Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source? (2 Viewers)

[Snarky Sack]

Even if the name of source is redacted?



This is from the FBI itself, not wild speculation. Providing evidence against the Biden family means risking death. Anyone care to connect the dots, there?

By saying that, do you think the FBI makes it less likely or more likely that people with knowledge of crimes by senior officials (of any political stripe) will come forward?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Have they made any arrests or identified any suspects?

Not that I know of, why?

Do you suspect a false flag operation?

 

[Incumbent]

Not that I know of, why?

Do you suspect a false flag operation?

Do you have information about who was behind the threats?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Oh yeah, you mean this:

“The bombs will detonate in several hours, guess which ones have the bombs. Time is ticking,” the email reads, also ending with the date “4/19/1995,” the date of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Oklahoma City Police Department spokesperson Gary Knight said that several news outlets notified them about the emailed threats, adding that after evacuating the listed stores as a precaution, authorities didn’t find any suspicious items, according to the Post.

South Burlington (Vt.) police chief Shawn Burke said news outlets in Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York all received the same emailed threat to Target stores over the weekend. It accused the retail chain of betraying the LGBTQ+ community and named the locations of four stores in the three states, including the South Burlington location.

As to Hillary, I don't see it this time. I think after Epstein, she has to be tired of doing all the wet work for everyone else.

Or is it more likely that the FBI is being a little Drama Queen Royal Person to justify not releasing the form?

my point exactly. people will threaten lives over trivial things, and you helped prove my point,

plus we all know it was Trump/Clinton partnership that did epstien in..

 

[Snarky Sack]

Ok, so let's say the report says "Thomas Williams called and said that he has recordings of Joe Biden receiving $ 5 million in bribes on three dates (12/11/2014, 4/15/2016, and 8/11/2016) from a Ukranian Oligarch named Sergey Yedevich."

Now, the only people who were present at all three meetings are Mr. Yedevich, Hunter Biden, and Mr. Yedevich's aide Boris Sheckel. If the FBI were to redact the name "Thomas Williams," how long would it take for Yedevich to figure out who it was that ratted him out? Or for that matter, knowing that he paid those bribes on those three dates, the dates would have to be reacted too, along with Yedevich's name.

I follow . . .

So, now we are left with a redacted report that says "********* called and said that he has recordings of Joe Biden receiving $5 million in bribes ******************** from a ****************"

Would you be satisfied with a report that looked like that?

More so than I am with a report that they first denied existed, and then finally, under subpoena that they ignored, and under credible threat of contempt of congress, and calls for impeachment showed to a select few congress persons.

You surely see how that erodes confidence in the FBI.

Or would you claim that the FBI was covering for Biden?

I would say that they showed what they could and that what they were covering was reasonable to cover. Not every body would, if that's your point. But again because of the shady way the FBI has been handling this.

You don't think that Ukranian oligarch might want to kill the guy who ratted him out? Also, let's say that FBI did provide the individual with a new name and identity. How likely do you think it is that another Ukranian person will come forward to the FBI knowing that they will end up spilling this person's identity and that person will have to give up their life and start a new one?

That's what I was asking. Ok, Ukranian oligarch. That's reasonable. I wonder if that's who got Epstein? Just kidding!

With that said, I'll follow up with a question. Since the FD-1023 is simply a document reporting a raw uncofirmed report, and is not actually evidence of anything, why is it so important for it to be released? The members of the House have read the document, so they know exactly what it says. They have all of the information in the document. They have the information they need to do their "oversight" work that they claim. How does having the actual document in their hands give them any more ability to do that work?

I don't know that the House has demanded it be released publicly. If I'm wrong, say so (with evidence). They want the entire oversight committee and I believe the judicial committee to see it. I think they are taking the FBI's refusal to give the committee a copy as an implied criticism of Congress ability to keep secrets.

If the FBI is subordinate to congress, they should give congress information in the form it demands. If the FBI is not subordinate to congress, then we have a problem and it is time for congress to defund the FBI.

The congressmen who have seen it have told us the substance: The Biden family took a multi-million dollar bribe, spread among family members. I wonder if the whole matter could be dropped if the FBI just told congress publicly, "yes, it is an unproven allegation that the Biden family took bribes" instead of being so dishonest and evasive about it?

