In its third report, House GOP Oversight panel claims evidence Joe Biden benefitted from son Hunter business dealings. White House says it shows no such thing

The committee, led by Chairman James Comer, said in the report that it plans to continue to investigate Biden to find evidence of corruption, even as it acknowledged that it had no evidence that he financially benefited from the myriad foreign business dealings of his son Hunter.

https://archive.li/e7d6j

  • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world
    91·
    1 年前

    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.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      10·
      1 年前

      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.

      • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 年前

        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.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          3·
          1 年前

          Bring on more resources then.

          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.

          If there’s even a shred of evidence that someone should be investigated, …

          Your original comment didn’t mention evidence, just that

          I will never not support investigating people in high amounts of power, or the rich.

          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.”