The Impeachment Inquiry
Link to quote: Five moments from fiery Oversight Committee impeachment inquiry hearing (msn.com)
Yesterday the House Committee considering the impeachment of Joe Biden held a hearing to hear from witnesses who at the very least showed that Joe Biden lied about not knowing of his son's business and proved beyond doubt that Joe met with Hunter's business associates. The left-wing media would have ignored it if it were not for the hostility unleashed by the Committee's prime witness Tony Bobulinski, who made a point to call certain democrat member liars. The other witnesses were Jason Galanis, another former associate of Hunter Biden, who was allowed to testify remotely, and the democrats "star" witness, who was once an "associate" of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but suddenly says he was part of a scheme to dig up dirt on Joe & Hunter Biden. (Gee, I wonder what made him decide to say what democrats apparently wanted him to say.)
There was also an empty chair at the table for Hunter Biden, who once demanded a public hearing, put changed his mind after being deposed under oath and under the threat of perjury. Galanis is serving out a sentence related to a $60 million scheme to defraud a Native American tribe. He testified from prison.
The hearing got hot immediately after Bobulinsky called out democrats for being willing to lie to protect Biden:
"We keep hearing from certain corners that our democracy is at risk and democracy is on the ballot. Yet the same people preaching this mantra know better. They continue to lie directly to the American people without hesitation and remorse," Bobulinski said.
"Reps. Dan Goldman and Jamie Raskin, both lawyers, and Mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor with the SDNY from New York, will continue to lie today in this hearing and then go straight to the media to tell more lies," he added.
Five moments from fiery Oversight Committee impeachment inquiry hearing (msn.com)
The hearings key moments were when Rep Byron Donalds presented a flawless example of the money trail to Joe Biden.
And AOC making a complete ass of herself via not knowing that RICO is a crime:
Where does this go from here? : There may be criminal referrals that the corrupt Merrick Garland will be forced to ignore.
In other news:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in the Middle East to try and pressure Israel into a cease fire.
Trump said he is considering the idea of abortion with a 15-week restriction as a reasonable compromise.
Biden’s campaign now has more that twice as much money as the Trump campaign.
California voters (whoever they are) narrowly approved a $6.4 billion bond to help homeless people with mental illness & addiction.
Democratic lawyers are now well funded and plan to challenge third-party candidates’ efforts to get on the ballot.
An appeals court heard arguments over a Texas law that lets the police arrest migrants who illegally enter the state. The law is blocked for now.
The E.P.A. issued new tailpipe pollution limits meant to ensure that most new cars are either electric or hybrid by 2032.
The Federal Reserve, in a move that is sure to juice up the economy, signaled that it was likely to cut rates three times this year.
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
Good morning
It may be a time for March madness and Baseball's beginning, but it is also Louisiana Derby week.
As we feast on sports & gambling, Joe Biden continues his stumping of the key battleground states that his handlers are so worried about.
gee, I don't have a problem watching maga dipshits in congress publicly humiliate themselves by demonstrating fealty to a criminal traitor in their lead up to losing another election.
But you had no problem defending this lie:
US House Republicans on Monday released a report they said contradicted sensational January 6 committee testimony in which a former aide to Donald Trump described being told that as the attack on Congress unfolded, the then president was so eager to join supporters at the Capitol he tried to grab the wheel of his car.
“The testimony of … four White House employees directly contradicts claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson and by the select committee in the final report,” read the report by the House administration subcommittee on oversight , which searched for alleged bias or malpractice in the January 6 investigation.
“None of the White House employees corroborated Hutchinson’s sensational story about President Trump lunging for the steering wheel of the Beast,” the report said, referring to the colloquial name for cars that carry the president.
Questioned by Liz Cheney, an anti-Trump Republican and January 6 committee vice-chair, Hutchinson said Engel did not dispute the account. It was soon reported that Engel did dispute it, and wanted to testify under oath.
The transcript was among those the January 6 committee did not release, citing security concerns. The transcripts were eventually released with redactions.
House Republicans’ report contradicts witness account of Trump’s wheel-grab | Republicans | The Guardian
Are you referring to AOC?
is she a maga dipshit now?
She is a mega dipshit and a constant embarrassment
No...just a plain ole run of the mill leftist dipshit.
Yes, she is a mega dipshit (helped you out on the spelling).
LOL Donald acted like had discovered the mother lode. In fact that story is many months old.
======================
www.politifact.com /article/2023/nov/14/whats-behind-republicans-claim-that-joe-biden-rece/
Here’s what we know about that $40,000 check to Joe Biden
Madison Czopek 11-14 minutes
A Nov. 1 memo of bank records showed that, in 2017, Sara Biden, the president’s sister-in-law, sent Joe Biden a $40,000 check marked “loan repayment.” The White House said it was repayment of a short-term loan.
Joe Biden neither held public office nor was running for president then.
Money laundering refers to financial transaction schemes that aim to disguise the origin of illegally obtained money. Available evidence does not show that the money Joe Biden eventually received from Sara Biden was obtained illegally.
Republicans investigating President Joe Biden’s family business dealings have focused on a $40,000 check written to Joe Biden before he was president.
"BREAKING → @GOPoversight has uncovered a $40,000 payment of laundered Chinese money directly to Joe Biden himself," Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., wrote Nov. 1 on X, formerly Twitter. "Joe Biden isn't just implicated in his family's corruption scheme — he's a key financial beneficiary."
This claim comes from a check House Republicans made public on Nov. 1, along with a memorandum of bank records — the fourth memo released during the investigation — that they said "traced payments from Chinese companies to Joe Biden."
These bank records show that the money in question appears to have originated with a Chinese business that Biden’s son Hunter had engaged. But the best information we have suggests Scalise overreached by not providing proof of a crime.
"Money laundering" is a legal term that assumes the money was obtained through illegal means; there’s been no illegal activity shown. The $40,000 came to Joe Biden in a check written by his sister-in-law for what it says was a "loan repayment."
Neither Scalise nor the Republicans’ House Oversight Committee spokesperson responded to PolitiFact’s request for comment. But we dug into Scalise’s claim to learn what is and is not known about the $40,000 payment — the latest piece of evidence Republicans have pointed to in a range of accusations over Biden family finances.
In September, after years of investigating the Bidens’ foreign business dealings, Republicans opened an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. The evidence Republicans have provided so far, including during the impeachment inquiry, has not proved Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing. House Republicans on Nov. 8 issued subpoenas for Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s brother, James, as part of the inquiry.
Here’s what we know.
House Republicans on Nov. 8 issued subpoenas for Hunter Biden (right) and Joe Biden’s brother, James (left) as part of their impeachment inquiry. (AP)
A $40,000 check to Joe Biden
The Republicans’ Nov. 1 bank memo outlines a web of transactions that involve a Chinese company, Hunter Biden’s businesses, and Joe Biden’s brother and sister-in-law. The Republicans’ framing is that Biden’s sister-in-law sent Joe Biden money that originated from sources linked to China.
On Aug. 8, 2017, Northern International Capital wired $5 million to an account for Hudson West III LLC, a company Hunter Biden formed with a Chinese business associate that aimed to help CEFC, a Chinese energy company, establish liquefied natural gas contracts in the U.S. That $5 million was the only money in the Hudson West III account then. The memo describes Northern International Capital as "a Chinese company affiliated with CEFC."
Also on Aug. 8, 2017, Hunter Biden wired $400,000 from Hudson West III to Owasco P.C., Hunter Biden’s professional corporation. Owasco P.C. already had $100,000 in it from a wire transfer from CEFC Infrastructure, another company linked to China, bringing the account’s balance to $500,832.
On Aug. 14, 2017, Owasco P.C. transferred $150,000 to an account for Lion Hall Group, a consulting company linked to Joe Biden’s brother James. That account’s balance was $151,965.
Sara Biden, James Biden’s wife, withdrew $50,000 from the Lion Hall Group bank account on Aug. 28, 2017. That same day, either Sara or James Biden deposited $50,000 into their personal account. Sara Biden also withdrew $1,000 from the personal account, bringing the balance to $49,047 as of Aug. 28, 2017.
