551
House Republicans issue new report on Joe Biden corruption… that again offers no evidence
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
551 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19145 readers
3033 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know that this is political backlash for Trump's impeachments, but I will never not support investigating people in high amounts of power, or the rich. Even if it has a 2% conviction rate, I would support it.
There are limited resources to undertake such investigations. Devoting those resources to investgating frivolous and unfounded accusations take away from the ability to investigate accusations with any real evidence.
Which is probably part of the point.
Bring on more resources then. If there's even a shred of evidence that someone should be investigated, we should have the manpower to investigate them.
Rescoures cost money. Money comes from taxpayers. When you're increasing the amount of money spent by taxpayers in order to fund investigations that commonly go nowhere, that's not going to work for very long.
High numbers of investigations that find nothing also serve to make people think all investigations are a waste of time. That gives more talking points for someone getting investigated for strong evidence to color the investigation as being unfounded. That's already happening, it doesn't need to have greater effects in public opinion.
Your original comment didn't mention evidence, just that
Presumably just on the basis of accusation, with disreagrd to evidence? If there needs to be a "shred of evidence," then there should be a "shred of investigation" before that investigation is closed. There should not be endless investigation into everything around a person based on a "shred of evidence." On principle, people should not be the subject of criminal investigation "just because."
Do you think this will be a fair and honest investigation?
Honestly, I think it's just for the press to level the playing field for Trump to win in the general.