The Bidens: “Stone Cold Crooked” (9) — When Can We Start Calling It What It Is, Namely Bribery? Manhattan Contrarian

The Biden family corruption scandal gets deeper with every passing day. Speaker Kevin McCarthy finally opened an impeachment investigation in the House last week, and now the first hearing in that investigation has been scheduled for September 28 before the House Oversight Committee.

So what is the potential impeachable offense? You will undoubtedly recall, in the context of the two Trump impeachments, the endless semantic contortions that took place trying to shoe-horn Trump s conduct into the vague constitutional catchall of high crimes and misdemeanors that might support an impeachment. Now, with Biden, the conduct at issue goes by various euphemisms like the family business, business dealings with foreign nationals, influence peddling, selling access, or maybe just corruption. But are these impeachable offenses?

Well, how about bribery ? In Biden s case, there is no need for creative legal argumentation. Biden s crime is right there in the list set out in Constitution Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And yet for some reason participants in the public discussion of the Bidens conduct seem remarkably reluctant to call a spade a spade. The reluctance spans both sides of the political divide, and even extends to the websites of the House of Representatives that discuss the ongoing investigations. Here are a few recent examples (out of hundreds):

via www.manhattancontrarian.com

Yes, it seems so to me too. I mean, even legitimate centimillionaires don’t set up the rat’s nest of offshore accounts the Bidens had. It’s legal to do so, but if you don’t have any visible business, you’re almost certainly trying to hide something. Of course, it could be the Senior Biden was taking money and not doing anything for it. He was only providing the “appearance of influence.” Is that bribery? I don’t know. It fits the definition of a dishonest politician — one who once bought does not stay bought. And there are scores of other legal issues involved. Sadly, this will not be well explored by our legal boffins, as most of them have learned these sorts of questions cannot be spoken of, outside of far right, crazy, democracy denying, UFO loving, crazy, J6 supporting, insurrectionist journals.