The AP headline summarizes the story:
House Republicans issue criminal referrals against James and Hunter Biden, alleging false testimony
Fleshed out by Repubs saying, "Something to it," and Dems saying, "Nothing to it," go search if you care. This is from the folks who burned through time and money and drum beating based upon an FBI write-up of a confidential informant's information for which Special Counsel Weiss indicted Smirnov, the informant, for lying.
Is it a last desperate effort, or something which could grow legs? You read through the turgid stuff and tell me.
--------------------------------------
MSN carried the story with a helpful link to the underlying document - the item the Republicans fabricated. (BS or with gravitas being unclear, "fabricated" is used as a choice-privilege of authorship. As in they put it together, fabricated in that sense.)
Bless anyone who takes it very seriously in this election run-up.
It appears as news along with more about the Alito upside down flag.
-------------------------------------
This "know it's there - believe it important or same old" post ends here.
__________UPDATE__________
One further thought. After Rep. Comer and crew lost cred over Smirnov's total lie, it reminds me:
 | ||
| Still Going (click here) |
FURTHER: Breitbart covers it as if credible. But they cover Republicans as credible, no matter who or what, e.g., this from the homepage.
______________FURTHER UPDATE______________
This is from a day later. The first new thought, is this referral step a sign of throwing in the towel, no further committee hearings, staff contacts, etc.? Or is this a show thing - DoJ being challenged to "prove" no two tier approach?
If the later, there might be a problem. Crabgrass recalls reading online in the past that the Republicans were not transcribing testimony/depositions. If a referral is made without a full record, how can the biased Republicans expect DoJ lawyers to judge sixtdy-five pages of bias against full statements, to see if anything beyond harmless misrecollection is at issue. Were Hunter and Jim Biden asked follow-up questions which might have refreshed memory were there actual misstatements, possibly inattentively so? Were questions vague or precise? Things which would go into a full weighing of, was there any likelihood of crime at all, and if possibly, can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt, i.e., is it triable and at all winnable?
And remember, Joe Biden is running against a convicted felon. A trial was held and evidence of guilt was compelling to twelve randomly chosen citizens.
Crabgrass understands such questions might have some form of answer in the Republican pages, but declines to spend time looking. Interested readers can bear such questions in mind if reading Republican items. Most important to Crabgrass, were full transcriptions of subpoenaed under oath testimony given the DoJ to sensibly review committee allegations, or not?
No transcripts suggests political stunt rather than sincere belief that crime happened. This is clearly a politically charged thing, and the Republicans earlier released the FBI report of Smirnov lore -- hearsay without suitable effort to verify credibility, the released item containing pure provably inaccurate fiction. Prejudicial without any probative truth. Doing that burned credibility of the Republican conduct.
Skepticism is merited, and is the basis for Crabgrass believing reading the stuff is not worth the time it would take.