I think what torques people up is that any negative information about Trump or Republicans seems to be leaked immediately, with content that is unlikely to have come from anywhere else but the DOJ or the FBI. It strains credulity that all the leaks would be harmful to one side but it isn't because of bias.

To put it another way. Let's say I called the most experienced local police detective, and told him that I had proof that you were a child molester. He takes that report, never hears from me again, and files it away. Now, there is a member on this message board who has a personal grievance with you, and is a journalist. He states publicly that he heard that the document exists, and he doesn't care if it's true or not, he wants to write an article for the paper about how you are a child molester. Would you be ok with the local police giving him that document so that he can say in his article that he got a document from the most experienced detective in the area, which makes it a credible report, that you are a child molester?

That would be horrible, assuming you mean that he did not redact identifying information. I would also question why give that a member of a message board in the first place, even if he is also a journalist. That question does not apply to the committees in charge of overseeing the FBI.

What many people strongly believe, is that if your scenario were the FBI instead of local police, and the alleged child molester were Trump or a Trump staffer, that the FBI would gleefully give it to the journalist. In fact, specifically, it is very often CNN these days as an "exclusive." That looks like they not only want to leak information harmful to Trump, but prop up the foundering CNN.

 

[Snarky Sack]

my point exactly. people will threaten lives over trivial things, and you helped prove my point,

plus we all know it was Trump/Clinton partnership that did epstien in..

I don't deny Trump was a frequent visitor to Lolita Island.

If there is a plane flying out to an island away from U.S. jurisdiction with underage prostitutes available it would be surprising if Bill and Donald were not on it.

I don't know if it was Hillary, but whoever did Epstein in was protecting a lot of people on both both political sides. Too much to lose, for all concerned.

The government is protecting them also. Not one of the patrons has been so much as arrested.

Do you have information about who was behind the threats?

Only what they said in their threats about the betrayal of the LGBT-Q community.

Why? Do you suspect a false flag operation?

 

[Incumbent]

Only what they said in their threats about the betrayal of the LGBT-Q community.

Why? Do you suspect a false flag operation?

It's possible to keep an open mind without jumping to a specific motive. Do you think it's possible this was a false flag operation, since your thoughts went there and you've asked twice?

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's possible to keep an open mind without jumping to a specific motive. Do you think it's possible this was a false flag operation, since your thoughts went there and you've asked twice?

Of course.

The situation is ripe for just such false flags and counter-false flags. I may well be that of all the threats going back and forth, most of them are false flags.

If I'm with the Gleems, and we hate the Glooms with a passion, but our society as a whole frowns on violence, I'd much prefer that the Gleems never make threats, because it would make my side look bad.

Many people jump to "false flag" if the threat appears to come from their side, but insist that a threat that appears to come from another side must be absolutely authentic.

 

[FullMonte]

More so than I am with a report that they first denied existed, and then finally, under subpoena that they ignored, and under credible threat of contempt of congress, and calls for impeachment showed to a select few congress persons.

You surely see how that erodes confidence in the FBI.

I would say that they showed what they could and that what they were covering was reasonable to cover. Not every body would, if that's your point. But again because of the shady way the FBI has been handling this.

That's fair. But, to be totally transparent, you'll understand that I'm a bit skeptical of your claim that you'd say "they showed what they could and that they were covering what was reasonable to cover" when you earlier posted a photo of a redacted document claiming that there was something nefarious about it being redacted that way.

That's what I was asking. Ok, Ukranian oligarch. That's reasonable. I wonder if that's who got Epstein? Just kidding!

I picked a Ukranian oligarch to make a simple example and because there are multiple reports that this document is sourced from Ukranians.

I don't know that the House has demanded it be released publicly. If I'm wrong, say so (with evidence). They want the entire oversight committee and I believe the judicial committee to see it. I think they are taking the FBI's refusal to give the committee a copy as an implied criticism of Congress ability to keep secrets.

Did you not watch the video you posted in your original message? Josh Hawley repeatedly asked the witness if he would commit to releasing the document to the public.