On Sept. 3, 2017, Sara Biden signed a $40,000 personal check to Joe Biden. The check’s memo section said it was for "loan repayment."
In summary: In 2017, Biden’s sister-in-law sent Joe Biden money that originated from sources linked to China, according to the Republicans’ memo.
Available bank records contain no evidence of wrongdoing by the president, nor do they provide evidence that Joe Biden knew where the $40,000 originated.
"The President, when he was a private citizen, loaned his brother money, and his brother promptly paid him back," said Ian Sams, a White House spokesperson. Sams said bank records in Republicans’ possession show that the check was repayment for a loan and cited a press release that Oversight Committee Democrats released Oct. 20.
In it, ranking committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., described the transactions as "personal transactions of the President’s family members that have no relevance to any legitimate congressional inquiry."
PolitiFact reviewed the records for two bank wires, one for $40,000 and one for $200,000, from an account linked to Joe Biden to James Biden. The records were not explicit documentation of outgoing loans.
Checks the Oversight Committee released show that James Biden then appeared to repay his brother in full, without interest, within two months of each alleged loan.
Republicans also released a $200,000 check Sara and James Biden had written to Joe Biden on March 1, 2018; it also said "loan repayment" on the memo line. But because it was sent the same day Americore Health LLC , a company that manages rural hospitals across the U.S., wired a $200,000 loan to James Biden, Republicans have claimed it proves Joe Biden benefited from his family’s "shady influence peddling of his name." FactCheck.org covered it here.
"It’s certainly plausible" that the $40,000 check was a loan repayment, said Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the House Oversight Committee’s chair. But even if it were, he said, "it still shows how Joe benefited from his family cashing in on his name — with money from China, no less."
On Nov. 1, House Oversight Committee Republicans released this personal check dated Sept. 3, 2017, from Sara Biden to Joe Biden. (House Oversight Committee)
What is money laundering?
By definition, money laundering involves efforts to obscure the source of money that is obtained illegally, according to government agencies , legal sources and experts.
"In order to have money laundering, you have to have a predicate crime — an initial crime that creates illegal profits," said Ross Delston, an attorney who specializes in anti-money laundering. "People throw the term 'money laundering' around a lot."
A link to China does not mean that money was obtained illegally, Delston said. And unless it’s illegally obtained, it would not be considered money laundering.
The bank memo Republicans released Nov. 1 included no new information that would prove the money Hunter Biden received from Northern International Capital or CEFC Infrastructure was obtained illegally.
Thus far, none of the memos have provided evidence that the money paid to Biden family members and associates was illicitly obtained.
And Joe Biden's accountant under the pains of perjury says there was no record of any loan.
Schwerin, 54, said during the Jan. 30 deposition with House impeachment investigators that “I don’t recall” Joe Biden having loaned out any money between 2009 and 2016, during which Schwerin helped the then-vice president prepare tax and financial disclosure forms.
“Certainly through the 2016 tax period, I don’t recall any loans that he made,” said Schwerin, who added that he “potentially” did not see any loans Biden made in 2017, when Schwerin was “still was helping [Biden] with his household finances … as he was becoming a private citizen.”
James Biden and his wife Sara wrote a $40,000 check to Joe on Sept. 3, 2017, after James and Hunter received $ 5.1 million from Chinese-state linked energy firm CEFC, the first brother confirmed to the House committees in a Feb. 21 deposition. The check was marked as a “loan repayment” from a July 28, 2017, wire.
No sign of $40K loan from Joe Biden to brother James, first family’s moneyman says — undercutting White House story (msn.com)
Politifact is a leftwing cover organization.
"Schwerin, 54, said during the Jan. 30 deposition with House impeachment investigators that “I don’t recall” Joe Biden having loaned out any money between 2009 and 2016, during which Schwerin helped the then-vice president prepare tax and financial disclosure forms.
“Certainly through the 2016 tax period, I don’t recall any loans that he made,”"
-
The 40,000 was in 2017, a period where the accountant seems to admit his knowledge of Bidens transactions might be incomplete.
The GOP impeachment has collapsed. They dont have a single fact of misconduct by Joe Biden. It is fun watching them humiliate themselves on national tv though.
