The House did hold a vote to launch the first impeachment inquiry into Trump, but about a month into probe. Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019, but the House did not vote on the matter until October 31.
The impeachment inquiry by Pelosi was September 24. The vote was on October 31st. How are you claiming the vote was before the inquiry? The CNN article said the vote was a month after the inquiry.
I read that today there were zero allegations of wrongdoing from the witnesses who were under oath. The ONLY allegations made today were by R members of the House, who were not under oath and were protected from committing slander by the Speech and Debate Clause.That wasn’t propaganda. That’s just what happened.
They showed videos. They had sworn testimony that didnt also say that there was no wrongdoing.
This clown is the new Adam Schiff
And Comer wouldn’t let the transcript be entered into the record. Which is a clear indication that he thinks it hurts his clown show.Another great one...
"efforts to insert words like 'illusion' into Archer's mouth..."
From the transcript:
Page 116/Line 17
Q: So is it fair to say that Hunter Biden was selling the ILLUSION of access to his father?
Page 116/Line 22
Q: --it's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the ILLUSION of access to his father. Is that fair?
A: Is that fair? I mean, yeah, that is -- I think that's--that's almost fair.
(Archer then goes on to explain that Hunter had "touch points and contact points" that Archer can't deny happened, "but nothing of material was discussed."
So, while Archer may not have said the word illusion, he TWICE confirmed that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access to his father.
And...what ACTIONS did the House take between Pelosi's announcement of the inquiry and the vote to proceed with the inquiry? Were any hearings held before 1 Nov 2019?The House did hold a vote to launch the first impeachment inquiry into Trump, but about a month into probe. Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019, but the House did not vote on the matter until October 31.
Exclusive: Pelosi defends Trump impeachment approach in face of GOP inquiry into Biden | CNN PoliticsFormer House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday defended her approach to the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump in 2019, in her first public comments on the Republican effort to launch an inquiry into President Joe Biden.www.cnn.com
It's Indiana Jones from when he's in the Map Room/Well of Souls in Raiders (note the replica medallion next to the figurine, and what looks like it might be a replica of the idol from the beginning of the movie).That dude needs an interior decorator to come in and organize that shelving. I have no idea whats going on there- is that a "Sheep Herder figurine"?
It's Indiana Jones from when he's in the Map Room/Well of Souls in Raiders (note the replica medallion next to the figurine, and what looks like it might be a replica of the idol from the beginning of the movie).
Read reviews and buy Hasbro Indiana Jones Adventure Series Map Room Action Figure (Target Exclusive) at Target. Choose from contactless Same Day Delivery, Drive Up and more.www.target.com
And that’s the answer: Democrats would have to be utterly soulless and desperate for power to let this purported proof go unaddressed, so that’s the assumption about Democrats that carries the day.
“In our hyperpartisan world,” [Hannity] said at one point, “Democrats still try almost anything to defend their president.” And then, a few minutes later, he credulously hosted Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.) and Jason Smith (R-Mo.) to make false claims in an effort to backstop the failures of their impeachment hearing.
Jordan went first. He presented the same argument that he did in his opening remarks on Thursday, remarks that included explicit misrepresentations and falsehoods, as we documented shortly afterward. The simplest demonstration of Jordan’s dishonesty centers on his suggestion that Joe Biden’s son Hunter was asked by the Ukrainian energy company on whose board he sat to get rid of a Ukrainian investigator, which contradicts the available evidence, and that Joe Biden then traveled to Ukraine to begin a push to oust the investigator, which is flatly untrue. Among other things, the trip had been announced weeks before the purported pressure on Hunter.
Jordan also mixed in one of the myriad mini-bombshells that the right has briefly amplified over the past six months: a letter sent from board members of the company (including Hunter Biden) to the Ukrainian prosecutor in July 2016, asking that he halt investigations into the company. But this was the new prosecutor, the one brought on board after the first one was ousted for failing to address corruption thanks to American and international pressure. The letter came after the new prosecutor announced a robust probe into the company — an investigation that was not underway when Joe Biden joined the effort to remove the old prosecutor.
In any sane world, this would be evidence that the removal of the old prosecutor was, as Hunter Biden’s former business partner testified, bad for the company, since it meant there might be (and was) a prosecutor that actually looked into its behavior. But “Hunter Biden objects to investigation” is a central component of Jordan’s argument, timeline and identity of prosecutor notwithstanding.
“If that’s not a corrupt influence-peddling scheme,” he said, “I don’t know what is.” So it would seem.
Then it was Comer’s turn. He’s an old hand at exaggerating claims about Biden on Hannity, and he didn’t disappoint. “We have bank wires that show the Bidens took $20 million from foreign nationals in at least five different countries,” he began, which isn’t true. At the hearing, he offered a more accurate assessment, that “to date, we’ve shown that the Biden family and their companies received more than $15 million” with other partners receiving more. A subtle distinction, but a telling one: His “$20 million” formulation has been part of his patter for months and he slips right back into it.
The rest of his argument was similarly familiar, including his presentation that Hunter Biden used “shell companies,” which “shows money laundering” — inflammatory language that is in the first case misleading and in the latter unsubstantiated.
Comer also elevated one of the new arguments that emerged in the hearing.
“[Rep.] Byron Donalds showed that text message today from Jim Biden” — Joe Biden’s brother — “to Hunter Biden when Hunter was going to rehab again,” Comer said. “He said, ‘Don’t worry, I’ll work with your dad. We’ll finish those deals.’”
That isn’t what the message said. It was a response from James Biden to Hunter’s worries that he couldn’t “pay alimony [without] Dad or tuitions or for food and gas.” This was in a period when Hunter’s uncle was trying to get him into rehab, a stint that proved unsuccessful, as Hunter Biden writes in his memoir. James Biden’s response to the text assures Hunter that “[t]his can work, you need a safe harbor” — and that he would work with Hunter’s dad. “We can develope a plan together,” James Biden wrote. “It can work.” He did not say, “We’ll finish those deals.” But, of course, Hannity did not correct Comer.
Finally, Jason Smith came up to the plate. He’s newer to this whole thing and mostly repeated what Comer said. He did point to a document showing that Joe Biden’s name was removed from a search warrant targeting potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “There was obstruction in investigating President Joe Biden,” Smith said — but that email was sent in August 2020, when Joe Biden was a private citizen and the Justice Department was under the purview of William P. Barr, appointed by then-President Donald Trump.
If you were watching Hannity’s show, though, none of this context and correction was presented. You saw Hannity spend 10 minutes or so railing against the imperviousness of the evidence against Biden and the nefariousness of anyone who denied that fact. You heard three elected Republican leaders making explicit claims about Biden without hearing any of the qualifications those claims demand. And then you heard Hannity praise their work and the studio audience applaud before going to commercial.
The point of failure here isn’t really Hannity, though. It’s that elected officials can make the same false claims over and over, misrepresent what they know multiple times in the span of hours and face no pushback. It’s that the bubble surrounding all of this is so impermeable that it forms a closed terrarium, a self-sustaining environment that resists any outside intervention.