At least the NYT came up with an accurate headline this time.
Would’ve been more accurate if it had said they were looking for a shred of evidence.
Hey, they have lots of evidence. In fact, I'll list it all here:
And done! See all that evidence?!!! /s
"do you guys have enough rope? here, let us give you some more"
Guilty until proven otherwise.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
leaders refrained for months from calling a vote to open an impeachment inquiry, given the reservations of mainstream Republicans, many of them from politically competitive districts, about moving forward without proof that Mr. Biden had done anything wrong.
Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Rules Committee, portrayed the vote as a largely procedural step to shore up the House’s investigatory powers.
In a dramatic moment outside the Capitol on Wednesday morning, the younger Mr. Biden held a news conference in which he repeated his offer to publicly testify in the investigation into his father, but insisted again that he would not be interviewed behind closed doors.
“Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not financially involved in my business — not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Burisma, not my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad and certainly not as an artist.”
Since winning the majority, House Republicans have been investigating myriad aspects of President Biden’s family and administration, hunting for evidence that could be used to prove he is corrupt and should be impeached.
Mr. Jordan suggested that false statements the president had made about his son’s business interests — such as his claim that Hunter Biden had not received any money from China — could constitute obstruction.
The original article contains 1,502 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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