Rep. Scott Perry, chair of the Freedom Caucus and one of the primary players in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the election, took questions today about the House impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. He got red faced when a reporter had the gall to ask what "actual evidence" Republicans had, as opposed to mere allegations:
"If you can't see that! If you are that blind!" -- Rep. Scott Perry gets very mad at a reporter who asks him what actual evidence Republicans have against Biden (he never cites evidence!) pic.twitter.com/pqlI7PXcgR
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 12, 2023
Perry managed to stammer out three (3) items:
- "The homes that the Bidens own can't be afforded on a congressional or Senate salary."
- "It's not normal for family members to receive millions of dollars from overseas interests."
- "We have the vice president on record saying that the prosecutor was fired."
This is a joke, right? Let's roll the tape:
- In 1974, Biden bought a home in Greenville for $185,000. Monthly payments on that were maybe a little high for a Senate salary of $44,000, but well within normal. In 1996 he sold the house for $1.2 million and used the money to buy a smaller house in Greenville that was, at the time, easily affordable on a Senate salary of $133,000. Then, a few years ago, using money from speaking fees, he bought a vacation home in Rehoboth Beach for $2.7 million.
.
That's it. Biden currently owns two homes, one that was easily affordable on a Senate salary and a second that was paid for out of post-vice-presidential largesse. There's nothing here. - "Family members" have indeed received a lot of money doing lobbying for overseas interests. You can decide for yourself what you think of this, but none of the money went to Joe Biden. Again, there's nothing here.
- Joe Biden did indeed brag that he had forced Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, in 2016. At the time, however, Shokin was not investigating Burisma or any other business related to Hunter Biden. Quite the contrary: Shokin was widely known—both in Europe and the US—to be corrupt and it was Obama administration policy that he should be fired as a condition of aid to Ukraine. There's nothing here.
None of this is even in dispute. We know what houses Biden owns. We know that Biden's son and brother represented foreign interests but none of their earnings went to Biden. And we know perfectly well why Shokin was fired.
This is the best they've got. If it's a joke, it's a sick one.
I know Mr. Drum likes to point out that life is grand. Problems cited in the media are exaggerated and can be safely ignored. Crime rates are normal. All of that is fine with me. But what he can’t paper over with charts is the utter contempt that many Republicans have for everyone else. They hate you so much that they are ready to wreck the government and turn it against you. They were happy to do this in 2020 and they are out for revenge now. Nothing else matters.
Can they pull it off? No clue. But I’m not counting on my fellow citizens or the media or the political class to come to their senses. That would be foolish. Good luck.
From time to time Kevin Drum makes the argument that it's all the Democrats' fault for being too extreme. I feel like he must have FOX-ified family or friends.
Without bad faith…..
…. Republicans would have no arguments at all.
Weak tea has nothing on Scott Perry. I mean he surely knows his house argument is silly- right? The rest is equally absurd. What’s going on here is that the GOP is attempting to devalue impeachment in an odd peculiar reverse psychology to besmirch the Trump impeachment (don’t ask how that works, I don’t know- it really is very juvenile). Of course the Clinton impeachment goes unmentioned. To paraphrase Logan Roy, the GOP is not serious people.
Doesn't seem absurd to me.
1. Claiming we know that Joe Biden didn't take money from Hunter is absurd - you can't prove a negative. Best you can argue is that we have no convincing financial evidence.
2. There is some evidence on Hunter's laptop that he reserved 10 for "the big guy" on a deal and there is his email to his daughter saying that at least she would not have to pay her father 50% of her earnings. The obvious implication was that Hunter did need to do this.
3. Finally, there was no need for any money to go to Joe Biden. I am also late career with assets bumping up against the estate tax limit. I would be very happy to take a job or do a deal in which all the returns went to my children. I have enough money to live well until I die, I could increase my consumption since I could leave a smaller estate, and keeping the money out of my estate would be more tax efficient.
Assuming everything you say here is true, what's the impeachable offense?
You'd be happy if companies kept enabling your ne'er-do-well son, so that he always failed upward as a way to try to get to you?
No? Nor would *almost* anybody.
Donnie's one exception. You think everyone's as horrible as Donnie, but almost nobody is. Imagining Biden did some bad thing because Donnie would do it is just plain lunacy.
If I have a choice between my son failing upwards or downwards I will pick upwards.
Just to be clear, you'd welcome someone trying to corrupt you by enabling your son's bad behavior?
Does that mean your worry about Biden is that he might be as immoral as you are?
1. Solid point. We can’t prove you don’t bang goats; best we can say is, we don’t have the photos of you banging goats …
Exactly. So when Ken claims as fact that none of the money went to Joe Biden he is obviously making it up.
We have at least two pieces of evidence that money went to Joe Bidden. The most an honest person can say is that he does not consider them convincing.
Setting this bar is also a straw man. Joe Biden is within a couple of decades of the end of his life. There is no indication that he plans to blow his money on yachts, hookers, and cocaine. To the extent that he is still trying to make money it is to provide his children with a legacy. If you give his kids money that is better than giving him money - no estate tax and less scrutiny.
"We have at least two pieces of evidence that money went to Joe Bidden."
