this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
242 points (90.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3951 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I think you’re missing the point. It’s one thing to use your parents’ influence to get ahead in business, but it’s another thing entirely to use their influence to withhold international aid and pressure a foreign government to kill a corruption investigation into the company that you just so happen to sit on the board of. Granted, these are all just allegations at this point, but that’s why this case is receiving so much attention.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well, if you can produce evidence of that, or if anyone else can produce evidence of that, then it should be investigated. Currently, there is no evidence of that. Therefore, an investigation into that does not seem to be warranted. Not legally, anyway.

You even admit that all there are are “allegations”. That’s not enough to even sustain a search warrant. You can’t just go violating someone’s rights because you have some sort of allegation or suspicion. And the GOP is trying to start some conspiracy circus because they don’t have dirt on Joe Biden, so they’re trying to get to him by making up a bunch of crap about his son instead. and while Hunter Biden may be kind of a scumbag, unless they can actually produce evidence that he did anything illegal with regards to his father, and they haven’t been able to so far, there’s no reason to start a house committee investigation.

[–] jubalvoid 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're missing the point. Ousting Shokin wasn't Biden blocking corruption investigations, it was him literally doing the bidding of the Obama administration, and was supported by the IMF and the entire G-7. That's why he was proud of it, because it was an example of him doing his job exceptionally well. Also Shokin liked to open investigations then leave them open as blackmail, which is exactly what he did to Burisma, so this isn't some smoking gun.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Shokin is also a corrupt pro-russian operative.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I think you're missing the part of the report where this "bombshell testimony" confirms that that never happened, and all these charges hinge on the implication that it could just because Hunter is Joe's son. This is about, to quote the testimony, "the illusion of access to the president".