Biden Impeachment Inquiry

[GMDino]

You're not gonna believe this...well a couple of you at least...but the gop has nothing.  

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ocasio-cortez-gop-fabricated-texts_n_6515c085e4b005bd928628ec

Quote:Ocasio-Cortez Accuses GOP Of Fabricating Image At Impeachment Hearing
Republicans claimed to show a screenshot of a text message to Hunter Biden, but the image itself was "fabricated" to change the meaning, Ocasio-Cortez said.
[/url]


[url=https://www.huffpost.com/author/lydia-oconnor]
By Lydia O'Connor
Sep 28, 2023, 04:38 PM EDT


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) accused the GOP of displaying a “fabricated” screenshot during the first formal hearing in Republicans’ impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden on Thursday.

Ocasio-Cortez’s allegations came after Republican Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida showed a message that Jim Biden, the president’s brother, sent to Hunter Biden, the president’s son, in 2018. Donalds claimed it indicated that the president benefited from fraud and money laundering committed by Hunter Biden.

The message Donalds showed, pulled from an affidavit regarding Hunter Biden, was presented to look like a screenshot from a phone, and it left out much of Hunter Biden’s original message, fundamentally changing the context of the conversation, Ocasio-Cortez said at the hearing.

“That screenshot of what appeared to be a text message was a fabricated image,” she said. “I don’t know where it came from, I don’t know if it was the staff of the committee, but it was not the actual, direct screenshot from that phone.”

The text Donalds presented showed Jim Biden telling Hunter Biden: “I can work with your father alone !! We as usual just need several months of his help for this to work.”


Donalds used that portion of the text, which was highlighted in the image he showed, to suggest that Jim Biden was saying the president would help with their business dealings.

But in reality, Jim Biden was responding to Hunter Biden saying he needed his father’s help to pay alimony, the document from the affidavit shows. At the time, the president’s son was in the depths of his drug addiction and going through a divorce.






Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez holds up an image of the actual conversation between Jim Biden and Hunter Biden. 
VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS

“What was brought out from from that fabricated image excluded critical context that changed the underlying meaning and allegation that was presented up on that screen,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

She added that doing so is technically allowed under the speech and debate clause, as Donalds and other members of Congress involved in the hearing were not speaking as witnesses under oath.

A representative for Donalds did not immediately return HuffPost’s request for comment.

[GMDino]

https://x.com/MattGertz/status/1707443788228985217?s=20

[GMDino]

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1707408658282205316?s=20

[Arturo Bandini]

GOP went completely unprepared. And it showed.

[Luvnit2]

You people amaze me. The purpose of the impeachment inquiry was to have experts say there is evidence to support the inquiry. It was not designed to be an IMPEACHMENT HEARING, they are in the early stages of deciding if there is enough evidence for an impeachment, something never done by Democrats when they impeached Trump.

So calm down and relax. Let's see what HB's and Jim Bidens's bank records tell us. 3 witnesses including Turley said there was definitely more than enough evidence to start an IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, so now they move on following the money and getting witness lists together.

Also, just for you are aware, Jordan's committee has oversight over the F.B.I. and D.O.J. They have already gathered a ton of evidence proving the F.B.I. and D.O.J. are corrupt. To me, this is or more important. We can't survive a two tiered system of justice, justice needs to be blind. It appears both D.O.J. and F.B.I. have many issues at the top of each agency.

But, hey liberals, use A.O.C. as your news source, she is proven to be non-biased and an intelligent lady.

[Luvnit2]

(09-30-2023, 11:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: You're not gonna believe this...well a couple of you at least...but the gop has nothing.  

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ocasio-cortez-gop-fabricated-texts_n_6515c085e4b005bd928628ec

You are very biased or ver naive. Why would Hunter have to go through his uncle versus Daddy Joe. Joe tells us Hunter has never done anything wrong and he is just a loving supporting father. Are you trying to say Joe lied and in reality he did not support his son.

Hunter just happens to go to the uncle he is in business with in foreign countries.

Which is it? Was Joe pissed at his drug attic son and refusing to support him? Or was Joe the loving father he attempts to portray?

Maybe we will see more when the National Archives releases 100% of the Joe Biden pseudonym emails. 

