House Speaker Kevin McCarthy brutally savaged a reporter who questioned if there was any evidence to warrant an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. There are almost no words to describe how comical this is, as if there was any evidence to support the impeachment of former President Donald Trump. There was no evidence of Russian collusion, which turned out to be a hoax, the real big lie, and nothing to support the equally shoddy quid pro quo allegation regarding Ukraine aid and investigations into the Biden family.
The best part of this exchange is that he gets this reporter to admit that there’s evidence of wrongdoing, at least enough to warrant an inquiry:
AP reported that McCarthy's impeachment inquiry was launched "without evidence.” Here’s McCarthy forcing an AP reporter to admit that there was lots of evidence to support an impeachment inquiry. pic.twitter.com/lgzU1BNNlE
— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) September 14, 2023
FYI, @FarnoushAmiri. You keep saying “without evidence” but here you acknowledged over and over that “that’s what the testimony said.” You understand that testimony is evidence, right? So which is it, are you dumb or dishonest? Cuz those are the only two options here.
— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) September 14, 2023
Also a question for @AP Executive Editor @JuliePace.
— Kristinn Taylor (@KristinnFR) September 14, 2023
Oh my gosh. This AP reporter just had a ROUGH exchange with @SpeakerMcCarthy. https://t.co/GLaWDAqvaw
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) September 14, 2023
Six banks filed 170-plus suspicious activity reports concerning the financial activities of this family. They’ve established a network of shell companies, instructing clients on funneling the proceeds to avoid legal issues. Joe never knew his son was banking $20 million from Central Asian oligarchs and other unscrupulous individuals. Obviously, he did, which was evident when the media had to move the goalposts on that narrative. There is nothing illusory about access here when millions are being paid. While not incriminating, the latest tranche of emails supports why Hunter could ask for such exorbitant fees: Hunter knew top Obama officials.
Recommended
They've found nearly 200 Suspicious Activity Reports from Treasury adding up to at least $10 million that were laundered through 20 LLCs or more controlled by Bidens while the Bidens never explained what that money bought, but sure @AP, go with "without evidence." https://t.co/zyJSr0xTud
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) September 13, 2023
But yeah, sure, "without evidence."
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) September 13, 2023
Wipe your chins.
That access is why Burisma paid him $50,000/month to sit on their board. He provided legal protection, evidenced by then-VP Joe Biden ordering Viktor Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor, to be fired unless the country wanted its aid package in 2014. Shokin was investigating Burisma on corruption charges. The FBI’s FD-1023 report alleges in 2014-15, Burisma paid Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each in bribes. Is the FBI lying? They have before, but there is a reason why they tried to keep this file hidden. Biden's FBI director, Christopher Wray, held onto it until he faced contempt of Congress threats. This dropped not long before IRS whistleblowers Joseph Zeigler and Gary Shapley delivered credible and incriminating testimony concerning pervasive DOJ interference in their investigations into the president’s son, disputing claims made by Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding the independence of these probes.
No evidence? With the major investigations into Trump and the legal fallout pretty much over, we now have months and months to focus on Joe Biden. With congressional Republicans starting impeachment inquiries, all attention circles back to the evidence. It’s there, liberal America. Sorry, not sorry.
It's not the first time a reporter got smoked for not seeing the forest for the trees in this story.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member