261
submitted 4 months ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never,

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] blazera@kbin.social 68 points 4 months ago

This whole fiasco is a disgrace to the rule of law. Hunter is a private citizen, he is not and has never been an elected official. Somehow his legal cases are going through congress, which is reserved for investigating crimes of elected officials. This is not supposed to be allowed, congress does not have the authority to hold court for private citizens. They're not gonna have the authority when they try subpoena'ing his documents related to his cases

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Not only that.

But their primary witness and source of information in all this, was a Russian operative, and these people were warned in 2020 by our own intelligence operatives that the information they were getting from him was sketchy at best and stunk of Russian operations.

And even now, their star witness and the very foundational block they have built all this on has been arrested, has fully outright admitted the lies and that he was spreading lies on Russian orders, and Republicans are still like "Just because the core of our case is gone doesnt mean the core of our case is gone!"

Because its not about rule of law. Its not about whats right. Its not about investigations. Its not about these imaginary payments

Its about twisting the mechanisms of government into a Republican political campaign to hurt Biden to the benefit of Trump. Its about slinging shit at the wall 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to see what sticks, and to flood the airwaves and news media with a torrent of bullshit in the hopes that just a tiny fraction of it will stick in someones head and influence their vote away from Democracy.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

It’s already been downplayed as him only having a very minor role in whole thing.

[-] mister_monster@monero.town 2 points 4 months ago

He's not the one being charged though, he's been subpoenaed as a witness. The president is the person that's being investigated.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 6 points 4 months ago

Its been nothing but investigating Hunter.

[-] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

And showing off his dick pics.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

I think that's a good trial strategy.

And then demand the evidence as, it seems, they ran out.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago

I've lost track, did he finally get them to make the testimony open or whatever

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It doesn't look like it. The NYT says it is a closed deposition. It looks like he made the decision to give the closed testimony the Republicans wanted. Although maybe he thinks that after their main informant was exposed as a Russian stooge, he can better control the narrative.

I bet he prepared this statement, and then released it himself right as he was giving his testimony, to make sure Republicans couldn't hide it.

load more comments (26 replies)
[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

You could... read the article.

Republicans launched contempt of Congress proceedings against Hunter Biden as a result of his defiance, advancing the resolution in January. Hunter Biden’s team, however, acquiesced before the full House voted on the measure, saying he would sit for a closed-door deposition if Republicans reissued their subpoena — which they did.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Why would he. It is clearly a trap. It needs to performed by the judiciary branch and open to the public or it should hold no grounds

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Because his lawyer got an agreement that there would be no recordings and the transcript would be released instantly.

[-] BothsidesistFraud@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago

This is so irrelevant, who CARES

[-] Anamana@feddit.de 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I thought it's about making one person president and not a whole family

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They care because they want it to look like both sides are just pulling political stunts with impeachment. Trump was impeached twice and that looks pretty bad. Unless you can play a game that turns impeachment into a "move" that "everyone does now."

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

Behold, our great American Institutions, smeared in red and white makeup, fastened to oversized shoes, and completed with a honking nose.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 13 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Hunter Biden testified on Wednesday that he “did not involve” his father, President Biden, in his business dealings, delivering the message at the beginning of his highly anticipated deposition as part of the GOP’s impeachment inquiry into the president.

“I am here today to provide the Committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business.

Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist.

Never,” Biden said during his opening statement.


The original article contains 104 words, the summary contains 103 words. Saved 1%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 4 months ago

One word? Does the Summary text get included in the word count?

[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

LOL.. the word the bot skipped (at time of writing) was the “DEVELOPING.” at the bottom of the article.

[-] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

Then again calling a paragraph you can read without scrolling an article is a bit generous.

[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I see where you’re coming from, but the first definition of “article” I found was “a non-fiction piece of writing, such as an entry in a newspaper”. So “article” is technically correct here, the best kind of correct.

[-] coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

Member when they said that his laptop was Russian disinformation?

[-] bigFab@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

FBI: *confiscates Hunter's laptop.

Republicans: Where is the laptop?

FBI: I don't know what laptop means.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

I didn't know anyone was dumb enough to still believe that laptop story.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I can find at least 10 in New Balance at the Home Depot

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
261 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18017 readers
2897 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS