The memo noted that the Oversight Committee, led by Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky, had received more than 12,000 pages of subpoenaed bank records, reviewed more than 2,000 pages of suspicious activity reports and spent hours interviewing witnesses, including two of Hunter Biden's former business associates. But none of the bank records released so far show any payment to the president.
But let me go to Philip Bump's analysis a moment:
Biden has demonstrably misrepresented his son’s business activities, as The Washington Post has documented.
That sentence links to this story, which says that during a 2020 presidential debate, Biden denied Hunter had any business dealings in China. Except Hunter, in 2023, admitted he did. Is this, then a "demonstrable misrepresentation"? Or is it proof Joe doesn't keep close track of Hunter's business dealings?
Half-empty? Or half-full?
It's an important question, because McCarthy's announcement today about an "impeachment inquiry" (the subject of Bump's analysis, in which he finds McCarthy either not credible or, in one instance, flat out lying) is based on the idea that Joe knows what Hunter is up to, and in fact benefits from it, living large off ill-gotten gains paid to "Bidens" (as Bump points out, that's like saying "McCarthy's" were censured by Congress; true, but wildly inaccurate in context).
But then, Bump's sentence is wildly inaccurate, too. Still, keeps him 'fair and balanced,' donchaknow?
Yeah. Bump's analysis doesn't, but should, boil down to TPM's observation that there is no evidence here. Or, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut describing the children's string game "Cat's Cradle:" "There's no damned cat, and no damned cradle!"
But political journalists are determined to clothe the emperor, even as he stands proudly naked at the House podium and spews errant nonsense in all directions.
No comments:
Post a Comment