And you somehow think that indicates there could have been a loan?
Funny how you stretch credulity all of a sudden.
Was it? Where's the documentation of the loan?
and then there is...........REALITY!
Per your own "evidence". A wire transfer during a period of time the accountant wasn't familiar with.
Thanks for your unbiased opinion /s
ole Parnes really pushed the case forward though,,,
It's really amazing watch so many progressives parrot lies and ask for more. Remember where this started? With Joe Biden lying to the country on the debate stage that his son never had any business with China and that his son's laptop was "russian disinformation." Whether they were ignorant dupes or willful liars so many progressives echoed every claim the Bidens made. Much as they want to pretend it never happened, we remember.
And now Hunter has confirmed Bobulinski's testimony and we all know the Bidens were lying. Not only was Hunter doing business with China, his father met with his partners and spoke to them. And the laptop documenting all of it, including Hunter threatening a CCP aligned official with his father if he wasn't sent millions. (which he was).
They've been proven to be fools. I guess that's why so many progressives attack the House committee with such bitterness. Rather than being angry at the liars who lies they swallowed and pushed themselves, its easier to be mad at the people who expose the lies. It's a coping mechanism to avoid having to deal with the shame of being used,
Bozolinski made a big deal about a meeting with Joe Biden in Los Angeles in which he says Biden asked about Hunter's business prospects. That is 2017.
One of the Democrats asked Bozo "who was president in 2017"?
Biden was a private citizen in 2017.
In fact Bozo had never met Biden, at all, prior to 2017.
So what? He still had plenty of influence.
So what? So do a lot of private citizens. Not a high crime or misdemeanor.
Taking money from China and lying about it clearly qualifies.
Don't worry about an actual impeachment. It is getting late in the congressional calendar for that. What is more likely is that Joe Biden will have these hearings in the background going into an election.
of course. This is "Benghazi hearings 2.0". But the public is more on to this bullshit now.
Lefties think that was some kind of victory.
But the public is more on to this bullshit now.
I showed you what the public thinks in post 4.2.1
Of course the republicans should have never investigated Hillary sacrificing an Ambassador to continue to run guns through Libya.
Do you remember that the state department had the military members preparing for a rescue, changing out of their uniforms so as not to upset the Libyans?
Or how about this:
May 6, 2013 / 6:20 PM EDT / CBS The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.
The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks - CBS News
We learned a lot during those hearings.
For starter's look up FARA.
when did the Bidens register as foreign agents?
Tell that to Flynn who wasn't even accused of influence peddling when he wasn't working for government- but failed to disclose he had been working for several Russian companies when being considered for a new roll in government.
How soon leftists forget.
Hunter never filed as a foreign agent while working for both Ukraine and China- and that was during Brandon's time as VP.
Hunter profiting from Brandon's position in government is illegal. Brandon had full knowledge of it; and is just as legally culpable.
I don't remember you saying 'So what' to all the people who continued to bring up that the Trump Organization was trying to negotiate a deal to license the Trump name in Russia in 2015, a negotiation that ended after 3 months because it wasn't going anywhere. Trump was a private citizen at the time but that didn't stop several members from jumping on that bandwagon.
While in the White House, Donald Trump's businesses collected millions from at least 20 foreign governments, including a vast majority spent by China
What's good for the goose.......
Exactly. Hillary was caught lying. She made up some BS about a "spontaneous demonstration of students" to avoid taking responsibility for the security failures. The same people parroted those lies and when they could no longer defend the lies, they didn't get mad at for lying to them, but got mad at Republicans for exposing them. Then, to cover their embarrassment, they decided the hearing were a failure because Republicans didn't put in her prison. That, going back to Bill Clinton, was the Standard of Conduct for Democrats, anything they did that walked on the blurred line between illegal/legal activity was perfectly acceptable. Get caught lying to avoid responsibility for an ambassador dying? Lie and mishandle classified handled information and cover it up? Who cares, so long as the Obama DOJ will protect you!
But enough Americans were bothered by her conduct revealed by the Benghazi investigation to keep her from being President.
Exactly. Biden and Trump are the same.
Thanks for making my point. It's awesome when Democrats use Trump to compare Biden to.
They both made money from China? Or was it Biden's extended family? And was Biden in office during the alleged money from China, because Trump sure was.
Trump's COMPANY made the money in legit business transactions. Biden? Oh yeah. Paperless loan to his brother. HEHEHEHEHE
All I remember hearing was "clandestine Russian spies" over and over again......and could never prove it.
But don't care that bIden has done the same thing.
All they know is "he beat our queen so we must get him at all costs.....and , oh, yea...he sends mean tweets."
Keep spinning.
No spin to it. Sorry about your luck.
So it's another day ending in "Y".
It would be kind of hard to fund that when, in essence, California is broke.
Yes, I read that the other day. I believe New York and Illinois are also in the toilet with debt.
It's not a matter of IF New York and Illinois will have the same problem, it's a matter of WHEN.
No matter how you spin it, yesterday was a huge fail for Jordan, Comer, Trump and the whole gop. Even conservative commentators were embarrassed and ashamed of the clown show they put on...
Keep telling yourself that.
Here is what people think:
Most Americans say they think President Joe Biden was involved in his son’s business dealings with Ukraine and China while he served as vice president under Barack Obama, according to a CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
A majority, 61%, say they think that Biden had at least some involvement in Hunter Biden’s business dealings, with 42% saying they think he acted illegally, and 18% saying that his actions were unethical but not illegal. Another 38% say they don’t believe Joe Biden had any involvement in his son’s business dealings during his vice presidency. Just 1% believe Biden was involved, but did not do anything wrong.
CNN Poll: A majority of Americans believe Joe Biden, as VP, was involved with son’s business dealings | CNN Politics
What a pathetic deflection to redirect me away from a Democrat run shithole not being able to pay their bills.
Keep up with what you are responding to.
If you took everything the buffoon Bozolinski said, and accepted it at face value, it still would not amount to an impeachable offense.
Was he the one testifying from prison?
I'll leave it for others to answer John.
Is it an impeachable offense for the president to conceal taking money from foreign governments, some of whom are enemies of the United States?
The one who got a 20-year sentence and is now saying Trump bad, was the one democrats had as a witness.
even were that true, Biden wasnt president at the time
Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease
Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease
At least they had lease paperwork showing it was above board.
Yea, and after a year there is no evidence that Biden was not "above board", but wasn't Trump supposed to turn over his control of business so to not interfere with the presidency...?
And there was an actual physical business.
Yes..........
.
You were saying.................
Another highlight was when Jamie Raskin wanted to subpoena Bobulinki's Blackberry, so that members could go through everything on it. Comer put it to a voice vote.
Has anyone ever noticed how democrats scream their aye or nay to fool people into thinking they had the majority?
Comer said the Yea's have it (Yea being no subpoena), Raskin laughed and said I request a roll call vote. Comer called for such a vote and the Yea's did have it.
Usually the ones with something to hid are the loudest...
They can't ever seem to do anything in a spirit of goodwill.
An odd expectation while the gop has operated in utter false grace throughout. The gop cannot articulate a crime to accuse Biden. They have no shreds of evidence. It was another gop clown show!
Your threshold is to actually have a photo of Chairman Xi stuffing money into Joe Biden's pocket?
Funny that there is no such standard for his political opponents.
Exactly. Under the Biden standard, Trump can't be guilty unless he's on tape declaring "I am committing an insurrection"
why would Trump ask tens of thousands of people to march to the capitol and "peacefully protest" ?
what would have been in that for him ?
My threshold is the articulation of and the evidence of an impeachable offence. You know It is not illegal for the friends and family if powerful and influential people to make a living or to engage in business. Just ask Jared and Ivanka. The mere appearance of influence peddling is not a crime. This entire gop impeachment inquiry is an exercise in false grace and false accusations. Now the gop is utterly exposed...
Right there, is where you whole argument falls apart. "The mere appearance of influence peddling". When it comes to the Biden inquiry, it's not appearance they are seeing. It's actual evidence influence peddling. Not the made up shit the Democrats and left have been running with since 2016.