If the FBI is subordinate to congress, they should give congress information in the form it demands. If the FBI is not subordinate to congress, then we have a problem and it is time for congress to defund the FBI.

But, why? If members of the oversight committee have seen the document, they know what it says. How does having the paper copy somehow increase their ability to perform oversight? Is there something magical about the paper copy that gives them information that they didn't get by holding it in their hands and reading it at the FBI offices?

I can only think of one reason why the oversight committee wants it....So they can produce the document to the public, claiming that it came from a credible source, and use it as evidence to dirty up Joe Biden.

The congressmen who have seen it have told us the substance: The Biden family took a multi-million dollar bribe, spread among family members. I wonder if the whole matter could be dropped if the FBI just told congress publicly, "yes, it is an unproven allegation that the Biden family took bribes" instead of being so dishonest and evasive about it?

See? That's the problem. No, they didn't tell us the substance. The substance is not "the Biden family took a multi-million dollar bribe..." The substance is, someone claimed that the Biden family took bribes, but that has not been corroborated.

Let's make it this simple. You would agree that Biden taking a bribe is an impeachable offense, and should result in his removal from office and potential prosecution, I would assume. And, it's a fact that republicans have a majority in the House. So, let's set two timers, and compare how fast the document gets released in some manner to the public versus how fast articles of impeachment are filed with this "evidence."

I think what torques people up is that any negative information about Trump or Republicans seems to be leaked immediately, with content that is unlikely to have come from anywhere else but the DOJ or the FBI. It strains credulity that all the leaks would be harmful to one side but it isn't because of bias.

As opposed to what? How the information against Biden or Democrats comes out? Refresh my memory...but, didn't Comer and company hold an actual press conference a few weeks back to accuse Joe Biden of being a criminal and spell out all of their evidence, which turned out to be that some of Biden's family members got some money from foreign entities, but never once was a claim made that any of that money was illegal, never once was a claim that Joe Biden was even aware of any of that money, and one of the members actually stated "If any of this can be proven true, we are talking about serious crimes," indicating that they did not even know if their information was true of not.

What about the "weaponization of the government" committee that claimed to have "dozens of whistleblowers" alleging misconduct by members of the current administration, only to trot out three discredited individuals, one of whom actually confirmed under oath that his claims of improper actions by the FBI were wrong.

That would be horrible, assuming you mean that he did not redact identifying information. I would also question why give that a member of a message board in the first place, even if he is also a journalist. That question does not apply to the committees in charge of overseeing the FBI.

What many people strongly believe, is that if your scenario were the FBI instead of local police, and the alleged child molester were Trump or a Trump staffer, that the FBI would gleefully give it to the journalist. In fact, specifically, it is very often CNN these days as an "exclusive." That looks like they not only want to leak information harmful to Trump, but prop up the foundering CNN.

Except that the question does apply to the committee, in the sense that they have stated they don't care if the information is true, they have stated that they want to release it to the public, and they have held a press conference to accuse the president of being a criminal. It's clear to anyone with an open mind that Comer, Grassley, and company are not interested in this document for any type of oversight. If they were, and they were that concerned with Biden being a criminal, they would have jumped at the opportunity to run to the FBI offices, review the document, and begin speaking with individuals related to it to perform their oversight function. They want this document for one reason, to use it to accuse Biden of being a criminal, whether the allegations are supported by anything at all.

 

[MT15]

Ok, so let's say the report says "Thomas Williams called and said that he has recordings of Joe Biden receiving $ 5 million in bribes on three dates (12/11/2014, 4/15/2016, and 8/11/2016) from a Ukranian Oligarch named Sergey Yedevich."

Now, the only people who were present at all three meetings are Mr. Yedevich, Hunter Biden, and Mr. Yedevich's aide Boris Sheckel. If the FBI were to redact the name "Thomas Williams," how long would it take for Yedevich to figure out who it was that ratted him out? Or for that matter, knowing that he paid those bribes on those three dates, the dates would have to be reacted too, along with Yedevich's name.