Maybe the bank records of Hunter, Jim and Joe Biden will amount to nothing. But, we will not know until it is investigated? We won't know why the Biden family had over 170 SAR's (suspicious activity reports) that the F.B.I. knew about. We won't know why the Biden family had over shell companies to receive and disburse money from.

We will find out more who THE BIG GUY IS only if it is investigated. 

Sadly, the F.B.I. and D.O.J. have major evidence against them impeding an investigation by the i.R.S. and the congressional committees. That was present at the inquiry last week also.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-30-2023, 11:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: You're not gonna believe this...well a couple of you at least...but the gop has nothing.  

I really wouldn't use anything AOC says as your opening line. She's about as far left as Majrorie Taylor Greene is right

[hollodero]

(09-30-2023, 09:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I really wouldn't use anything AOC says as your opening line. She's about as far left as Majrorie Taylor Greene is right

But what does that have to do with it?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-30-2023, 09:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: But what does that have to do with it?

No one believes either one of them, whether they are right or wrong.

[*pally*]

(09-30-2023, 06:31 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You are very biased or ver naive. Why would Hunter have to go through his uncle versus Daddy Joe. Joe tells us Hunter has never done anything wrong and he is just a loving supporting father. Are you trying to say Joe lied and in reality he did not support his son.

Hunter just happens to go to the uncle he is in business with in foreign countries.

Which is it? Was Joe pissed at his drug attic son and refusing to support him? Or was Joe the loving father he attempts to portray?

Maybe we will see more when the National Archives releases 100% of the Joe Biden pseudonym emails. 

Maybe the bank records of Hunter, Jim and Joe Biden will amount to nothing. But, we will not know until it is investigated? We won't know why the Biden family had over 170 SAR's (suspicious activity reports) that the F.B.I. knew about. We won't know why the Biden family had over shell companies to receive and disburse money from.

We will find out more who THE BIG GUY IS only if it is investigated. 

Sadly, the F.B.I. and D.O.J. have major evidence against them impeding an investigation by the i.R.S. and the congressional committees. That was present at the inquiry last week also.

Joe can be both the loving father and a father who refuses to give his addict son any more money. They aren’t mutually exclusive. If you think they are, then you obviously have never had an addict in your life.

I talk to my nieces and nephews all the time and that includes encouraging them and suggesting ways to approach their parents with problems.

Family dynamics are complicated things

[GMDino]

(09-30-2023, 06:31 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You are very biased or ver naive. Why would Hunter have to go through his uncle versus Daddy Joe. Joe tells us Hunter has never done anything wrong and he is just a loving supporting father. Are you trying to say Joe lied and in reality he did not support his son.

Hunter just happens to go to the uncle he is in business with in foreign countries.

Which is it? Was Joe pissed at his drug attic son and refusing to support him? Or was Joe the loving father he attempts to portray?

Maybe we will see more when the National Archives releases 100% of the Joe Biden pseudonym emails. 

Maybe the bank records of Hunter, Jim and Joe Biden will amount to nothing. But, we will not know until it is investigated? We won't know why the Biden family had over 170 SAR's (suspicious activity reports) that the F.B.I. knew about. We won't know why the Biden family had over shell companies to receive and disburse money from.

We will find out more who THE BIG GUY IS only if it is investigated. 

Sadly, the F.B.I. and D.O.J. have major evidence against them impeding an investigation by the i.R.S. and the congressional committees. That was present at the inquiry last week also.

(09-30-2023, 09:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I really wouldn't use anything AOC says as your opening line. She's about as far left as Majrorie Taylor Greene is right

I'm not believing her...I'm believing the actual transcript the gop had but manipulated to make it look like it was something else.

They have all this "evidence" but need another public hearing to collect "facts"?  Their first witness said there's nothing there for impeachment.

There IS a lot of smoke...and its all coming from the smoke and mirrors on the right trying to make this about "The Biden Crime Family"...while their leader for the nomination for POTUS just had his business licenses revoked in New York due to fraud.

You can't make it up how gullible some are on the right about this.

