The House Democrats, Mainstream Media, and NPR
Posted on 09/18/2023 12:37:03 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
When Republicans took power in the House of Representatives, they began trying to find evidence to make the case that President Biden had profited from the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden.
They have not found that evidence, and struggled to bring public focus to their investigation – that is, until this week, when it was given the imprimatur of impeachment.
But this impeachment case is different – both in substance and in process – than the ones that loom large over the legacies of former presidents like Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Defund National Propaganda Radio
As a matter of fact, this is the first impeachment proceeding according to the constitution. Bribes are particularly listed in the constitution as reason for impeachment!
Article is a buncha bullsqueeze.
Precisely right on the money about Nixon. Thank you for being voice in the wilderness on that.
Would love it of Pres Trump does just that in 2025.
Tamara Keith
Born: 1979 (age 43 years)
Education: Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, University of California, Berkeley
Figures.
Nixon had the dirt on Project Paperclip. Nixon was on board with cleaning out the deep state.
What they did to Nixon was more than political. Like with Kennedy and now Trump, it was existential.
1st impeachment - President Andrew Johnson’s administration acknowledged that he broke the law for which he was impeached.
2nd impeachment - Bill Clinton admitted to committing perjury for which he was impeached.
The 3rd and 4th impeachments (Trump) did not have the element of acknowledged law breaking agreed to by both political parties, but were instead based on circumstantial circumstances and presumed wrong doing.
What has changed is Congress’s standards of what they can get away impeaching for.
Imagine that, repeating government talking points on taxpayer funded radio? I’m shocked I tell ya, shocked!
Connect the dots and the picture is clear.
Joe got money for favors; his family got money in exchange for favors or the expectation of favors from Joe. It amounts to the same thing.
One thing I remember from previous impeachments: you don’t need to convince a jury beyond the shadow of a doubt — if the evidence of misdoing is there, that’s enough.
“evidence to make the case that President Biden had profited from the business dealings of his son,”
NPR and the Dems want to spin the notion that Joe Biden had to personally pocket cash money to be guilty of bribery and influence peddling. BS. If the fruit of the sale went to Biden’s family, friends, cronies, etc., Biden does not get off the hook for the bribery problem.
If a career bank robber hands over every penny he steals to family members, is he somehow less culpable for bank robbery? NPR wants to con the public into believing that bank robber isn’t guilty — “see, there is no evidence that he got the money himself”. No sale.
Fixed it for you.
It’s the Joe Biden is Robin Hood defense. Joe may have actually swayed what he did, but he received no funding, because the money went to the poor members of his family, not him. He robbed from those rich foreigners who had to cede their ill-gotten gains (that Joe just incidentally helped them get, keep, get in the future) in exchange for giving some to his poorer then they relatives of Joe who were needful of getting richer! See, nothing sticks to Joe’s cleaner than clean hands! Well, if you blur your eyes, and look askance, and yell, “NYAH, NYAH, NYAH!” Louder than all the people trying to say differently… then Joe’s hands are clean of all the dirty tricks and bribes and all the paper trail evidence. But if you don’t look, you can’t see, and if you can’t see, you really can’t know, and therefore the tree never really fell in the forest because, well, we didn’t see!, see? And since we aren’t in the forest, we didn’t hear it either… tree? What tree? Bribe? What bribe. Video? What video? Laptop, what laptop. Oh, that laptop. That’s Russian hoax. Ignore it. Besides, we didn’t look. Did we mention we are deaf, and blind, and dumb? No, not that kind of dumb… the kind that means we can’t talk… no, I’m not talking now. You just are imagining I’m talking now. Really, it’s a a ventriloquist… really… uh he, um, I’m over there, in the next room… no…really!
The Biden impeachment inquiry has merit.
Right. The silly origin was the big capitalist radio owners didn’t let any alternative views to be heard. Wasn’t true.
Now ALL cities and towns hear 1,2,3 or 4 local NPR stations, often a city station or any college or university. And the non-NPR stations are woke, with almost no exceptions.
So NO reason to fund the woke NPR.
Website says “there are over 1,000 NPR stations.”
These morons are so good they can even lie to themselves, and they BELIEVE it!
Defund those dumb-a$$es.
“ 1st impeachment - President Andrew Johnson’s administration acknowledged that he broke the law for which he was impeached.”
Did President Andrew Johnson really break the Law?
“ The Tenure of Office Act (1867-1887) was a controversial federal law meant to restrict the ability of the U.S. president to remove certain officials that Congress had already approved. Passed by the 39th Congress on March 2, 1867 it was used as the legal premise for impeaching President Andrew Johnson, whose Reconstruction policies were unpopular with the Radical Republicans in Congress. It was repealed in 1887 and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1926.The repeal of the Tenure of Office Act strengthened the power of the executive branch of the U.S. government.“
Source: Tenure of Office Act The History Channel.
dvwjr
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.