Posted on 09/18/2023 8:49:50 AM PDT by CFW
If there's "no evidence" of wrongdoing, as many pundits insist, why is the Republican House majority fooling with an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden's business dealings with his son, Hunter? Well, when talking heads say, "no evidence," they mean "no smoking-gun proof." And they're right; the current case against the president probably wouldn't prevail in court. But there really is evidence of corruption and sleaze around Joe Biden, even if, so far, it doesn't rise to courtroom standards. While impeachment proceedings will likely go nowhere, Americans are entitled to pass their own judgments based on that evidence.
Absolutely No Evidence
"House Speaker Kevin McCarthy backed an inquiry despite no evidence of Biden's wrongdoing," Vox's Li Zhou insisted last week.
"U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber is backing an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, despite no clear evidence of wrongdoing by the president," sniffed the Duluth News Tribune's Jimmy Lovrien.
"Mr. Biden repeatedly said he had 'never discussed' and had 'never spoken to' Hunter about his business dealings, and Republicans have produced no evidence that he was ever briefed on specific transactions or deals," according to Luke Broadwater of The New York Times.
You'll note how "no evidence" morphs into "no clear evidence" about "specific transactions"—those goal posts must be mounted on wheels. But a lot of the same outlets saying there's no evidence spend a lot of ink disputing the persuasiveness of evidence they tell us doesn't exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Reason usually becomes indignant regarding any prosecutorial over-reach, police brutality, or lengthy prison sentences for non-violent crimes. But they have been mainly silent regarding the January 6th prosecutions.
And his credentials for making this statement are what?
not only is the media narrowing the supposed crime, but they are picking the issue that is least critical. The main issue is Bidens taking bribery money.
.
The Democrats will only think an investigation would be justified AFTER rock-solid proof has been firmly established in a court of law. They say “no evidence” but they really mean “no proof”. They don’t want to begin until after they end. The media lets them get away with this gambit.
I thought that was how it worked now?
The democrats impeached Trump with “no evidence” except their interpretation of what he meant when he asked Ukraine to “do us a favor” and look into [Biden’s corruption in Ukraine]
Which was legit because Biden is ON VIDEO admitting he extorted Ukraine for a BILLION DOLLARS IF THEY DIDNT FIRE THE PROSECUTOR looking into his son’s dealing with a company there.
“not only is the media narrowing the supposed crime, but they are picking the issue that is least critical. The main issue is Bidens taking bribery money.”
They gloss right over that issue. Oh, they can only trace $7 million to the Biden family. No one asks “Why” or “For what”? What did the Biden family do for that $7 million?
The Biden Crime Family’s particular brand of in-your-face extortion really takes the cake.
Crackhead son Hunter gets a lucrative seat on a corporate board in Ukraine
and pockets tens of millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party.
Hunter wasnt hired b/c of his practiced expertise in whoring, drug use, and other obscene
failings. It is because he has been taught how to collect bribes from foreign foes.
The dimwit Biden figures taxpayers will never figure out how he got a beach house, 4-5 mansions,
a collection of Rolex watches, a classic car, a designer wardrobe, etc.....all on a govt salary.
There was no wild fire in Canada this year. I know I saw the smoke but never saw a fire. Therefore there was no fire.
They are such good people everyone wants to give them money. China, Russia and Ukraine.
“The main issue is Bidens taking bribery money.”
************
And...using his office for personal gain.
To paraphrase something I’ve been saying for years:
Where the Democrats and mainstream media are concerned, to take down Biden, no amount of evidence is sufficient. To take down Trump, no amount of evidence is necessary.
Actually, "no proof" means that nothing has been fully adjudicated in a court of law. Much like the evidence of voter fraud. No court actually heard the evidence itself. everything was dismissed on technicalities like 'standing', 'ripeness', and then 'mootness'. Not even the supreme court would touch it with a ten-foot pole, I suspect because they wanted to continue breathing.
<>And they’re right; the current case against the president probably wouldn’t prevail in court.<>
BS.
Rudy Giuliani related that he brought down the five families in NYC for RICO with less than the evidence against Brandon.
If there was plenty of evidence, there would be no trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.