No. We don't. The two items you mention are not evidence. Hunter allegedly saying something is not evidence that he actually did that thing. The same goes for your other example.
As Kevin mentions, it's innuendo and hearsay. Until the Republicans can show tangible proof to support their claims that money went to Biden (their claim, not mine) then they have not provided evidence.
The laptop will never be evidence as there is no chain of custody. The ‘50% of earnings’ was at a time when adult Hunter was living in his parents’ home. In that circumstance I, and most American parents, would expect an adult child to contribute to household expenses. Wouldn’t you?
A Federal court has already adjudicated the question of whether a President or family members can accept money from foreign sources: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/appeals-court-dismisses-emoluments-clause-case-against-trump-n1028216
@MF
1. If literally hundreds of people are looking for evidence that Joe Biden received some money from Hunter and didn't find *any* evidence that passes the laugh test, I think it is reasonable to say that he did not get any money from Hunter. If you want to be completely pedantic, you can say you are not sure that the Patriots will not win the World Series this year, because you can't prove a negative. While you would be technically correct, practically speaking, you are wasting everyone's time.
2. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/dissecting-gop-claims-about-hunter-biden-deals-allegedly-involving-his-father/ One email on a laptop saying “10 held by H for the big guy?” Assume H is Hunter. Assume Joe Biden is the big guy. Ignore that the particular email was lacking any information that could verify its authenticity. Ignore that the particular deal never made any money. Ignore that everyone involved denied it went to Joe Biden, except for one person who was invited by Trump to a 2020 debate. Ignore that three days later, an actual agreement was drafted that eliminated the unknown 10% that brought up the question. And ignore that even then, the particular agreement never made any money. This is what you are saying is evidence of corruption?
The 50% was covered elsewhere.
3. So it is impeachable to help your son? Not that there is any evidence, but is that your position?
"There is some evidence on Hunter's laptop that he reserved 10 for "the big guy" on a deal and there is his email to his daughter saying that at least she would not have to pay her father 50% of her earnings."
If you call that evidence, I'm glad you're not my lawyer. And these are the best they've got.
The facts will of course be aired completely by Democrats, but facts don't matter to Republicans anymore. I just hope they are so blatant and awful that the few true independents left walk away from voting Republican forever. That's the best outcome.
A very good takedown of the impeachment inquiry stunt, full of quotes from other Republicans, is right here:
https://x.com/abughazalehkat/status/1701705443754860552?s=20
Aired on Fox, btw.
I love the bit at the end where the mouth breathers claim Biden's been hiding the evidence. Pretty sure he's released all his tax and financial records. Must be those super secret records that no one can identify.
This is a nutty and perfect development.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/12/trump-doj-assist-biden-impeachment-probe-00115393
McCarthy formed the inquiry without getting the full House to approve. Why? Because he doesn't have the votes.
The Trump DOJ's OLC issued a binding legal opinion that an impeachment inquiry without a full House vote is invalid. Executive departments are prohibited from cooperating.
Where this goes, not sure, but possibly not very far at all.
For Republicans, rules are meant to be changed - always for their benefit. They'll simply ignore it.
The DOJ cannot issue a "binding legal opinion" on Congressional protocol. They can say whatever they want, but they can't bind congress.
Yes, but the opinion is about how the administration reponds. It says that if there was no full house vote, the administration does not need to respond to it (though it can respond if it wants to).
Oh come on readers. The repulsives must keep themselves in the headlines, no matter what, over and over. No, they will never stop.
I have empathy for Scott's anger from personal experience. I also get angry with people that ask me questions I don't want to answer. Like when I was on my way out the door to play with my friends and my mom would ask me if my homework was done.
Heehee!
Kevin, yes, but are those house prices adjusted for inflation?
Your numbers for the house ignore that his wife was also working. Add in her income and they even more easily make payments.
Steve
Actually in 1974 Joe Biden was a widower and did not marry his present wife Jill until 1977. Jill Biden was and is a teacher so her salary was likely less then his Senate salary.
Kevin doesn't provide any information about the down payment on that 1974 purchase, either. That's obviously a relevant issue. He may have put 50% down for all we know (perhaps there were life insurance proceeds from the tragic death of his first wife?).
Obviously not a joke, this is the next pathetic phase of the civil war.
This stuff is ridiculous and foul, but it works. Repeat horse shit long enough and people start smelling it, it is that simple.
That's why I want to remind everyone that Ted Cruz's father was the Zodiac killer.
Exactly! It doesn't matter that their nonsensical crap always sounds like it was made up by a 12 year old... they just have to get the press to talk about it for a while and then profit as everything Trump did is now bothsided with Biden's possible "corruption".
Yeah, this is exactly what they are up to.
If its bad that the Biden family received millions, does that make Kushner receiving billions even worse?
Steve
No. It makes Kushner smarter. Billions is more than millions!
"If it's a joke, it's a sick one."
But neither the sick speaker nor his sick audience think it's a joke. What was your quotation yesterday? Something about people will believe lies if they hear them often enough, I think. And that even the speaker will eventually come to believe them.
We are well past that point.
there's nothing here.