So, now we are left with a redacted report that says "********* called and said that he has recordings of Joe Biden receiving $5 million in bribes ******************** from a ****************"

Would you be satisfied with a report that looked like that? Or would you claim that the FBI was covering for Biden?



You don't think that Ukranian oligarch might want to kill the guy who ratted him out? Also, let's say that FBI did provide the individual with a new name and identity. How likely do you think it is that another Ukranian person will come forward to the FBI knowing that they will end up spilling this person's identity and that person will have to give up their life and start a new one?

With that said, I'll follow up with a question. Since the FD-1023 is simply a document reporting a raw uncofirmed report, and is not actually evidence of anything, why is it so important for it to be released? The members of the House have read the document, so they know exactly what it says. They have all of the information in the document. They have the information they need to do their "oversight" work that they claim. How does having the actual document in their hands give them any more ability to do that work?

To put it another way. Let's say I called the most experienced local police detective, and told him that I had proof that you were a child molester. He takes that report, never hears from me again, and files it away. Now, there is a member on this message board who has a personal grievance with you, and is a journalist. He states publicly that he heard that the document exists, and he doesn't care if it's true or not, he wants to write an article for the paper about how you are a child molester. Would you be ok with the local police giving him that document so that he can say in his article that he got a document from the most experienced detective in the area, which makes it a credible report, that you are a child molester?

And let’s add to this that local council members also heard about the report and run around giving interviews saying that there is credible evidence that Sack is a child molester, and then the local papers also run with the story.

However, for this comparison to be accurate, the policeman didn’t just file the report away, he looked into the report and determined it was unsupported, because the FBI did look into the report at the time, IIRC. They couldn’t find anything to support it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's fair. But, to be totally transparent, you'll understand that I'm a bit skeptical of your claim that you'd say "they showed what they could and that they were covering what was reasonable to cover" when you earlier posted a photo of a redacted document claiming that there was something nefarious about it being redacted that way.

Yes, it absolutely was nefarious that it was redacted that way. That's why I didn't even have to say it was nefarious, it was obvious from how much was redacted that it was an attempt to keep hiding information, rather than provide information.

I picked a Ukranian oligarch to make a simple example and because there are multiple reports that this document is sourced from Ukranians.

Who do you think might be the source of those reports?

Did you not watch the video you posted in your original message? Josh Hawley repeatedly asked the witness if he would commit to releasing the document to the public.

You're right, he did. That's the Senate, though. The House may have made a similar demand. I don't know, that's why I said "I don't know."

Hawley's point is that it isn't classified, according to the FBI. If it isn't classified, why would it not be released? My question would be, if it has life-threatening information about Russian Oligarchs, why isn't it classified?

But, why? If members of the oversight committee have seen the document, they know what it says. How does having the paper copy somehow increase their ability to perform oversight? Is there something magical about the paper copy that gives them information that they didn't get by holding it in their hands and reading it at the FBI offices?

Why do we need paper copies of anything?

Picture this: Two Senior FBI agents, plus a security detail, supervised by Chris Wray go into the congressional SCIF (with an unclassified document!) and show it to the selected congress folk (selected by the FBI). They watch carefully while each representative of the people reads it, monitoring that no picture is taken.

The next day the congress people meet to discuss it. MTG says, The most damning sentence is the one that said "*REDACTED* loves bribing the Bidens and his family."

Raskin says, "you said that wrong. It was '*REDACTED* loves bribing (comma) the Bidens (comma) and his family.'" So, it doesn't specify that he loves bribing the the Bidens. Not unless you think he also means he bribes his own family.

MTG says, "I don't remember those commas. Mr. Chairman?"

Chairman says: *SIGH* "I'll call Director Wray . . . again."

A little tongue in cheek, but you get the point. People need paper copies for reference, because they aren't going to be able to reliably memorize documents. When else do we ever do that? I chair meetings and I make copies of my notes for all and I follow the notes through the whole meeting. I don't just memorize my notes and walk in hoping I touch on all the points, and that everyone remembers what I said.

I can only think of one reason why the oversight committee wants it....So they can produce the document to the public, claiming that it came from a credible source, and use it as evidence to dirty up Joe Biden.

