lapse for the most important years, 2014 and 2015, the Burisma years when all that income is coming in. They try to put together this sweetheart deal and get it past the judge. And we learned yesterday they weren't allowed to ask about political figure one. Political figure one is the big guy, Joe Biden. And they would have gotten away with it all except for two brave whistleblowers who sat in those seats two months ago and told their story and a judge in Delaware who said we're not going to let this happen. That's why we're here today. That's why this inquiry is so important."
This is the real witch hunt, right here.
nowhere
no evidence = nowhere
Former Assistant AG Eileen O’Connor: "The Hunter Biden investigation must not be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of a broad landscape of corruption."
It is on C-Span 3
They're trying to impeach Hunter Biden???
Why do you try to be so deliberately obtuse... of course the investigation into Hunter should be looked at ALSO as to potential corruption and influence pedaling. To not do so would be a dereliction of duties.
You feel that a private citizen's alleged crimes should be looked into by a House Committee with no law enforcement capabilities? Not only that, but a private citizen that has already been investigated (still on-going) by the Justice Department?
When it pertains to the President of the United States and possible criminal activity by said President, then absolutely I do. The House Committee would not be looking at potential crimes by Hunter but if Hunter used his father in any fashion AND if said father used the position of his office to facilitate Hunter's business.
By your statement there should be no looking into or questioning Ivanka for the patents issued by China during the Trump presidency or for the Saudi money invested with Jared.
Don't let partisan glasses blind you to reality.
Too bad there is absolutely no evidence to show it pertains to POTUS.
1 HUGE difference to your comparison. Both Jared and Ivanka were appointed members of Trump's administration, and so not private citizens.
Or did you forget that little fact???
They don't, but they are blinding the MAGA members of the House committee.
That's what the inquiry is for, to insure there are not direct ties between POTUS and Hunter. So far the DOJ and the White House have not been forthcoming with requested documents and the inquiry gives more teeth to the House in their subpoena powers. I'm willing to wait until the end to make judgement but I do want to see a full investigation just like I wanted to see a full investigation into the Russian collusion issue with Trump (that failed to prove the connection).
Don't be condescending. Didn't forget any piece of it but it's a fair example. There is evidence that Hunter flew on Air Force 2 several times with his dad and banking records to show money flowing to Hunter and others shortly after such visits. I don't know very many "private citizens" who would get to fly on Air Force 2 to "visit" and "sight-see" in foreign countries.
I have my doubts as your replies are so partisan.
Here's a tie for you,,,,,father and son.
But thank you for confirming the inquiry is a witch hun t trying to find a reason, instead of having a reason to call for the inquiry. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
No it is not. You are comparing a private citizen to 2 appointed political government employees. Comparing apples to haystacks.
In what way? Give specific examples.
You are just like a broken fucking record. There's a lot of evidence released that ties the Biden family to money coming in from overseas including China. There are emails from Hunter talking about selling the family brand. What does the Biden family have to offer in exchange for the money they have received? That's a valid question that needs to be answered. I'm willing to wait for the investigation to be completed, but I believe that it should be completed.
There is smoke but you refuse to acknowledge any potential of fire. If you refuse to see how your reply's in this matter are partisan, then there's nothing that can be said that will change your mind.
Don't let your partisan lasses blind you to reality.
Always the defense of the indefensible here. A bunch of one trick ponies.
That's the thing Ozz, they got no evidence, they got no proof, they got nothing, never have and never will. There is nothing tying President Biden to it, absolutely nothing.
Unlike the former 'president' claiming all these criminal indictments for crimes that he obviously committed are witch hunts - this 'inquiry' is indeed the witch hunt, the real witch hunt.
Poor things. So desperate. Hillary and President Obama were right - some folks cling to their ignorance and deplorability,
Welcome to 2016.....................
There's no smoke - so no fire, you all have nothing but defending the indefensible.
I was trying to figure out how Scotland was relevant myself.
Talk about partisan! This isn't about the "Biden family" it is about POTUS and there is no evidence linking Joe Biden to this.
There may be smoke, but the fact that there is no evidence of fire is why the impeachment inquiry is putting the cart before the horse. They have no evidence to investigate so they are witch hunting hoping to find evidence.
Yup, the real witch hunt. Exactamundo!
yeah, yeah... ignore all the evidence that has been released including the email stating '10 percent for the big guy'. Keep your head buried.
As we saw in the first Trump impeachment, the House needs the extra muscle of an impeachment inquiry as this time the White House and the DOJ are refusing and/or slow walking the release of requested documents. That same problem impacted the House during the first Trump impeachment inquiry. The House at that time had as much evidence as the House has this time around, but still had to start an impeachment inquiry due to obstruction from the Trump White House as well as House Republicans (kind of like the House Democrats are doing now).
