XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.elections, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns

On 20 May 2023, Ponce <nowomr@protonmail.com> posted some news:u4bsfb$18jq4$4@dont-email.me:

Impeach that nigger Obama too. He's pulling Biden's strings.

The Republican-led US House of Representatives has formally backed an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

Lawmakers voted 221 to 212 - entirely along party lines - on Wednesday
to authorise a resolution that accuses the president of bribery,
corruption and influence-peddling off his "brand". Months of
investigation have yet to uncover any concrete evidence of misconduct by
Mr Biden, and the allegations have been panned by Democrats and even
some Republicans. But Republican party leaders have built support for
the inquiry by arguing that the administration is "stonewalling" and
that investigators need more authority to gather evidence. The White
House has condemned the investigation as a "political stunt" designed to
hurt the president's re-election bid. Voting to authorise an inquiry is
not the same as voting for impeachment, but it advances the likelihood
the House will seek to impeach Mr Biden early next year. The House has ultimately opted to impeach three of the last four times this step was
taken. Why do Republicans want to impeach Biden now?

Impeachment inquiry 'based on lies' - White House

What is the inquiry about?
Ex-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy launched the inquiry in September
claiming Republicans had unearthed a "culture of corruption" surrounding
Mr Biden. But at the inquiry's first hearing later that month, two of
the party's own expert witnesses told lawmakers they did not believe
there was enough evidence to warrant impeachment. Since then, the House oversight committee has issued a flurry of legal summonses, demanding
testimony from several members of the president's family, including his
son and his brother. On Wednesday morning, Hunter Biden defied a
congressional subpoena to testify behind closed doors to lawmakers. He
told reporters at Capitol Hill he would only give evidence in a public
setting and called Republican investigators "shameless".

Senior Republicans have claimed that the White House is rebuffing their information requests, withholding thousands of documents from the
National Archives and blocking key witnesses from testifying. In a USA
Today opinion piece, current House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote that
evidence was mounting "and the pushback from the White House and others
must be addressed". "We have no choice," he said at a Tuesday news
conference. "We have to take the next step. We're not making a political decision. It's not. It's a legal decision." Voting to formalise an
inquiry places Republicans in "the strongest legal standing to pursue
needed information and enforce subpoenas", Rules Committee Chairman Tom
Cole said in a statement on Tuesday. Several of his colleagues,
including impeachment sceptics, have been careful in arguing that
backing an impeachment inquiry does not mean they are impeaching Mr
Biden. But the steps taken this week raise the odds that Mr Biden could
be impeached in the House early next year - though he is all but certain
to avoid conviction in the Democratic-controlled Senate. So what are the specific claims the inquiry will likely focus on? 'The Biden brand'
The oversight committee says the Biden family and its business
associates received more than $24m (£19m) from foreign sources in China, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia and Ukraine between 2014 and 2019. There is, however, no substantive evidence of any specific payments made to the then-vice-president or that he benefited directly from the payments. But committee chairman James Comer has argued Hunter and other relatives
"sold" Mr Biden - who at the time served as Barack Obama's
vice-president - as a "brand" to reap millions from corrupt business
schemes. He has also said that "it appears no real services were
provided other than access to the Biden network, including Joe Biden
himself". Last week, the Kentucky Republican released bank records he
claimed showed direct payments from Hunter to Joe Biden through a
company he owned that received payments from China. But lawyers for
Hunter Biden quickly noted Mr Comer had mischaracterised payments
between father and son that were already in the public record and
happened almost two years after Mr Biden left office. "The truth is
Hunter's father helped him when he was struggling financially due to his addiction and could not secure credit to finance a truck," lead attorney
Abbe Lowell said. "When Hunter was able to, he paid his father back and
took over the payments himself." Lies about business dealings
The elder Mr Biden has said his son "has not made money" in China or
elsewhere. He has also repeatedly said he never spoke to his son about
his business dealings. But Republicans say the evidence they've
uncovered refutes both those claims.

Mr Comer has alleged that the president "spoke, dined, and developed relationships with" his son's foreign business targets nearly two dozen
times. It is unclear, however, whether the existence or substance of any
of these meetings rises to the level of an impeachable offence. In
August, Devon Archer, an ex-business partner of Hunter Biden, testified
to the House that Mr Biden was put on speaker phone with potential
business associates "maybe 20 times" over the span of 10 years. But he
told lawmakers the phone calls were "casual conversations" that never
delved into business, contradicting Republican claims of bribes,
conflicts of interest or any material involvement by the president in
his son's foreign ventures. Alleged bribery scheme
A key element of the inquiry has been claims Republicans have recently resurfaced after they first emerged in 2019 during former President
Donald Trump's first impeachment. An unverified tip to the FBI claimed
Joe Biden pressured Ukraine's government to fire its top prosecutor to
halt an investigation into the local Burisma energy firm, where Hunter
Biden was on the board. An FBI document detailing the claim - in which
an ex-Burisma CEO says he paid $5m to both Joe and Hunter Biden - was
obtained and released by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley this July.
The justice department had investigated the claim for eight months
during the Trump administration, but ultimately abandoned its probe due
to "insufficient evidence". The former executive, Mykola Zlochevsky,
also later rebutted the claim, according to a transcript of an interview released by Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin. He said he had had no
contact with Joe Biden or any of his staff members and that Mr Biden had
never helped him or the company while serving as vice-president, In his testimony, Mr Archer too said that he was unaware of any such payments. Preferential treatment of Hunter Biden
House Republicans have alleged that the justice department "impeded,
delayed, and obstructed" an ongoing multi-year criminal investigation
into Hunter Biden. This appears to have been confirmed in part by
testimony from two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblowers, who
said the government was "slow-walking" and blocking investigative steps.
The department has denied these claims. Other witnesses called by
Republicans in July testified that neither President Biden nor Attorney
General Merrick Garland interfered in the investigation. But
Republicans, who have claimed a broad "weaponisation" of the justice
system under President Biden, have sought to contrast ongoing efforts to prosecute former President Trump with what they said was leniency toward
the president's son. They pointed to a "sweetheart deal" reached between
Hunter Biden and prosecutors earlier this year that would have seen him
admit to criminal offences and avoid jail time. But that plea agreement
has since fallen apart, and the younger Mr Biden now faces federal
charges over tax-related and gun-related misconduct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66792083

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)