That is not the one and only reason, as I showed above. But, sure it might happen. I would not argue if you said it would probably happen.

The document is unclassified, so I'm not sure what the justification would be to not show it. Luckily Representatives are the easiest of government officials to hold accountable. Just vote them out if they were horrible people for releasing it. That's how it is supposed to work, not the FBI deciding that congress cannot be trusted.

See? That's the problem. No, they didn't tell us the substance. The substance is not "the Biden family took a multi-million dollar bribe..." The substance is, someone claimed that the Biden family took bribes, but that has not been corroborated.

Fair. I should have said that was the substance of what was reported on the FD-1023.

Let's make it this simple. You would agree that Biden taking a bribe is an impeachable offense, and should result in his removal from office and potential prosecution, I would assume. And, it's a fact that republicans have a majority in the House. So, let's set two timers, and compare how fast the document gets released in some manner to the public versus how fast articles of impeachment are filed with this "evidence."

As fast as the House wants it to be, that's the Constitution.

Do you think it would be faster or slower than how long that little fat Lieutenant Colonel misinterpretation of Trump's phone call to Zelinsky took to go to impeachment?

The DOJ has an official policy not to prosecute a sitting president. I agree with that. But . . . that means that if the DOJ holds back information about Biden's crimes, he cannot be impeached for those crimes either. I disagree with that.

And yes, they should be giving congress the information as they get it, not trying to run out the clock until election day.

As opposed to what? How the information against Biden or Democrats comes out? Refresh my memory...but, didn't Comer and company hold an actual press conference a few weeks back to accuse Joe Biden of being a criminal and spell out all of their evidence, which turned out to be that some of Biden's family members got some money from foreign entities, but never once was a claim made that any of that money was illegal, never once was a claim that Joe Biden was even aware of any of that money, and one of the members actually stated "If any of this can be proven true, we are talking about serious crimes," indicating that they did not even know if their information was true of not.

You have a valid criticism of Comer and company, but at least they did it publicly. All these "exclusives" that CNN is getting come from "sources." Comer and company are supposed to be political, they are politicians. The FBI is not supposed to be.

What about the "weaponization of the government" committee that claimed to have "dozens of whistleblowers" alleging misconduct by members of the current administration, only to trot out three discredited individuals, one of whom actually confirmed under oath that his claims of improper actions by the FBI were wrong.

Another valid criticism of Republican congressfolk, that does not excuse the DOJ/FBI acting like Democratic Party operatives.

Except that the question does apply to the committee, in the sense that they have stated they don't care if the information is true, they have stated that they want to release it to the public, and they have held a press conference to accuse the president of being a criminal. It's clear to anyone with an open mind that Comer, Grassley, and company are not interested in this document for any type of oversight. If they were, and they were that concerned with Biden being a criminal, they would have jumped at the opportunity to run to the FBI offices, review the document, and begin speaking with individuals related to it to perform their oversight function. They want this document for one reason, to use it to accuse Biden of being a criminal, whether the allegations are supported by anything at all.

You are perfectly free to make that judgement and to vote/campaign for the representative of your choice. The last thing this country needs is a highly politicized FBI deciding what information it will give congress based on what it thinks congresspersons' motivation is.

Presenting unverified accusations is not something Grassley and Comer invented. The Senate Democrats brought in Christine Blasey-Ford for a last minute smear job of Kavanaugh based on an unfounded allegation more than twenty years old, IIRC. A re-run of the Clarence Thomas hearing these many years ago.

As I keep saying, the FBI is leaking every accusation and negative lead it gets to CNN, et al. The difference is that you can say "Comer and Grassley" when you criticize what they did, because they do it openly. We will never know the names of the DOJ/FBI leakers that have been smearing Trump for seven years.

We do know the name of the two people letting it happen, Wray and Garland, and they are ready for impeachment right now as far I'm concerned. On multiple counts.

 

[FullMonte]

And let’s add to this that local council members also heard about the report and run around giving interviews saying that there is credible evidence that Sack is a child molester, and then the local papers also run with the story.

However, for this comparison to be accurate, the policeman didn’t just file the report away, he looked into the report and determined it was unsupported, because the FBI did look into the report at the time, IIRC. They couldn’t find anything to support it.

