Whistleblower accuses Biden of criminal conduct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point...Bill Barr's DOJ dropped this investigation in 2020. What the House is doing now is nothing but performative.

The same narrative Raskin used at his presser. When reporters corrected him about this being part of an ongoing investigation, Raskin lied and squirmed... he there the same time for the full briefing

Raskin also said that the whistleblower brought information he/she heard from another source... hearsay, I guess.
Isn't that what the whistleblower in the Trump impeachment brought? Second hand knowledge... hearsay? Yet, he was credible in Raskin's eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point...Bill Barr's DOJ dropped this investigation in 2020. What the House is doing now is nothing but performative.

The same narrative Raskin used at his presser. When reporters corrected him about this being part of an ongoing investigation, Raskin lied and squirmed... he there the same time for the full briefing

Raskin also said that the whistleblower brought information he/she heard from another source... hearsay, I guess.
Isn't that what the whistleblower in the Trump impeachment brought? Second hand knowledge... hearsay? Yet, he was credible in Raskin's eyes.

That same whistleblower proved there is a FD1023, which the FBI acknowledged exists and came from a CHS who is "credible" and worked in the Obama Administration

[Anonymous]

Question to the anti-Biden folks on this thread: would you accept the results of a Republican-led probe into Biden and his business dealings if he was exonerated?

[Anonymous]

Was the document turned over to Congress by the FBI or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question to the anti-Biden folks on this thread: would you accept the results of a Republican-led probe into Biden and his business dealings if he was exonerated?

No, only bipartisan unlike the j6 committee... meanwhile back on planet earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chuck Grassley (age 89, BTW) just said the quiet part out loud.

"We're not interested in whether the allegations against Biden are accurate or not."

You can listen to a clip of his interview on Fox News embedded in the article linked below.

https://newrepublic.com/post/173162/grassley-admits-republicans-dont-care-accusations-joe-biden-accurate

What he was saying is that it is NOT the role of Congress to determine guilt or innocence. That is the job of the Justice Dept. and the courts.
The job of the oversight committee is to ensure the FBI is doing THEIR job. He stated as much in the full interview here.
Unlike members of Congress like Adam Schiff, Grassley is not making a judgment on guilt or innocence based on an accusation.
I can understand why you might not understand that, given that too many liberals don't seem to believe in due process.

That’s bullshit though. If Republicans are going to call the accuser a “whistleblower”, they need to stay out of the whistleblower process, which is a sealed investigation of the evidence submitted by the whistleblower. If the agency finds evidence is lacking then the whistleblower could take the evidence to court or Congress or OIG or the media or Wikileaks or Twitter or any other way to publicize it. It isn’t public because Republicans know exactly what the “whistleblower” has and they know it is nothing, so they are alleging a cover up because they all they want is a political smear in the media.

Congress has OVERSIGHT of the FBI. This is the OVERSIGHT committee. And, the whistleblower has gone through the proper channels to claim whistleblower status.

Wrong. Congress is PROHIBITED from interfering with a law enforcement investigation because Congress interference taints the case. It is called ex parte communication and every Member of Congress and every staffer is told that in orientation. Members of Congress pressuring the FBI to pursue a case they know nothing about for personal or political reasons is a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question to the anti-Biden folks on this thread: would you accept the results of a Republican-led probe into Biden and his business dealings if he was exonerated?

No, only bipartisan unlike the j6 committee... meanwhile back on planet earth.

Who told you the GOP even wanted a bipartisan examination of the J6 issue?

GOP blocks bipartisan probe of deadly Jan. 6 riot at Capitol

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked the creation of a bipartisan panel to study the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, refusing to back down on their opposition to the independent investigation even amid emotional appeals from those who fought with and fled from the rioters that day.

The Senate vote was 54-35 — short of the 60 votes needed to consider a House-passed bill that would have formed a 10-member commission evenly split between the two parties. The vote was another sign of GOP fealty to former President Donald Trump and an overtly political effort to shift the focus off of the violent insurrection of his supporters.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-blocks-bipartisan-probe-of-deadly-jan-6-riot-at-capitol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point...Bill Barr's DOJ dropped this investigation in 2020. What the House is doing now is nothing but performative.

The same narrative Raskin used at his presser. When reporters corrected him about this being part of an ongoing investigation, Raskin lied and squirmed... he there the same time for the full briefing

Raskin also said that the whistleblower brought information he/she heard from another source... hearsay, I guess.
Isn't that what the whistleblower in the Trump impeachment brought? Second hand knowledge... hearsay? Yet, he was credible in Raskin's eyes.

Raskin said he has not seen anything to back up the claims Comer is making. Comer claimed the document says Biden accepted a bribe from Romania. Raskin says he has not seen any such evidence, any such evidence and has no idea what Comer is talking about. And again, Barr had access to all of these documents, and DID NOT find anything in them that even rose to the level of having an investigation.

[Anonymous]

DCUM has a short memory just like 45...

McCarthy offered at least 5 GOP congressional reps to the j6 committee, but Pelosi refused

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM has a short memory just like 45...

McCarthy offered at least 5 GOP congressional reps to the j6 committee, but Pelosi refused

Pelosi only refused two of them. Then McCarthy wouldn’t let the other three on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM has a short memory just like 45...

McCarthy offered at least 5 GOP congressional reps to the j6 committee, but Pelosi refused

Pelosi only refused two of them. Then McCarthy wouldn’t let the other three on.

Dp- also McCarthy was free to appoint different republicans ( who were not involved in J6) to the committee. The republicans chose not have more representatives.

[Anonymous]

Yet McCarthy will allow the full democratic members of oversight (including the stock cheat, Golden) to ask questions of the contempt hearing starting Thursday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet McCarthy will allow the full democratic members of oversight (including the stock cheat, Golden) to ask questions of the contempt hearing starting Thursday.

That’s how committee’s work.
McCarthy could have appointed republicans to the j 6 committee. He chose not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet McCarthy will allow the full democratic members of oversight (including the stock cheat, Golden) to ask questions of the contempt hearing starting Thursday.

Comers committee has repeatedly violated its own rules by hiding information, evidence and witnesses from the democratic members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM has a short memory just like 45...

McCarthy offered at least 5 GOP congressional reps to the j6 committee, but Pelosi refused

Pelosi only refused two of them. Then McCarthy wouldn’t let the other three on.

Dp- also McCarthy was free to appoint different republicans ( who were not involved in J6) to the committee. The republicans chose not have more representatives.

McCarthy insisted on appointing accomplices to disrupt a good faith investigation.

Did PP watch the J6 hearings? All the testimony was from law enforcement officers, Republican officials, Trump White House staff, and other Republicans, except for two election workers who testified to being harassed and terrorized by lunatics fed lies about them by Trump’s lawyers. Liz Cheney helped the Republicans by keeping it focused on criminal actions by Trump and his clan and not on ideological or partisan differences.