7 points

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!

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Wah-Wah

permalink
report
reply
21 points

Is Gym trying not to cry in the thumbnail?

permalink
report
reply
15 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
53 points

Wow that’s just a new level of wtf lol

permalink
report
reply
79 points

Not really.

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-68 points

This really has been both sides for decades though. Not everything is both sides, but this is. It’s getting bolder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Lying in general? Sure. Lying about illegal things that SHOULD get you for perjury or election tampering?

No. No this is NOT a both sides issue…

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

How fucking stupid do you have to be to manage to both sides this lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Provide an example from the other side please.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 385K

    Comments