IIRC, Giuliani gave the document (and others) to Bill Barr, and Barr was so skeptical of it (what does that tell you?) that he gave it to a US attorney to investigate, and that attorney quickly determined there wasn't anything to it.

 

[MT15]

Yes, it absolutely was nefarious that it was redacted that way. That's why I didn't even have to say it was nefarious, it was obvious from how much was redacted that it was an attempt to keep hiding information, rather than provide information.

Who do you think might be the source of those reports?

You're right, he did. That's the Senate, though. The House may have made a similar demand. I don't know, that's why I said "I don't know."

Hawley's point is that it isn't classified, according to the FBI. If it isn't classified, why would it not be released? My question would be, if it has life-threatening information about Russian Oligarchs, why isn't it classified?

Why do we need paper copies of anything?

Picture this: Two Senior FBI agents, plus a security detail, supervised by Chris Wray go into the congressional SCIF (with an unclassified document!) and show it to the selected congress folk (selected by the FBI). They watch carefully while each representative of the people reads it, monitoring that no picture is taken.

The next day the congress people meet to discuss it. MTG says, The most damning sentence is the one that said "*REDACTED* loves bribing the Bidens and his family."

Raskin says, "you said that wrong. It was '*REDACTED* loves bribing (comma) the Bidens (comma) and his family.'" So, it doesn't specify that he loves bribing the the Bidens. Not unless you think he also means he bribes his own family.

MTG says, "I don't remember those commas. Mr. Chairman?"

Chairman says: *SIGH* "I'll call Director Wray . . . again."

A little tongue in cheek, but you get the point. People need paper copies for reference, because they aren't going to be able to reliably memorize documents. When else do we ever do that? I chair meetings and I make copies of my notes for all and I follow the notes through the whole meeting. I don't just memorize my notes and walk in hoping I touch on all the points, and that everyone remembers what I said.

That is not the one and only reason, as I showed above. But, sure it might happen. I would not argue if you said it would probably happen.

The document is unclassified, so I'm not sure what the justification would be to not show it. Luckily Representatives are the easiest of government officials to hold accountable. Just vote them out if they were horrible people for releasing it. That's how it is supposed to work, not the FBI deciding that congress cannot be trusted.

Fair. I should have said that was the substance of what was reported on the FD-1023.

As fast as the House wants it to be, that's the Constitution.

Do you think it would be faster or slower than how long that little fat Lieutenant Colonel misinterpretation of Trump's phone call to Zelinsky took to go to impeachment?

The DOJ has an official policy not to prosecute a sitting president. I agree with that. But . . . that means that if the DOJ holds back information about Biden's crimes, he cannot be impeached for those crimes either. I disagree with that.

And yes, they should be giving congress the information as they get it, not trying to run out the clock until election day.

You have a valid criticism of Comer and company, but at least they did it publicly. All these "exclusives" that CNN is getting come from "sources." Comer and company are supposed to be political, they are politicians. The FBI is not supposed to be.

Another valid criticism of Republican congressfolk, that does not excuse the DOJ/FBI acting like Democratic Party operatives.

You are perfectly free to make that judgement and to vote/campaign for the representative of your choice. The last thing this country needs is a highly politicized FBI deciding what information it will give congress based on what it thinks congresspersons' motivation is.

Presenting unverified accusations is not something Grassley and Comer invented. The Senate Democrats brought in Christine Blasey-Ford for a last minute smear job of Kavanaugh based on an unfounded allegation more than twenty years old, IIRC. A re-run of the Clarence Thomas hearing these many years ago.

As I keep saying, the FBI is leaking every accusation and negative lead it gets to CNN, et al. The difference is that you can say "Comer and Grassley" when you criticize what they did, because they do it openly. We will never know the names of the DOJ/FBI leakers that have been smearing Trump for seven years.

We do know the name of the two people letting it happen, Wray and Garland, and they are ready for impeachment right now as far I'm concerned. On multiple counts.

can you support any of the opinions here with factual sources?