And it seems you also ignore the difference between an impeachment inquiry and an impeachment vote. The House needs to hold the inquiry before the vote, once the vote is taken then either Biden is impeached or not.
But you know, for all your whining about no smoke, you sure do sound like a Trumpster from his first impeachment also. Didn't know you were MAGA...
They didn't. The Bidens have integrity and morals and decency unlike the former 'president' and his enablers/supporters/defendersoftheindefensible
clear as mud
My god, you sound like a MAGA hatted Trumpster defending your guy....
Instead of your usual snark and/or deflections why don't you actually join the conversation.
the former 'president' and his criminal enterprise of an administration - and the 4 criminal indictments the turd is facing and his lifelong grifting, thieving, and thugging - I'm not sure what the first impeachment was about - was it when the former 'president' held Ukraine hostage?
JFC, speaking of whining, that seems to be all magat's have, endless whining and bitching and pissing and moaning
Those that refuse to remember and learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
when i think of morals, I think of a drug addict, who while sleeping with his dead brother's wife, illegally buys a gun, throws it away and tries to blame "illegal mexicans" for it's disappearance. And fights with his dead brother's wife/girlfriend over keeping a stripper he impregnated on the company payroll. And let's not even touch the truly disturbing behavior.....
There has been on evidence regarding POTUS released.
Joe Biden looks pretty slim to be considered a "big guy". To bad you only have conjecture on who that is. Again, no evidence.
from the fbi summary of his interview:
I guess joe Biden was correct about that. Democrats can’t wrap their head around something that complicated. They think corruption only occurs when guys In masks are caught on camera giving bags of cash with dollar signs on the bags to politicians in hotel rooms. They still think in terms of silent movies from the 1920s.
this is much too complicated for them.
How original and profound. . .
[Deleted]
enablers/supporters/defenders of the indefensible/magats = white trash racist scum
[Deleted]
We didn't vote for Hunter. We voted for Joe. This is the true witch hunt deflecting from the seemingly endless list of crimes by the former 'president' and more likely coming, indictments that is, LOL!
Prof Turley, great opening statement
He basically said that the House should not impeach Joe.
They still need this inquiry to get information.
That’s what he said. That is, this inquiring is needed before a decision should be made on impeachment or not.
He said the same of the Trump impeachments.
This is the main tool the House has for getting more information.
Turley: "while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment."
Exactly. Not a comment a partisan hack would make.
Guess some of our esteemed members here were wrong about him.
Turley, like the rest of MAGA on this committee, just wants to stretch this nonsense out for the length of the 2024 election campaign.
[Deleted]
None of those distinguished witnesses are advocating impeachment at this time.
Of course, if they don't click their heels and go along with the left they are "partisan hacks."
He's non-partisan John. He is only interested in the law. Remember the law?
have you ever seen turley's website? calling that non partisan is ludicrous.
Third story down on that site has Turley criticizing Trump.
Haven’t seen his website because I’m not obsessed over this. I did however watch his opening statement and calling that statement partisan is completely asinine.
I didnt see his opening statement.
Why would looking at his website be "obsession"? It takes less than a minute to look through the topics he addresses on his website. Almost all of it aligns with the MAGA worldview.
[Deleted]
I can copy headlines of stories from his site if you like.
John, I am a follower of that site.
I think you meant that for Sparty
I could flag your posts as taunts like you do as well but I don’t.
The dems are wasting everyone's time talking about Trump. Always talking to the trash that elected them.
TDS in play ….
Just like the Bidenites here on NT.
Concerned citizens have arrived
Who dat?
The gentleman on the right is the man who uses FOIA to get to the truth. The one on the left is demanding an end to the deep state.
The one on the left is demanding an end to the deep state.
Hilarious. First he might want to look for the beginning of it.
“…demanding an end to the deep state…”
A definition would be helpful here.
Otherwise citing something so nebulous only diminishes the veracity of anything that follows.
I doubt I could make you see what you don't want to see.
Besides the deep state has benefited democrats way too much.
Can’t see it because it is invisible, amorphous, and fictional.
You don't want to see it. It is protecting Joe Biden.
“I doubt I could make you see what you don't want to see.”
And I doubt you could ever offer proof to defend your purely polemic positions.
You don't want to see it.
That is so untrue. I desperately want to see it. Please show it to me. As certain as you are of its existence you should be able to follow through on that. Or is it like religion, and requires nothing more than faith?
That is the far right conspiracist nutjob Tom Fitton.
Exactly, it does not exist, no such thing.
Bob Menendez would like a word . . .
The deep state does not want Menendez running for another term next year against a Republican with all that baggage.