Then why have they not called for a vote of Impeachment then? If they have the evidence you claim then why are they wasting time and dragging it out? Why are Republicans and record saying the committees don't have that evidence?
Maybe because they realize that without the hard direct evidence, there's no chance of the Democrat controlled Senate voting to convict.
I said it when this all first started, I think the House investigation is more about bringing dirt to light for the November election than actually getting a conviction in the Senate.
Exactly. They don't have anything close to impeachable.
This is all about revenge for what Dems did to Trump. Nothing more. Many of the Republicans in the House are on record saying they refuse to vote on impeachment without that hard direct evidence that so illudes Comer and Jordan.
Carrying out the inquiry taking too long for you? It's not like they are fabricating / altering evidence as the Democrats had done.
Precisely! Senate won't vote to convict anyhow. The whole point here is to show the American people how dirty, corrupt, and treasonous the Biden family and administrations are.
AHHHHH..........to "peacefully protest".
After 15 months it's only the circus they wanted or they are incompetent.
15 months of the FBI withholding documents and democrats stonewalling. That part is always omitted. From an appearance perspective, it appears they are covering something up. And, the more they conduct themselves in this fashion, the more it comes out that they are, in fact, trying to cover things up.
Your deflection is noted and rejected. Comer and Jordan still have nothing but "the appearance" of something bad.
I was hoping they would have found something by January and Biden would have already announced his retirement, but damn I'm still sitting here disappointed.
You'll have to do more than deflect from the expected incompetence of the House Populists to hit a nerve. "Apparently" the guy that hides in his basement, drools through speeches and might break a hip getting on AF1 is too smart for the likes of ol' Comey and Jordan...
More than likely there is true evidence of corruption from Joe, but Comer knows if he shows his hand now, he may get a vote in the House but knows there is no way Democrats in the Senate would vote to convict.
I believe That evidence will be shown in September-October when there will be no way Democrats can successfully spin it and the true corruption of Biden will be for all to see.
Either way he knows he would never get a conviction in the Senate, no matter how irrefutable evidence may be,
This is supposition. You are assuming things based on partisan bias without evidence. I have no allusions that Comey might want to try and force a House vote near election day, but that doesn't mean the rest of the House will follow him off the cliff. That majority margin is razor thin these days and some of those boys need reelection in swing states. I think all your going to get is noise.
Then dispute the information and not the source. So far you've failed to do so.
Hence the "more than likely" and not just "there is".
"You are assuming things based on partisan bias without evidence"
Or maybe it is your partisan bias that refuses to see the evidence
Except for the testimony and evidence saying otherwise.
This inquiry was over before it started... 100% politically motivated witch hunt funded by Putin.
I'll leave that up for others to judge.
Already been proven Vic.
That Putin funded it?
who pushed Smirnoff's testimony again ?
Who did Parnes testify was behind this push to find dirt on Biden again...?
Where have you been for the last eight years and counting of Democrat bullshit investigations?
At least Republicans are allowing Democrats (that the Democrat leader of the House selected) to be on the committees; aren't hiring producers to manufacture their narrative into a prime time event; and aren't destroying evidence that refutes their position.
Let me know when Republicans move to impeach- like the Democrats did twice based on nothing but bullshit.
At the way the Democrats are acting, I'd say the opposite. The more the inquiry exposes the more panicked they get.
It's kind of fun to watch, actually. Especially when their band of useless idiots get involved defending Traitor Joe and his crackhead kid.
Dem Rep Jared Moskowitz askes for vote on Biden Impeachment...
Personally I think a legislated compromise is a great idea, but I doubt it will happen. The extremists still run the parties and the current party definition (from both sides) is to kill any reasonable compromise in the pursuit of the ideal. We see that daily here as well.
Personally there was nothing wrong with the old viability standard, but here we are.
I have no problem with the old 24 week standard, the 15 week standard seems to be the consensus with a lot of European countries.
