Archive link if needed: https://web.archive.org/web/20230912220825/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/12/biden-impeachment-kevin-mccarthy-announcement
Archive link if needed: https://web.archive.org/web/20230912220825/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/12/biden-impeachment-kevin-mccarthy-announcement
Since the U.S. is amazing at letting crimes against humanity happen legally, has Biden’s crimes broken any actual US law?
Oh yeah, there's for sure a ton of bribery and corruption stuff related to Ukraine that they could get him on if they really tried. But personally i doubt this is more than the usual partisan political theatre. It's called the uniparty for a reason, they may put on a show for the plebs but at the end of the day they stick together. If they do push Biden out it's because both parties have agreed that it's necessary for damage control, or to get an even bigger warhawk in there.
Would you mind expanding on this? That was my actual question; the actual “investigation” being political theater is obvious even to members of Congress of both “parties”
I mean for one thing his ties to Burisma through his son and god knows how many other shady dealings in Ukraine, though to be fair probably half of Congress has their fingers in the dirty pie of Ukraine and profiting one way or another. But the fact that we now know for a fact that he pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor looking into the very corruption the Bidens were involved in takes it one step further.
Interesting, turns out they actually are asking questions about that…
https://www.aol.com/weather/comer-digs-questions-biden-treatment-144459279.html
Meanwhile, other sources say this firing definitely was about ousting corruption in Ukraine (despite that this makes no sense in 2023 especially given the very obvious nature to everyone that Nazis are running rampant)
Didn't they impeach Trump for doing pretty much the exact same thing?
Yup.
No. This is political theater and they know this will go absolutely nowhere.
He was selling influence via his son though right? And he's on camera bragging about bribing Ukraine to drop its investigation into Hunter, though I don't know if the US would consider that a crime.
The selling influence stuff is tenuous if not impossible to prove as it’s mostly political speculation and the republicans doing their best to try and find a boogeyman. Plus even if it would 100% true; then everyone in congress would be guilty of that, and there’s no way they would want to risk setting a precedent.
Could you link the Ukraine video though by any chance? That sounds interesting.
Jesus!
Here that video: https://twitter.com/newscoreca/status/1701731427434246220?t=yxv6Vc_cfqnE78IVTA3ABw&s=19
The word that gets cut off at the end is “solid”
You do realize that the prosecutor was fired only a year and a half after that meeting with Biden right?
If Biden was fuming to get the guy fired then a year and a half seems like he took his sweet ass time.
Plus that prosecutor wasn’t even the one investigating Hunter, it was the guy that replaced the fired one! So why would Biden be fine with the new guy opening an investigation but not the old guy who was corrupt as hell?
Did you just make all of this up? Did you not hear Biden bragging about getting him fired? Is Biden lying again?
He got fired half a year after Biden said he asked for the guy to be fired. Why did they wait so long? Did they forget? If I was dead set on removing a threat, I wouldn't wait a six months to get around to it.
Also Biden stated before that event where he "bragged" that he asked for the prosecutor to be sacked because he failed to investigate Burisma. Not because he was.
This is basic information you could find, its not that hard to google. Stop listening to talking heads on the news.
Plus the case had been shelved by the Ukrainian government in 2014. There was no active case going on, so what would be the point in axing the prosecutor?
So now we're down to half a year from a year and a half and still no sources. I don't know man, I'm going to trust Jim Crow Joe on this instead of you.
So, not that hard to Google that you weren't able to?
Lmao, I misread the original article which said that the firing happened “the next year, six months later in March”.
Nice latching onto that instead of engaging anything else!
Whomp whomp.
Jesus Christ, I fucking hate Joe Biden, but all I’m asking for is sources. I don’t want to hate blindly.
He was on camera bragging at a public event how he blackmailed the Ukrainian government to fire Burisma's prosecutor, while his son was a board member. The emails and witness testimonies are pretty conclusive.
There's plenty of evidence. The problem is 1. Lack of political will to actually do anything substantial about it and 2. This is merely a political cudgel for the elections. The Republicans are using the impeachment in a cynical way to scare their potential voters back in line, and to keep discussion around Biden's corruption going. A trick they aptly learned from the Democrats.
After the elections, whoever loses will be crying how the election was stolen from them, and the cycle will begin anew.
Btw, this is exactly how Roman politics devolved during Julius Caesar's time and how they ended up with the dissolution of the republic by Octavian.
Again “He’s caught in camera”, and “There is plenty of evidence” “emails and witness testimonies”
Can you please link your sources and the videos you are talking about???
Literally check the comment below you.
A Twitter clip out of context? That’s your evidence?
You made several claims that that clip doesn’t t support either. Cite your sources is it that hard?
I'm not about to go on a 30-minute search online, only for you to come back and dispute it non-chalantly. If you are interested, find the full video, and the context behind it. This topic has been broadly covered.
So you have no sources? Stop talking out of your ass then. If it was so broadly covered, why would you need 30 minutes of research? Also why would I dispute it if the research was good?
Evidence is the burden of the accuser and the one making claims, its not my job to fact check you making shit up.
Please, don't pretend you are here to debate in good faith. From your tone it's pretty clear whatever I link to you, no matter where it comes from will be dismissed. I'm not going to waste my time thusly. Believe what you will. It is obvious that is what you wish and no matter what I say or show will convince you otherwise.
No, you got your bluff called and you have nothing to back up your claim with.
You keep stalling and saying that you’re not being engaged in good faith, or that everything will just be dismissed, when you have provided absolutely nothing as evidence.
If you want to simply lie, then going for the tone policing line is about as weak as you can go. I’ll use whatever tone I’d like for a person can can’t even give a single link to back up claims they pulled from their ass.
If you make claims it’s your duty to back them up and defend them. If you don’t want to, then don’t lie tk begin with.
Nice try.
Lol alright buddy. You are the one to talk about tone policing.
I didn't lie. You merely don't want to believe me. Which is fine by me. I have no obligation to convince you otherwise. The world doesn't spin around you.
I'm not here to hold an academic discussion, or waste my time arguing with debatebros. You were shown a link already, and it's pretty clear you aren't actually interested in it. Why would I send you more links?
I don’t want to believe you until you provide a source. Why should I take you at your word. What makes your word so infallible?
Is it that hard to understand.
You can’t make claims, and then when pushed simply say “Trust me bro”
I'm not saying "trust me bro". I'm saying go ahead and use google on your own time. I'm not interested in convincing you. I stated my opinion and explained it. If you want to do something with that go ahead. If not, then I simply don't care. I don't know how I can say this more plainly.
I've seen how you engaged the other person who gave you the link to the video. I can tell how entrenched you are in your beliefs that you will nitpick your way out of anything. I've also noticed how you will not back up your own claims with "sources". Because you aren't actually interested in "sources". You are simply using that as a lazy excuse to avoid having a normal discussion with someone, like a normal person would.
deleted by creator
Are you saying I'm a liberal? Or are you saying the other person is a liberal? It's late, been a long day, and I'm kinda high right now.
lol it's friendly fire, we get tons of reports sometimes and I love jumping into the trenches head first. Go in peace 🙏
Having secret documents at his house?
That’s not illegal if you give them back when asked, since your original possession of the documents is not illegal due to your position.
That’s why they didn’t arrest Pence, Obama, Biden, or dozens of other politicians and generals.
Trump on the other hand kept them and then lied to the FBI that he didn’t have them. What the hell did Trump think would happen?