The game is afoot! Yesterday, as you must already be aware, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced the initiation of a formal presidential impeachment inquiry into the former Vice-President, Joseph Robinette Biden. McCarthy’s comments at the clip:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...8a3-4041-4803-a7b7-46e9a2f03c74_1184x1250.png
https://x.com/SpeakerMcCarthy/status/1701616470793547969
An impeachment inquiry can be opened in two ways. The first, traditional, way is a vote of the full House of Representatives, which until President Trump’s term was the only way you could do it. The new second way has been called the “Pelosi Precedent,” where the Speaker of the House can just “announce” an impeachment inquiry, and bingo-bongo, you’re cooking with gas. That’s how former Speaker Pelosi started the Trump impeachments, both of them, breaking from prior procedure and creating a whole new easier and faster way.
It was turbo impeachment! So, that’s what Kevin McCarthy did. He just followed the Pelosi Precedent and announced the impeachment. It only takes one person now. Game on.
There seems to be some confusion over whether McCarthy actually commenced impeachment proceedings. He did. And if you have any doubt, Establishment Media sure thinks he did:
The New York Times morphed into the Daily Beast so slowly that nobody noticed.
[clip]
But second, and maybe even more important, the impeachment inquiry turbo-charges the House’s investigative powers. For example, Biden directed the National Archives to refuse to turn over 5,400 emails he sent under his various clever pseudonyms like “Robert L. Peters.”
With impeachment powers, the National Archives must now turn those emails over to House investigators. I can’t wait to see them.
Democrats are in denial, so far keeping a brave face on that this impeachment thing is just a lot of political smoke and no bribery fire. So let’s turn to the democrats’ clownish argument that there is “no evidence” Biden did anything wrong and the whole thing is a partisan witch hunt.
The Evidence
Democrats are claiming there’s no “evidence” Joe Biden did
anything wrong. It’s a go-to argument for democrats (see, e.g., “no evidence” of election fraud), but it won’t work this time.
First of all, keep in mind that during the first Trump impeachment, the only “evidence” required by democrats was some highly-sketchy testimony from a sold-out partisan witness about something Trump said on the phone that, if you twisted it just the right way, could possibly be interpreted as being improper political pressure for partisan purposes. In other words, “quid pro quo!”
Ironically, the call fueling Trump’s first impeachment discussed the exact same Biden corruption in Ukraine that is now driving Biden’s own impeachment investigation (from Epoch Times):
It’s impossible to argue about evidence without first defining terms. So let’s start by defining what “evidence” is,
under the law, since the legal standard is what applies to impeachment inquiries. Don’t let anyone gaslight you on the definition of “evidence.” Here’s how Black’s Law Dictionary, a recognized authority that can be cited in legal memoranda, defines “evidence:”
Something, including testimony, documents, and tangible objects, that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.
Here’s the screenshot in case you need to send it to someone.
In short, “evidence” is anything that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. That’s it. “Circumstantial evidence” is evidence. Granted, some types of evidence can be excluded under some circumstances, such as hearsay, but those things are still evidence. They’re just called “inadmissible evidence.”
The way democrats try to confuse people is they conflate the word “evidence” with “absolute proof.” When they say “there’s no evidence,” they actually just mean “you can’t prove it.” It’s an argument from ignorance. If you asked democrats, they wouldn’t agree that bank statements, for example, are evidence, even though bank statements are used as evidence every single day.
Democrats just want to argue about what the bank statements mean.
But no one needs to engage with that kind of argument. The decision about what evidence means is not up to democrats or anyone else, it is up to the legal fact finder: the judge, the jury, or the House of Representatives in this situation.
Here’s how Republican Representative Scott Perry responded to an Establishment Media reporter demanding “evidence” of high crimes and misdemeanors. Note that the reporter pretended not to understand what “evidence” means. Perry described a bunch of evidence. Later, another representative cited the lack of prosecution of Hunter Biden for his obvious FARA violations, which is also “evidence.” Here’s the clip:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...5921-6bc4-481a-9fd0-176d30121df6_1014x360.png
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1701696818915201281
From comments to the various impeachment-related Twitter posts, it’s obvious that a common democrat talking point is “there might be evidence to impeach
Hunter, but he’s not the president!” The implication being that Republicans might be able to prove
Hunter committed some crimes, but can’t link Hunter to Joe.
That’s a rubbish argument, and here’s why.
If a politician does a “favor” for a crime boss, and the crime boss pays the politician’s wife, it’s still bribery. If the crime boss pays the politician’s crackhead son on account of the favor, it’s still bribery. So, evidence that Joe Biden did a favor for a shady Ukrainian oligarch who was paying Hunter millions — for doing nothing — is also evidence that Joe Biden was bribed.
It’s up to the judge or jury to evaluate (“weigh”) all the admitted evidence and decide whether it’s more likely that Biden took a bribe or whether it was all just a fabulous coincidence. In the case of impeachment, the “jury” is ultimately the full House of Representatives.
Apart from Biden’s Bribery, what about Hunter’s Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) violations? Isn’t that just Hunter’s business? What does that have to do with President Peters?
Everything!
Full one-stop impeachment coverage and context; Damar Hamlin NFL news; SADS soccer star; SADS NBA player; dems keep running sex perverts for some reason; and soda crooks kill self-serve fountains.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