Last year (wow, it's already March. Damn.) I brought up a compromise I would have liked to see and there were a lot of progressives who would only bitch about it rather than discuss it. Was a shame. All they continued to do was bitch about how Roe v Wade was lost, constitutional rights, etc. Hell, even RBG said the SCOTUS ruling that set Roe v Wade was a bad decision. Around 70% of the voting public does support some sort of abortion rights, but the way our two-party system is currently working there's no hope for any compromise.
As long as we continue to elect the dumbest bigots and idiots to Washington, there's no hope for change.
Taking the whole of RGB interview, she said that the privacy argument used to decide Roe didn't progress women's rights, but it was the only sound legal foundation they had to get it done.
HIPPA laws were passed on the foundation of Roe. So if Roe is gone where does HIPPA stand? At some point soon someone's going to figure they can monetize health information and then all bets are off the table.
Compromise is a dirty word these days. The populists have too big a voice and too little logic.
It will take time for the majority to notice that the populists don't know how to run a country of 300 plus million people. If history is any indication it may take an actual act of bloodshed for them to take that notice. I hope not, but the majority of people still seem more interested in who's on Dancing with the Stars than who's running their city councils or what their House Rep is voting on.
yeah, but how are they going to get the rwnj thumpers and xenophobes into the voting booth without a wedge issue?
The Dems use the same wedge issues, they just take the other side of the coin. This is why were are where we are now. The two major parties have whipped up their partisan populist bases on wedge issues and hostility.
Yep.
IMO HIPPA was taken too far. Because of it, too many health care givers are reluctant to report any potential issues to authorities for fear of that law. Perhaps one day in the future someone will submit a logical reduction in those laws but I wouldn't expect to see any real changes in my lifetime.
Agreed so very much. It's too bad our school system no longer teaches civic responsibility, critical thinking or real history any more. The emphasis has been given over to passing standardized tests and feeling good about one's choices.
That's not true at all.
o if Roe is gone where does HIPPA stand
HIPPA is the law until Congress says it isn't. Same as it was before Dobbs. There's no connection between the two.
I would submit that Roe v Wade was part of the thought process behind the HIPPA laws. The primary purpose of HIPPA's privacy regulations and security regulations is to protect the confidentiality of patient health information. It's easy for me to see that the passage of Roe v Wade was an attempt to codify privacy (after all, that's what the Progressives keep telling us). There may not be a direct connection between Hippa and Roe v Wade, but there is a connection none the less.
Now this is very much true because HIPPA was a set of laws passed by Congress whereas Roe v Wade was an opinion passed by SCOTUS. The removal or overturning of one does not impact the other in any fashion.
I don't think these two statements can be reconciled. Roe was a Court decision in 1973. HIPPAA was passed by a Republican Congress (that by and large opposed Roe) and signed by a Democratic President in 1996, decades later. Its very hard for me to see a connection between the two.
I didn't say the two were connected, but that the people who wrote the HIPPA laws could have had Roe v Wade as part of their mindset as they were writing.
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, using in part the decision from Griswold to determine that
In 1996, the Court still carried that the 'right to privacy' was an implied right in the Constitution.
The HIPPA laws were created in August, 1996.
The Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade occurred June, 2022.
I'm not trying to say the two were connected but could very well have been in the mindset of the people who wrote the HIPPA laws. The 'right to privacy' is a big part of HIPPA.
Now if SCOTUS revisits Griswold as some have suggested, this could be a huge impact on HIPPA laws.
I heard they wanted "end of democracy" but that was already taken.
Again, the HIPPA law was legislated by a Republican Congress that largely rejected Roe and the claim that abortion has anything to do with a right to privacy. Privacy was not a concept invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960s and there's no evidence that I am aware of that Republican (or even Democratic) legislators had Roe as part of their mindset. It wouldn't make any sense for a Republican Congress to base legislation on principles that it rejects.
SCOTUS revisits Griswold as some have suggested, this could be a huge impact on HIPPA laws.
