544
House Republicans issue new report on Joe Biden corruption… that again offers no evidence
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
544 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19103 readers
4854 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well it worked with Hillary in 2016 with "but her emails" and now they are trying that again with Biden "but his son's laptop". It just doesn't really have the same impact.
Also, in 2016, Trump still had the benefit of the doubt. I'm confident most people, especially independents, are not interested in another 2016-2020 filled with scandals, obvious lies and another White House turning door where nothing get accomplished.
That said, these countless investigations on the Bidens are actually proving me wrong. In 2019-2020, I was disappointed that Biden was the candidate because I thought since he had been in politics for 45+ years, he had to have been corrupted at some point. But Republicans are proving me wrong. The guy is squeaky clean and I find this really refreshing.
Except she did actually get caught manipulating the Democratic primary leading up to 2016, as well as collaborating to manipulate the GOP one as well.
Hell, the hacked/leaked democratic party emails listed him as their preferred GOP candidate because they thought he'd be so easy to beat.
Biden is innocent. He makes enough on his own from lobbyist bribes like the rest of DC.
No she didn't. It's hard to combat conspiracy theories since they just shift the claims around but if you're referring to the joint fundraising agreement (my best guess), that's a standard agreement signed between campaigns and the party so that when a nominee is eventually chosen, the campaign and party can work in unison.
The reality is that nobody did more to raise Bernie's national profile than Hillary. He was able to make a serious go at the nomination only because she had already cleaned the floor. And when it came time to vote, actual Democrats overwhelmingly chose her, which is obvious since she was the only Democrat running. Bernie just temporarily pretends to be a Democrat when he wants their money and is unwilling to do any of the ongoing work to support the party and its other down-ballot candidates.
A ton of people are young and had legitimately never seen a primary before 2016 and were apparently under the impression that they are traditionally these sanctified contests where political saints exert enormous effort to ensure fairness and balance.
The reality is that the 2016 primary was neither unusually especially contentious or corrupt. Any other view is either ignorant or malicious as far as I'm concerned.