Politically there may well be "something" here.
You and I may very much wish half the country weren't so easily dupe-able. We might also wish the press weren't so craven and unprincipled. But our wishes don't matter.
There was also "nothing here" on Benghazi as you'll recall.
Am I certain the president will be damaged by any of this? No. Am I hopeful the blowback will end up actually hurting Republicans and helping Joe Biden? Indeed I am. So we shall see. But I don't think anybody knows how this will play out, and recent precedent regarding the state of our electorate and our media don't inspire loads of confidence.
The Clinton impeachment was stupid, but at least they had *something*. This time they're just making shit up and pretending that reality is somehow obligated to conform to their stupid fantasies.
Well, the ol' "investigate first, manufacture some fake 'facts' to justify it later" seems to have worked with Benghazi and Emailgate, so why not go all in on Something something bribes arglebarglegate or whatever? The NYT Pitchbot will do the rest.
Bill Clinton’s impeachment was unjustifiable; as reprehensible as his behavior was, it was a personal failing, not a failure to perform his duties in accordance with the law and Constitution.
Absolutely. Even if you concede that Clinton's dodgy answers under oath about his affair with Lewinsky were wrong or illegal, they weren't fundamentally corrupt abuses of his office or the Constitution. Pressuring a foreign government to manufacture a political scandal to help your reelection, or conspiring to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power after you've lost an election *are so* high crimes and misdemeanors.
To be fair, if Democrats wanted to impeach Trump over his payout to cover up his schtupping Stormy Daniels, I wouldn't have agreed with that. That may be something he's criminally liable for, particularly if he commited campaign/business fraud to do it, but it wouldn't be a fundamental abuse of his office or the Constitution, imho.
Clinton committed perjury. That's a felony and a crime of dishonesty. If you could prove Trump committed perjury in the E. Jean Carroll case works you seriously claim that it did not disqualify him from the presidency?
Yes, I would agree that that would not disqualify him. If Clinton or Trump had remained private citizens, they would almost certainly never have been charged for lying about personal indiscretions.
Obviously standards of integrity have declined since my day.
If he commits perjury in a civil case like this, then he should face whatever penalties apply. And if voters think it's disqualifying, then they shouldn't vote for him. What it isn't is a "high crime or misdemeanor" in a Constitutional sense that demands impeachment and/or removal from office.
High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution.
I certainly believe that felonies and lying under oath would qualify.
If a Democrat does them, right?
On what grounds was Ken Starr—a vicious partisan hack (along with his bootlick, “Kegs” Kavanaugh) appointed to investigate Whitewater—questioning the sitting president before a grand jury on which sex acts he performed with an intern in the Oval Office?
It’s utterly insane.
If Trump had been hauled before a grand jury and questioned under oath about his sex life he would have shattered the perjury meter.
Ted Cruz sneered a few months back that nobody could afford a vintage Corvette on a senator's salary.
It would have taken him two minutes on Google to learn the Corvette was a 1967 wedding gift to Joe from his father, who owned a Chevy dealership. Truthfulness stopped being a consideration on the right a long time ago.
Obviously Cruz never intended to live on a senator’s salary. That’s why he married a Goldman Sachs partner. So he could afford to send his children to woke private schools and stay in luxury resorts in Cancun as the failed private infrastructure in Texas collapsed.
Kevin points here, as well as his questions in his previous post, pose some serious challenges to the Republicans' case. Thus I can see this impeachment "inquiry" unfolding a lot like a 17th century witch trial. To wit:
Due to the "incredibly sensitive" nature of the case, 1. those bringing the accusations will be anonymous. 2. the kind and nature of the evidence will be kept concealed. 3. Neither the defendant nor the public will be told what the charges are, what the evidence is, or what the committee's verdict is until sentence is pronounced. 3. To ensure the integrity of the process, a guilty verdict will be assumed.
I forgot to add: witnesses will not be put under oath and made up testimony will be accepted
Note that the Europeans also determined that Shokin was not investigating corruption. Sleepy Joe had bamboozled them, too!
The alleged corrupt actions of Burisma occurred before Hunter Biden joined the board. That just proves that he was the mastermind operating by remote control, don’t you see!
As always, the absence of evidence is just more evidence of how deep the conspiracy goes!
I've no doubt Zlochevsky brought Hunter on to the board because he thought it would make his dodgy company more acceptable to the US. It's the same reason he appointed an American investment manager to chair the board, and made an ex-President of Poland a member along with W's ex-CIA Director of Counter-terrorism.
I also have no doubt he had little understanding of US politics, and got zero value for money from the appointments.
Shokin never prosecuted a single corrupt individual in Ukraine. He only prosecuted NGOs that opposed corruption.
One nugget of interest to me is the participation of Dems. McCarthy wouldn’t allow republicans on the Jan 6 panel unless he was allowed to appoint the biggest unserious buffoons. How much can he shut out or hamper Dems on the committees in the Biden “inquiry “?
It appears that Perry does not believe that making millions from overseas work is good, for members of a Presidential family, but making billions is. Interesting.,
Pingback: Actually, the Biden houses don’t naturally compute | Zingy Skyway Lunch