576
GOP senator says Biden ‘may not be’ impeachable since he wasn’t in office during accused actions
(www.washingtontimes.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
576 points (96.2% liked)
News
23311 readers
3829 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
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
I mean, as far as I can tell they have found a lot of crooked, IE suspicious as hell, stuff. Just nothing actually illegal. Like, it was both legal and crooked for him to get his son on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. Seems like everyone skips over that there is plenty of substance in the nonsense republicans are yelling about, this time. Though tbh I could be wrong, because I have no way of knowing for sure which parts of their yelling are completely made up and which are a twist of the truth.
Did he get his son on the board of Burisma or did his son just get himself on the board by using his father's name just like he made "hey, what's up dad?" calls to his father in meetings to make it seem like his father had influence?
Also, I'm not sure that using your influence to put your son on a company's board is inherently crooked. Maybe unethical, but I wouldn't put it as far as crooked.
Also, the Republicans are screaming about Hunter Biden using his father's name to get a job, but are dead silent on Trump's kids doing the same thing. Ivanka got a bunch of trademarks approved in China while her father was President. She had been trying to get them for years unsuccessfully. Then daddy becomes President and suddenly it goes through.
But that's fine, apparently, because Trump.
It’s worse than that. Hunter Biden may have benefitted from what most of us would call “privilege” using his name.
Jared Kushner was denied top secret clearance because the intelligence agencies believed he would be too easily leveraged by foreign powers, especially given his finances. Donald Trump hired him into an official White House job, called him a Middle East advisor, reversed the intelligence decision and gave him top secret clearance.
At the end of the administration Qatari money helped buy a 1.2 billion dollar property Kushner could not manage to sell otherwise for years. It was a well timed bailout from a group that never showed interest before trump was president.
6 months after leaving the White House Saudis invested 2 billion in a fund to managed by Kushner despite his lack of experience managing funds that size.
I’ve never heard of anything like that related to Hunter.
This is true, but it's also whataboutism. It was wrong when both people did it. Presidents shouldn't be doing it at all
Yeah they'll sit around and say stupid shit like it has any meaning. The rich have been riding their parents coattails forever. I don't like it either but it's not exactly earth-shattering news.
Don't like it? Eat the rich.
And untalented nepo babies getting to do things that no one who was not in their position would be able to do at their skill level is also really common. See Tom Hanks' son and Will Smith's kids.
Exactly, if we're being honest it's half the reason (the more honest) people who do work hard and accumulate wealth do it in the first place. So that their kids/grand kids can have better lives. I'm not saying that I think nepotism is a good thing, but that on our list of issues to worry about it's not very high.
I think it's hilarious that after years and years of digging the best they found was that a born-rich-ruling-class, already-a-hedge-fund manager got a cushy job at a natural gas company.
It's so blatantly obvious the GOPs attack on him is all tied to Russias interest in Ukraine.
I don't know the details, but in general it seems pretty obviously crooked. Like, hunter clearly isn't qualified for it. It's entirely possible Joe had nothing to do with it, but if that's so, why haven't we seen any evidence against? I get that this would be proving a negative, but I think the onus is on Biden regardless when something so openly suspicious comes out.
Why does there need to be evidence? It's not illegal to use your connections to get your son a cushy job whether he did it or not.
But it's clearly very unethical, and not something a president should be doing. So if he did, that's a big deal.
First of all, he wasn't president when Hunter got on the board of Burisma. Secondly, that is not an impeachable offense. Thirdly, if you want to talk about presidents using their powers to help out their kids, let's talk about Trump and Ivanka and Jared.
No, let's not do whataboutism. I agree that what trump did was bad, but trump is not the subject right now.
1: Why does it matter when he did the bad thing? Neither trump nor Biden has sexually assaulted someone in the last 20 years or so, do those events not matter somehow? Can we not judge Biden on his time as VP then either?
One of my friends got hired as a structural welder because his father was friends with a guy who owns a construction company.
My friend also happens to be a kickass welder.
Should I tell the police?
Checks GOP playbook: let see, what's his stance on abortion?
What do you think he was welding?
Omg, the coat hangers! Get him!
Babies?
A lot of suspicious stuff? Could you name 3?
Sure seems like Joe didn't do shit beyond father a child 53 years ago. The Biden name is all Hunter really needed for that.
People forget that W. Bush put Hunter on the Amtrak Board, and one board seat leads to other board seats. Joe didn't do jack to get him on the Burisma board.
Dick Cheny and Halliburton strike me infinitley more corrupt than Biden.
True. Cheney also should not be president, along with Biden.
Sigh.
Please don't fuck wit my facts with your trumped up propaganda.
Whats the propaganda?
All of it. All of their yelling is completely made up. Because if they had evidence, they'd show it to us.
Republicians are never going to go after a Democrat for sleazy, self-serving neoliberalism because they're also sleazy, self-serving neoliberals.
It's one of the unspoken rules of the rich -- you can use unimportant bullshit to jostle for votes, viewers and market share but you're never, ever to attack the system that makes them richer.
The moment someone does, watch them band together across "left-wing" and "right-wing" in a show of class solidarity and signal strength the rest of us can only dream of.