(deleted)
It's hard to tell with people who are always angry.
I suppose the university made them that way. All that talk about slavery and "climate."
It appears you triggered some of our friends on the left.
You mean the baggage the deep state would have dug up on him? If they truly serve Democrats, shouldn’t they have refused to investigate him in the first place?
If you look at charges and supposedly what they claim to have as evidence, it would be a slam dunk case. Menendez is determined to go to trial and run again. That will be yet another problem for the DNC's Senate race next year. That race isdifficult because of how many seats democrats have to defend which already favors Republicans.
If they truly serve Democrats, shouldn’t they have refused to investigate him in the first place?
It isn't that simple. Look back at the last time Menendez went through this. Menendez, even back then, was at odds with the controlling wing of the democrat party. He opposed Obama's Iran Deal and he opposed Obama's gesture to normalize relations with Cuba. Do you recall how he was charged back then? Eric Holder let it be known that an indictment was forthcoming without ever stating the reasons.
Menendez got off on a technicality, but this time the corruption is hard to ignore. They want him out before the next election.
That must be where the elusive Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster reside
Really? Based on what metric?
He’s dead in the middle of the party ideologically. He’s the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, and sits on two more committees.
Legislatively, he’s the #1 leader in the party . In the last Congress, he was the primary sponsor on more enacted bills than any member of the Senate. He also gets more influential cosponsors than any member. How could he possibly be at odds with the controlling wing of the Democratic Party? He is the controlling wing of the Democratic Party.
A moderate is the controlling wing of the democratic party?
Think about the insane policies plaguing the country.
I have to admit there is some entertainment value to this hearing.
One of the Democrats just exposed one of the expert Republican witnesses as a crackpot "stop the stealer".
You mean he tried to slander two witnesses.
I have to admit there is some entertainment value to this hearing.
Oh, that’s right. You did mention that you were a fan of the Three Stooges. There’s an uncanny resemblance.
Are you still watching the three stooges?
Don't have to! When we've got 'hearings' like this going on - the true witch hunt.
What station are you using to watch the hearings?
Why the fuck would I be watching the true witch hunt?
Except maybe for the comedic value?
I thought you said you gave up the Three Stooges to watch it?
You obviously don't get sarcasm or are pretending not to understand
How's this for sarcasm:
better informed about what?
It's not possible to become better informed on some poster's 'articles', no way whatsoever. Those 'articles' do not inform, they peddle disinformation and whackjob conspiracy theories and are best ignored.
Especially if you won't read them and therefore not be able to comprehend what is written.
What's not to comprehend here? This is the real witch hunt. Ya got nothin' on Joe, nada, zip, zilch, diddly squat, not a damn thing.
Why are the Republicans afraid to have Rudy Giuliani testify before this impeachment committee ?
I don't think it's fear, John. It would be like having Barack Obama testify at the Simpson trial.
I think you need to read more.
“…like having Barack Obama testify at the Simpson trial.”
Meaning just what?
An unbelievable correlation, even for you.
Pleeeeease explain that.
One has no connection to the other.
Get it?
Ah, thank you.
read period
I was wondering when the invisible dots were coming out to play.
I thought Rep Nancy Mace was great!
Mace: " This is Bullshit! Democrats, please, spare me your hypocrisy, Joe Biden is corrupt, and here is the evidence ...
Nancy Mace said something to the effect of "we all know Joe Biden took bribes from Burisma".
She is lying, we don't "all know" any such thing. The alleged witness to that effect is an international criminal on the run from US law enforcement and the allegation has been specifically debunked by the person who supposedly bribed Biden.
Mace comment was shameful.
Turley finally got to respond to the ridiculous attack
The shitheads are talking about Trump again.
I had to turn it off and went outside to cut the grass.
A much more productive use of my time.
I have decided that I am fine with all of this. Oh yes, I could continue to protest that impeachment was never intended to be such a purely partisan political tool, but at this point, that is tilting at windmills. No one cares anymore about what should be a serious, solemn, and rare procedure, and I am not going to convince anyone otherwise.
The reason I’m good with it is that once again, next year, we will be faced with the weakest of choices for president. So, if we can get Trump behind bars and Biden sent off to Shady Acres Retirement Home, we might actually get some fresh blood in the White House. America wins.
It will only take that long if Republicans either think they could lose the House or might gain in the Senate after the next election. If the former happens, and Democrats control the House, that would end the impeachment push. But if Democrats continue to control the Senate, there will never be a trial. Everything will turn on strategic timing.
The chances of neither Trump or Biden running in 2024 is very slim.
The country cannot risk another Trump term, for any reason.
Delete Trump, insert Biden …..
The dolt chairman of this committee, James Comer, has started interrupting Democrats during their time.
