this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
515 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18986 readers
3870 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 90 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Alternate headline:

Group of liars found to be lying.

[–] Szymon@lemmy.ca 54 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Group of liars succeeds in tying up real business with political theatre for years, distracting the population and dividing it further against each other, while letting the idiot take the fall.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I dunno man. Seems a little wordy. ,, 😆

[–] Szymon@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Admittedly, it could use an edit for brevity lol

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I got you "Some finally SLAMMED logic, irony is now broken."

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

The goppies did it again. That's the short version.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Well maybe one of them will go to jail for perjury this time? We can hope.

[–] Veedem@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wow that’s just a new level of wtf lol

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 69 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not really.

The GOP has been making shit up for decades. They throw it at the wall to see what sticks.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago

I appreciate that this headline isn't ambiguous like the others. "Witness charged with lying" you can make up whichever conclusion suits you with that and I think that's the intention.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago

"My source is that I made it the fuck up"

[–] PeckerBrown@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago

Imagine my shock that liars are lying.
What would shock me even more would be if all those lying cunts actually face consequences.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago (2 children)

So does hunter get to sue/ indict them all now?

[–] CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

Not to mention unwilling exposure of private parts

Sue, yes. Criminal indictment is the job of the prosecution, though.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

No way guys! I never would have seen that coming /s

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is Gym trying not to cry in the thumbnail?

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 10 points 7 months ago

He is workshopping his facial expression for when he eventually has to have a press conference as he gets charged with allowing minors to get raped by a fellow coach.

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 15 points 7 months ago
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Worth noting that the claims were made to the feds on form FD-1023 which is specifically for unverified information:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4108735-republicans-release-fbi-form-alleging-unverified-biden-burisma-allegations/

It's the federal equivalent of "Some... body once told me..."

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Department of Justice has charged a former FBI informant — whose claims Republicans used to bolster allegations of a corrupt bribery scheme involving Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma — with two counts of making false statements to federal authorities.

The indictment, announced Thursday by Special Counsel David Weiss, alleges that Alexander Smirnov “falsely claimed” that during two business meetings in 2015 and/or 2016 “executives associated with Burisma, admitted to him that they hired [Hunter Biden] to ‘protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems.’”

In truth and fact, the defendant had contact with executives from Burisma in 2017, after the end of the administration when [Joe Biden] had no ability to influence U.S. policy and after the Ukrainian Prosecutor General had been fired in February 2016.” The DOJ claims that Smirnov “transformed his routine and unextraordinary business contacts with Burisma in 2017 and later into bribery allegations,” after expressing bias against Joe Biden’s candidacy for the presidency in 2020.

In September, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that he would be directing members of his party to launch an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

During the impeachment inquiry’s first hearing later that month, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee repeatedly referred to the claims made by the FBI informant as fact.

At the time, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters that the investigation may center around allegations that President Biden and his son profiteered from unethical deals with Burisma.


The original article contains 511 words, the summary contains 247 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!