The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is holding its first hearing Thursday in the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden – and Republicans on the committee have made a series of false and misleading claims, as well as some other claims that have left out critical context.
Below is a CNN fact check. This article will be updated as additional fact checks are completed.
I think the most surreal part is that they’re wanting to impeach Biden on something that Trump very vocally did for Jared Kushner.
And worse yet, they established no link between Hunter Biden’s actions and Joe Biden outside of, “Of course he knew! He’s Joe Biden’s son!”
That was literally the maximum extent of connection they established. That they’re related to each other so obviously they’re all in on it.
The level of projection from this whole affair, especially seeing how the government is about to shut down, really indicates that the GOP in general has lost the entire point of governance.
They didn’t lose it, they actively threw it away. Ever since Newt Gingrich said that he wanted to get the government so small that he could drown it in a bathtub I knew that they were illegitimate and did not belong in government at all.  it’s only gotten worse. 
That was Grover Norquist’s line. IIRC Gingrich was all about the Contract “With” America.
To the question: Do you have any evidence of wrongdoing by the president of the United states.
All 4 republican witnesses all said, they don’t have evidence of wrongdoing.
If this was a real court case, with average individuals, the case would have been thrown out.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Never, ever trust a conservative.
You could have just said:
”Republicans make false misleading claims.”
“Republicans open mouth”
I’m sure there are exceptions and whatnot for politicians and hearings but in normal circumstances this would be considered a buttload of slander. They’re not even using the qualifier “there’s evidence to suggest” anymore.
In Australia we have parliamentary privilege which means that things said in Parliament can’t be used against you. One of our politicians essentially admitted to fraud in Parliament and a political commentator called him out on it, the politician sued the commentator for slander and the commentator wasn’t allowed to use parliamentary transcripts to prove the truth defence. Eventually it was settled, but it cost him a lot of money and there were conditions.
Same thing in the us basically. If you hear a politician saying “strongly held belief” that’s what they’re trying to evoke though usually wrongly and even still poorly.
This feels like my 8yo daughter having a raucous teddy bears’ picnic in the corner of the living room, with only her internally-generated dialogue creating a wild circus of a party full of intrigue and salacious gossip. Except major media is covering it.
Unfortunately, the people who can and will read this article already know that.
And the people who need to know it will never read it, nor would they believe it.
Wow. Shocking.
“Repubs talk shit, as ever”