[GreenDragon]

(09-30-2023, 06:18 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You people amaze me. The purpose of the impeachment inquiry was to have experts say there is evidence to support the inquiry. It was not designed to be an IMPEACHMENT HEARING, they are in the early stages of deciding if there is enough evidence for an impeachment, something never done by Democrats when they impeached Trump.

So calm down and relax. Let's see what HB's and Jim Bidens's bank records tell us. 3 witnesses including Turley said there was definitely more than enough evidence to start an IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, so now they move on following the money and getting witness lists together.

Also, just for you are aware, Jordan's committee has oversight over the F.B.I. and D.O.J. They have already gathered a ton of evidence proving the F.B.I. and D.O.J. are corrupt. To me, this is or more important. We can't survive a two tiered system of justice, justice needs to be blind. It appears both D.O.J. and F.B.I. have many issues at the top of each agency.

But, hey liberals, use A.O.C. as your news source, she is proven to be non-biased and an intelligent lady.  

I'm surprised you had the testicular fortitude to comment on this one. 

The very FIRST witness said there wasn't evidence to support an impeachment. 

Clown. Show. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-01-2023, 01:48 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: I'm surprised you had the testicular fortitude to comment on this one. 

The very FIRST witness said there wasn't evidence to support an impeachment. 

Clown. Show. 

Sorry but AOC wouldn't know evidence if it smacked her ass. 

[GMDino]

(10-02-2023, 04:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sorry but AOC wouldn't know evidence if it smacked her ass. 

And yet she was right, had the receipts and the gop was shown to be trying to manipulate the text to make it look like something it wasn't.

So how bad are the gop if AOC is as bad as you think she is?

[Goalpost]

C'mon. We have a president who wants to spend more money on the IRS to catch tax cheaters who should be paying their 'fair share'...and yet is own family is cheating.

[*pally*]

(10-02-2023, 04:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sorry but AOC wouldn't know evidence if it smacked her ass. 

she apparently knows it better than Byron Donald who presented the out of context statemet in the first place

[Luvnit2]

(10-02-2023, 09:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: And yet she was right, had the receipts and the gop was shown to be trying to manipulate the text to make it look like something it wasn't.

So how bad are the gop if AOC is as bad as you think she is?

Same AOC defending a fellow squad member for pulling a fire alarm. Sorry, AOC has zero credibility.

Again, the experts were called to provide facts as for the basis for an imPeachment INQUIRY. THE WITNESSES DID JUST THAT SO THE INVESTIGATION CAN HAVE ACCESS TO MORE SUBPOENA POWER. The investigation is in the early staged. DOJ took almost 5 years, committees are less than a year, so where will they be in 5 years? 

[GMDino]

(10-02-2023, 12:06 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Same AOC defending a fellow squad member for pulling a fire alarm. Sorry, AOC has zero credibility.

Again, the experts were called to provide facts as for the basis for an imPeachment INQUIRY. THE WITNESSES DID JUST THAT SO THE INVESTIGATION CAN HAVE ACCESS TO MORE SUBPOENA POWER. The investigation is in the early staged. DOJ took almOst 5 years, committeEs are less than a year, so where will they be in 5 years? 

1) I have no idea how she "defended" him so I won't comment.

2) The gop lied about the text.  She provided the context and proof.  If they are lying about what they have now I have no faith they will provide honest "facts" later.

So HER credibility is miles above the gop at this point.

[GreenDragon]

(10-02-2023, 04:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sorry but AOC wouldn't know evidence if it smacked her ass. 

She's hot isn't she? Is that why you brought her up when no one else had? 

BUT the fact is that whe DID bring the evidence and DOES bring it when she makes her points. Can you say the same for your side? 

[GreenDragon]

(10-02-2023, 12:06 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Same AOC defending a fellow squad member for pulling a fire alarm. Sorry, AOC has zero credibility.

Again, the experts were called to provide facts as for the basis for an imPeachment INQUIRY. THE WITNESSES DID JUST THAT SO THE INVESTIGATION CAN HAVE ACCESS TO MORE SUBPOENA POWER. The investigation is in the early staged. DOJ took almOst 5 years, committeEs are less than a year, so where will they be in 5 years? 

This is called "Moving the goalpost". You're losing the argument and then backup to include something else. You're not good at this, are you?