I hope everyone has had a good look at the democrats today.
Why? They're not partaking in this start of the revenge and retribution 'campaign' of the former 'president' or wasting our tax payer dollars on this, the real witch hunt.
Don't you think the AG should be held accountable?
For what?
For not playing Connect the Q-Dots.
there's that projection
BREAKING : CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 TV networks have all blacked out coverage of today's Biden impeachment inquiry , only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history -- in stark contrast to their wall-to-wall coverage of the 2019 Trump impeachment inquiry.
Paul Sperry on X: "BREAKING: CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 TV networks have all blacked out coverage of today's Biden impeachment inquiry, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history -- in stark contrast to their wall-to-wall coverage of the 2019 Trump impeachment inquiry #MediaBias" / X (twitter.com)
They are nothing but propaganda mills.
If you are having trouble accessing the hearing here's a link for you
I have it uninterrupted on C-Span 3. The point isn't finding it.
The point is we have a bunch of authoritarian radicals running the so-called news for the 3 main TV networks and the two far left cable news stations.
Your definition of "radical" has little correspondence to reality.
Censoring news stories by a free press is beyond radical
Your understanding of reality appears to be closer to fantasy.
Why would networks waste time on this garbage (the true witch hunt)?
That's true. There isn't.
Sad state of affairs to be sure.
We are seeing firsthand what the democratic party has become.
[deleted]
Spit it out Vic, or stop doing whatever it is you are doing.
That is not necessary.
Mission accomplished!
Right now the degenerate democrats are demonizing the witnesses.
That is part of the reason the left is censoring this hearing.
The Republican side of the hearing room dais is almost empty.
Wow, I needed a good laugh today. Work was really stressful.
This is hilarious!
They also have to vote on bills, you must know.
How so?
Moskowitz is incredibly good.
That will go viral for sure.
He is a degenerate.
The racist, white nationalist , Q Anon goofball Paul Gosar is up.
What an embarrassment to this country.
Oh, I see, this is like HD. We just call them names.
Rep. Paul Gosar's lengthy ties to White nationalists, pro-Nazi
Web On social media, Gosar regularly engages with far-right personalities and memes. Gosar has repeatedly promoted the work of and tagged Vincent James Foxx, who was recently …
Rep. Paul Gosar courts QAnon. What a total and complete shock …
Web Mar 18, 2021 · Rep. Paul Gosar courts QAnon. What a total and complete shock (not) Rep. Paul Gosar will speak to QAnon - and that's not even the shocking part Opinion: The …
This is too easy.
Someday you must tell us what QAnon is.
What is a "White Nationalist?"
There is Rep Tlaib. She is worried about a shut down. Don't investigate Joe Biden. We have no time for this.
Talib …. A regulation POS and a disgrace to the state of Michigan
Along with the governor.
If they can convince Joe to not run, Whitmer might be the replacement.
Here is citizen Talib in her youth:
And they did - twice, for legitimate reasons … unlike this ridiculous clown show. This has been one long cringeworthy exhibit of how to lose support from the electorate. The faux outrage over everything that’s ok for the Trump crime family to do in plain sight but treasonous for the Biden family to allegedly do without evidence (according to whistleblowers in hiding) is embarrassing as hell. The world is laughing at you Republicans.
They are not legitimate without the Senate voting to convict.
Which is also why I desire that the House do a good job with the inquiry and put all the facts before the voting public, but I don't have any real desire for an impeachment vote unless the Republicans can hold the House and get 2/3 of the Senate as any number less would not guarantee a conviction. Too many Democrats would blindly support their party and vote to not convict, while vocally holding forth that their vote was "payback" for the non-conviction votes in the Senate for Trump.
But if sufficient hard evidence can be put forth, it may persuade Biden to drop out of the race and then the Democrats could find someone better to put in.
Bank statements, emails? Does any of that ring a bell? It should.
The deflections to your points are pretty obvious.
the strawman about "treasonous" allegations (projecting their own hysteria) , blatantly dishonest claims about "no evidence" and the ever popular "but Trump"
Nort even an attempt to provide an innocuous explanation for the emails, whatsapp threats, IRS expert testimony, offshore accounts etc...
Its almost over. The last Democrat has spoken and now they are hearing from the couple remaining Republicans.
I'm sure you'll be glad when it's over.
This entire show, and it is but a show, is an embarrassment…all while we are but daze away from another self imposed government shutdown. This generation of ‘leaders’ simply sucks… time to pass it on for it demonstrably cannot get any worse.
You sound like one of the democrat committee members.
You must have watched.
BREAKING: Diane Feinstein has died....................................
looks like that hag Foxx isn't far behind her - ugly hateful old bat!