No. It would have zero effect on HIPPA. That's not how our Constitution works. Griswold created a right to privacy, but Congress's power to legislate HIPPA is not premised on Roe, or Griswold but rather its power to regulate interstate commerce. Griswold could be overturned tomorrow and HIPPA would remain the law of the land until Congress replaced it, (unless the Supreme Court radically rewrote commerce clause jurisprudence which would affect pretty much every aspect of federal power. But again, that has nothing to do with Griswold)
You're missing what I tried to say. I agree that privacy was not invented by SCOTUS in the 60's, but when they ruled on Griswold they recognized that the 'right to privacy' is laid out by the Amendments I listed. And no, there's no evidence that any legislator had Roe as part of their mindset when the HIPPA laws were written but there's also no evidence they didn't. The 'right to privacy' is a big part of HIPPA which was really brought forth by the Griswold case and reinforced by Roe.
And I worked for 23 years in a major health insurance company and I can state that patient privacy is a huge part of HIPPA. If Griswold were overturned it would not automatically overturn any HIPPA laws but I can definitely state that there would be a future impact to HIPPA. HIPPA has four major parts:
While it was initially passed with the dual goals of making health care delivery more efficient and increasing the number of Americans with health insurance coverage, patient privacy and data security were always meant to be part of it. HIPPA laws were passed in 1996 and the Secretary of HHS was tasked to create standards for the privacy of individually identifiable health information. Those recommendations were to be presented to Congress within a year. But the initial rules were very complex and confusing and it took a long time to rework them into what we have today. So the 'Final Rule' on security and privacy was published in 2002.
In the absence of evidence, it's hard to conclude that a relationship exists. I can't prove a negative.
d I can state that patient privacy is a huge part of HIPPA. I
I agree patient privacy was a major motivation behind the law.
an definitely state that there would be a future impact to HIPPA. HIPPA has four major parts:
It can't. They are independent of each other. If the Court had created a HIPPA like right to medical privacy based on a Constitutional right to privacy discovered by the Court in Griswold, than that "right" would be in danger if Griswold were overturned. But Congress passed HIPPA (including the privacy provisions) based on its power delegated under Article 1 of the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. Thus only Congress can take the "rights"created by the law away unless, as I mentioned, the Supreme Court were to radically curtail Congress's power to regulate commerce.
Think of it this way. The "right" to abortion was created by the Supreme Court in Roe. When that case was overturned, the right went away. IF Congress had passed a law implementing Roe, there would have no actual change to abortion law in the country when Roe was overturned. The statutorily created "right" to an abortion would still exist in all 50 states. It's only because Congress did not exercise its powers under the interstate commerce clause and pass such legislation that it didn't happen. Congress has already acted with regards to HIPPA so that's not an issue here.
Yes and no. I've already said that there would be no immediate impact to HIPPA if Griswold were overturned. What I said was there would be a future impact to HIPPA. The future impact would require either Congress to decide to change the laws or for SCOTUS to accept a case against HIPPA that had them state the law was not constitutional.
I'm thinking much bigger than just the immediate impact of SCOTUS overturning Griswold. Other than that we really don't have an argument here. IMO there are changes that are needed in the HIPPA laws. For instance the submission of data to the NICS system is hampered by HIPPA. But until Washington if fixed I don't expect to see any real changes here either.
Yes, but that's true whether Griswold is overturned or not. Congress can get rid of all HIPPA protections tomorrow if it wanted to regardless of Griswold.
Yes that's also true.
Trump went from 6 weeks last week to 15 days over the weekend to a total national ban today.
Does this "campaign" seem competent?
As I recall, Trump was against 6 weeks and for a time unsure of restrictions all together.
I have only one question for you: Do you believe in restrictions of any kind?
Yes
24 weeks worked reasonably well for 50 years
One country, one standard of healthcare.
Meh. A politician in the middle of a campaign speaking at an event where he says what he thinks the attending audience wants to hear.
How shocking.. I mean, the next thing you know he'll be speaking in a Southern accent or pulling a bottle of hot sauce out of his pocket.
Like Biden, lol...
ENJOY!
On October 22, 2020, Bobulinski appeared at a Trump campaign event, where he accused candidate Joe Biden of being involved in illegal activities. Bobulinski was later invited by Trump to attend the final 2020 US presidential debate, which also took place that day.
Do you think Lev Parvas will have to serve 20 years in prison after that performance. The people who can surely get him off are democrats.
I truly doubt it........................now