 

[FullMonte]

Yes, it absolutely was nefarious that it was redacted that way. That's why I didn't even have to say it was nefarious, it was obvious from how much was redacted that it was an attempt to keep hiding information, rather than provide information.

That's a fair comment. But, you do understand why it makes me suspicous that you wouldn't say the same thing about a redacted FD1023 that simply said that Biden received bribes, and all other information was redacted.

Who do you think might be the source of those reports?

From what I've heard, it was Bill Barr who reported that, and he handed it off to a US attorney after he got it from Giuliani. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find something about that.

You're right, he did. That's the Senate, though. The House may have made a similar demand. I don't know, that's why I said "I don't know."

Grassley, in his interview with Fox where he said he wasn't interested in whether or not the allegations were true or not, was asked if he would release it to the public, and he said he'd release it to the public as soon as he got it.

As fast as the House wants it to be, that's the Constitution.

Would you agree, at least, that impeaching a president who took millions in bribes is significantly more important to the House than releasing unsupported allegations of that to the public?

Do you think it would be faster or slower than how long that little fat Lieutenant Colonel misinterpretation of Trump's phone call to Zelinsky took to go to impeachment?

It's cute that you made a snarky comment about me making a personal attack earlier in this thread, but you have no problem making such attacks against people who dared speak out against Trump like Cohen and Vindman.

Oh...and that misinterpretation...wasn't. He said exactly what happened, that Trump pressured Zelenskyy to investigate the Bidens, and withheld Congressionally approved funding as leverage. Remember, Trump is the first president in history to actually have members of his own party vote to remove him, and numerous other members of his party stated on the record that they believed the impeachment managers proved their case, but that it didn't warrant removal from office.

You are perfectly free to make that judgement and to vote/campaign for the representative of your choice. The last thing this country needs is a highly politicized FBI deciding what information it will give congress based on what it thinks congresspersons' motivation is.

In all fairness, it's not "thinking" what a congress person's motivation is when they literally say they don't care if the allegations are true, they want to release the document to the public, they accuse the president of being a criminal and hold a press conference with "evidence" they admit they aren't sure if it's true, that doesn't implicate the president, and that doesn't even list any illegal activity. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

Presenting unverified accusations is not something Grassley and Comer invented. The Senate Democrats brought in Christine Blasey-Ford for a last minute smear job of Kavanaugh based on an unfounded allegation more than twenty years old, IIRC. A re-run of the Clarence Thomas hearing these many years ago.

So, does that make it ok for others to do? And, at least you admit that it was unfounded, and didn't call it false....especially in light of the recent reports that the FBI at the time had reasons to believe that a witness who provided an alibi for Kavanaugh wasn't truthful and didn't investigate it. Strange that this FBI that was so pro-Hillary and now is so pro-Biden somehow may have worked to cover up a credible allegation against a Trump nominated SCOTUS candidate. Maybe the FBI just works to support whoever is in office.

 

[Incumbent]

Presenting unverified accusations is not something Grassley and Comer invented. The Senate Democrats brought in Christine Blasey-Ford for a last minute smear job of Kavanaugh based on an unfounded allegation more than twenty years old, IIRC. A re-run of the Clarence Thomas hearing these many years ago.

What is the name of the person who is the source of the allegations against Biden?

 

[Snarky Sack]

can you support any of the opinions here with factual sources?

The facts stated support or provide the framework for the opinions stated. I had thought that they were general knowledge.

Are there any facts in that which you dispute or doubt? I'll provide a couple of sources for specific facts you dispute or doubt, I'm not going to write a recent history thesis with a list of citations.

What is the name of the person who is the source of the allegations against Biden?

Wray won't say.

 

[Incumbent]

Wray won't say.

So what makes that comparable to Christine Blasey Ford publicly testifying in congressional hearings, putting her identity and credibility out there for scrutiny?

 

[Snarky Sack]

So what makes that comparable to Christine Blasey Ford publicly testifying in congressional hearings, putting her identity and credibility out there for scrutiny?

"Comparable" =/= "exactly the same."

See my sig.

 

[Incumbent]

"Comparable" =/= "exactly the same."

See my sig.

I didn't ask you to explain how they are exactly the same, I asked how you think they are comparable.