606
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

During the first hearing of the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene was interrupted for a specific request – to not show pornography.

Ms Greene said at the House Oversight Committee hearing, “It is sad that my Democratic colleagues pretend to care about women’s rights while allowing Hunter Biden to exploit women.” She was holding up a blown-up photo of a plane ticket and a photo of a nearly-naked woman for whom Hunter Biden allegedly purchased the ticket.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

He's taken a few steps to help his son which could make him an accomplice, but only if Hunter is a criminal.

They're stretching, but they know that. They just want something to stretch.

[-] [email protected] 58 points 9 months ago

I'm not sure that's really true. The only thing they've pointed at is that prosecutor being fired in Ukraine, but that was because the prosecutor was corrupt and people all over the world were calling for it. Also the prosecutor was notably corrupt by not investigating the company Hunter was working for (so Joe getting them fired actually went against his son's interests)

[-] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

Well no it's not true. They're just saying it, and I only repeat it here because the question was asking for their argument and not facts. Biden almost certainly has a bias for his son (go figure, most dads would) but I haven't heard anything that's actually substantiative in regards to impeachment. They're all hot air.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Shokin did not start Burisma investigation, according to his deputy the case was completly dormant the entire less than the year he was in office (yes, he was in the office for less of a year in total).

All political parties in Ukraine (except the ruling one which was blocking the process) started his impeachment, because of the corruption and also because he refused investigating who ordered to open fire at protesters during Euromaidan protests.

His removal was requested by the United States, European Union, World Bank and IMF. Either Hunter really has a lot of friends or Joe Biden was doing his job, by refusing to provide aid until office responsible to crack on corruption was doing its job.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Is that "shit shit, I almost blew my cover"?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Did "They're stretching, but they know that. They just want something to stretch." not let you know I thought they were full of shit the whole time?

Their whole platform is nothing but stretching lies into shit that sounds just barely true enough that it isn't immediately shut down.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

He's taken a few steps to help his son which could make him an accomplice, but only if Hunter is a criminal.

He hasn't taken any steps to help his son with Burisma or Ukraine or anything legal, afaik (and the GOP would be shouting it from the rooftops if it existed). He maybe have taken steps to help his son with addiction, but that wouldn't make him an accomplice. Hunter is a criminal.

Your opening sentence looks like a propaganda admission that's followed with backtracking to gain normal human support. Maybe you didn't intend that, but that one opening sentence looks sus af.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Well your statement made me look into it and I was just wrong on a few things. I thought Biden was more active in what his son was doing. I didn't think it was illegal, but I did think it was a mutual thing.

Looking into it, though, that's not at all true. I apparently did buy into some of the propaganda. Thanks for keeping me honest and not just being a dick about it, always nice to have a good interaction online.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

It's also hard to tell if someone's being genuine. I think people grossly underestimate the amount of foreign, nation state level propaganda that occurs on social media. And even if they acknowledge it exists in general, they rarely suspect they've encountered it.

I don't think the US government actively participates, but they absolutely monitor. If the US does participate , it's indirectly by asking someone else to do it for us, ala Five Eyes. There are other governments that give zero fucks about getting caught.

US political parties absolutely do though. I'm actually surprised Hillarys's campaign got so much shit for clearly labeling when they did it with "Correct the Record". Though they picked a shitty name, I think that was the right way to go about things.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago

(X) doubt. If he had done anything illegal, the repubs would have made that known by now. Instead it’s going to be a boatload of bullshit allegations.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Indeed. They've already investigated this six ways from Sunday, and they've found nothing. It's Hilary and Benghazi all over again - the modern republican strategy of repeating a edit: ~~law~~ lie often enough people start to believe. With their base, it doesn't even take that much repetition.

this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
606 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18138 readers
3679 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS