https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/15/congressman-ken-buck-biden-impeachment/
Below is the copy/paste from a Republican congressman Ken Buck from Colorado
The GOP’s charge against Biden is that he personally benefited from his son’s deplorable business exploits around the globe. Without a doubt, Hunter Biden’s shady business deals undermined America’s image and our anti-corruption goals, and his conduct was thoroughly reprehensible. What’s missing, despite years of investigation, is the smoking gun that connects Joe Biden to his ne’er-do-well son’s corruption.
My fellow Republicans leading the House inquiry believe the connection comes through the 2016 firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, which then-Vice President Biden helped facilitate.
The dominant narrative in right-wing media is that Shokin was an anti-corruption zealot with an active investigation into Burisma, the company where Hunter Biden held a seat on the board of directors, and from which he reportedly received large monthly payments.
The truth about Shokin is much more complicated and runs counter to the GOP’s “gotcha” narrative. In reality, Shokin was deeply enmeshed in Ukraine’s culture of corruption and, far from being a beacon of transparency, was viewed by many in the West — including some conservative Republican senators — as an obstacle to anti-corruption reforms. There is, in fact, no evidence that Shokin was engaged in an investigation of Burisma, or that Joe Biden’s role in his firing was in any way connected to Burisma.
Much attention has been focused on a speech Biden delivered in December 2015 before Ukraine’s parliament, in which he explicitly called for change at the prosecutor general’s office. Far from being out of line with U.S. policy, Biden’s remarks were entirely within the U.S. government’s paradigm of helping Ukraine break free from its lawless Soviet past. Other senior officials, including U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, made the case during the same period for firing Shokin.
The European Union, which necessarily pays a great deal of attention to the politics and policies of neighboring Ukraine, was also of the opinion that Shokin should be sacked. Shokin had been the biggest barrier to the E.U.’s years-long efforts to encourage rule-of-law reforms in Ukraine.
These facts — like all facts — are stubborn things.
Republicans in the House who are itching for an impeachment are relying on an imagined history. Their inquiry, formally announced by Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday, rests heavily on a fictitious version of Shokin’s career, with the alleged investigation of Burisma at the center. It’s a neat story, and one that performs well in certain media circles. But impeachment is a serious matter and should have a foundation of rock-solid facts.
Does this flimsy excuse for an impeachment sound familiar? It should.
In 2019, the Democratic-controlled House, led by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), pursued an impeachment of President Donald Trump on the loose allegation of a quid pro quo — again involving Ukraine and Shokin. The Democrats alleged that Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure him into examining the theoretical connection between Hunter Biden’s payments from Burisma and Shokin’s firing. Trump ultimately did withhold aid from Ukraine, consistent with the U.S. government’s long-standing policy of tying aid to anti-corruption reforms. But the Democrats were off and running.
I joined my Republican colleagues then in denouncing that impeachment. It was, as we argued at the time, an inversion of our own rule-of-law system. The Democrats had their man and found a pretext to impeach him.
Trump’s impeachment in 2019 was a disgrace to the Constitution and a disservice to Americans. The GOP’s reprise in 2023 is no better.
-------
Muddy the water....
I'm not a Republican.
For me, this has nothing to do with Shokin. This is 100% independent of the Trump impeachment.
Talk about mudding the waters. That's exactly what this guy does. Accuse the Rs of what he's doing.
Maybe this assessment will make it even more crystal clear:
The Biden's bribed corrupt foreign entities(committed extortion) using U.S. tax dollars and other powers that only Joe Biden had. Joe Biden was the corruption fighting point man from the United States, entrusted with the responsibility of using US tax money to fight corruption in several countries. Instead, he did the opposite. He exploited the corruption for his family's personal gain via Hunter's expertise from a decade of being a professional lobbyist in our country. Hunter's move to Ukraine was entirely based on Joe's knowledge of the country's corruption which could be exploited for the Biden's.
It's blatantly absurd to think that Hunter Biden would know anything about Ukraine which would cause him to move there or the company that hired him have any reason to hire such an unqualified person unless Joe's direct influence was involved.
Even more absurd would be to think that Hunter had some sort of magical unknown powers over these entities that resulted in them sending $20,000,000 to Biden family accounts. Or that the 20 shell companies to ILLEGALLY launder the money, created by Hunter wasn't using money sourced from Joe Biden's influence as Vice President of the United States extorting that money thru corruption.
+++++++++++
If this is true, joj.
1. Do you think these are impeachable offenses?
2. Do you think that Amercan's should know about it with an investigation OF THE FACTS.
3. If this is not true. Then, would the facts not clear Joe Biden?
“What’s missing, despite years of investigation, is the smoking gun that connects Joe Biden to his ne’er-do-well son’s corruption.”
When you make that connection I’ll get back to you on impeachment. Assuming that he can be impeached for something he did as VP.
Show me the 10s of millions.
This is evidence, similar to when a murder is committed and you have the finger prints of the suspect on the murder weapon. Or DNA evidence in a rape. It's extremely powerful in court and used all the time to convict people of crimes(or to clear them).
There is more coming thanks to the additional impeachment investigation powers.
https://www.docmckee.com/WP/cj/docs-criminal-justice-glossary/circumstantial-evidence-definition/
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to be made by the finder of fact.
Circumstantial evidence is a type of indirect evidence that requires the finder of fact to make an inference in order to draw a conclusion about the fact in question. This is in contrast to direct evidence, which proves a fact directly without the need for any inferences.
Examples of circumstantial evidence include physical evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, and fibers, as well as testimony from witnesses who may have observed relevant behavior or events. In order for circumstantial evidence to be admissible in court, it must be relevant to the case at hand and have probative value.
+++++++++++
Again, I'm not a republican and base all my opinions on authentic, objective facts using the scientific method. They are mind boggling compelling for me.
One thing that the scientific method does is compel the scientist to look at potential alternative scenario's that could make them wrong. They try to prove themselves wrong before having confidence of being right.
I just can't come up with an alternative scenario that makes any sense.
Maybe you can help me out with that to explain 20 million dollars going into Biden accounts from corrupt foreign countries where Joe controlled US money, using illegal shell companies and a business that produced nothing.
What is YOUR explanation for that?
The explanation can't be this silly response(for non captured brains to take it serious), repeated over and over.
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
"Show me the 10s of millions."
So you must agree with the impeachment hearings because that's exactly what they are designed to do.........OR FAIL TO DO!
If they are unable to show the money, then I will adjust my position.
If they ARE able to show the money, will you change yours?
Well, normally impeachment hearings would be the result of investigations that have already proven 10s of millions in Joe Biden's pocket, not the fishing expedition to hunt for something that they are hoping for. But yes, I would change my position. Partly because that would be gross corruption on Joe Biden's part and partly because he'd have to be stupid to take that much money when you know that would be easy to uncover. Anyone that stupid deserves to be impeached. Only Trump is so stupid (arrogant?) to commit crimes like that in broad daylight.
So how do you reconcile Tony Bobulinski's testimony, his text that he received, and other documents about Biden dealings in China, Sino Hawk Holdings.
Tucker exclusive: Tony Bobulinski, ex-Hunter Biden associate, speaks out on Joe Biden - Bing video
Tony Bobulinski reveals harrowing details of Hunter Biden's business dealings - Bing video
Good point, cutworm!
Or Devan Archer's testimony under oath.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/97654/#98970
The Biden's did everything they claim he did and to pretend that Joe was outside the loop would be like pretending that Hunter Biden was selling a product that doesn't exist, completely independent of his VP dad that caused corrupt foreign entities to send the Bidens 10s of millions of dollars.
Hunter was just the sales person. JOE WAS THE PRODUCT/BRAND he sold.
Devon Archer confirmed this and the help that Joe gave to get the prosecutor fired.
+++++++++++++
joj,
I understand why this is such a hard one to swallow, even for a pretty objective guy like you.
The effectiveness of repeating DISinformation and lies that people want to believe knows no bounds.
I fully expect that no matter how much evidence that Rs continue to produce, the game plan for the D media and politicians will continue the exact same.
just keeps repeating this:
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
The biggest reason this is so effective is similar to the reason the Rs thought the January 6th hearings were all lies.
If you watched FOX, for instance they were the only major network NOT carrying the hearings live.
Instead of the hearings, their hosts told viewers:
"Donald Trump did nothing wrong, the Ds are just being political"
"Donald Trump did nothing wrong, the Ds are just being political"
Ds, Independents and moderate Rs all know about the massive, authentic evidence against Trump.
But Trump supporting Rs only went to sources like FOX that lied to them about the January 6th hearing, so that's what the only thing they know and believe. They really, really believe:
"Donald Trump did nothing wrong, the Ds are just being political"
joj, You wouldn't pay good money for a subscription to the NYT unless you liked their political content and agree with it most of the time.
The NYT is leading the charge with this false narrative:
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
Unlike Trumpsters NEVER EVER admitting who he is and what he did wrong, I fully expect that if the Rs are able to follow the money with their new powers to confirm the overwhelming, very powerful circumstantial evidence they already have that you will acknowledge it.
Even if the NYT does not.
You are MUCH more honest than the NYT!
++++++++++++++++++
What people think and what the press reports, is not as important as holding Joe Biden accountible for his crimes committed as Vice President.
Should we cave in to a loud chorus of:
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
Or...........pursue justice?
No way the Senate will vote for impeachment because almost no Ds will vote for it. NO matter what the Rs show, they will keep repeating the chorus above.
That shouldn't mean we neglect duty and responsibility, letting crime win at the expense of the American people without at least doing the right thing to expose it.
There are 2 choices here:
1. Do the right thing and lose in the end
2. Do the wrong thing because its easier/will go better
Republicans have been doing all they can to paint the president as corrupt and complicit in his son's business dealings. Here's what we know
House Republican leadership is sure of one thing: they’d like to start the impeachment process against Joe Biden. What’s less clear is what they’d like to impeach him over.
In his first comments to the press about the impeachment inquiry launched this week, Speaker Kevin McCarthy spoke about “a picture of a culture of corruption” painted by House Republican committees investigating Hunter Biden and his father, referencing a handful of allegations dug up over the course of hearings and interviews.
At the heart of Republicans’ allegations are claims that Biden, as vice president, improperly benefitted from his son’s foreign business partners and received millions in secret bribes. Some of the allegations involve reiterations of claims made by Rudy Giuliani during his attempt to dig up dirt on the Biden family — an effort which ultimately led to the first impeachment of Trump.
The impeachment inquiry announced by McCarthy comes after months of investigations by the House Oversight and Judiciary committees into Hunter Biden’s business dealings since Republicans took control of the House in the 2022 midterms. Those inquiries have uncovered a number of thinly-sourced claims about the Bidens, but haven’t yielded much in the way of evidence implicating the then-vice president in any crimes.
Nevertheless, GOP leaders have spent months alleging they can prove Biden is a felonious traitor. “I am committed to ensuring that we uncover the truth about what I believe will prove to be the biggest political corruption and criminal scandal in our nation’s history,” Rep. Elise Stefanik said in the wake of McCarthy’s announcement on Tuesday.
So what are the main claims against the Bidens that are likely to fuel the Republican impeachment push and what’s behind them? Here’s a guide:
Some of the most frequently cited testimony of alleged Biden “influence peddling” cited by House Republicans comes from Devon Archer, a former business partner of Hunter Biden at the private equity firm they co-founded, Rosemont Seneca Partners.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer hailed Archer, who was convicted in 2022 in connection with an unrelated scheme to defraud a Native American tribe, as a potential “hero” of Republicans investigations into the Biden family. His allegations cast the former president in an unflattering light but fell short of expectations he would offer evidence of wrongdoing.
Archer testified before the Oversight Committee in July, claiming that a “key component” of Hunter Biden’s involvement with foreign companies like Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings, where he sat on the board, was using his family name as a “signal” and a “brand” to potential business partners that helped with “opening doors.”
Archer also told Republicans on the committee that while Joe Biden was vice president he attended dinners with Hunter’s Russian and Kazakh business partners in Washington, D.C., and that Hunter would sometimes call his father on speakerphone while attending dinners with business associates.
In other words: Hunter Biden was selling access to Joe. And through his calls and drop-bys, the then-VP tacitly endorsed his son’s play.
The problem for Comer and Republicans is that Archer testified that Hunter’s use of his family name and proximity to his vice president father never resulted in any official actions taken on their behalf. Pressed repeatedly by House Democrats, Archer said he knew of no instances in which the vice president discussed business with his son or took any official actions on behalf of his associates. Conversations between Biden and his son’s associates, Archer claimed, were limited to anodyne small talk.
Under questioning from Democrats, Archer also testified that Hunter and his father spoke more frequently at this time, following Beau Biden’s cancer diagnosis and death in 2015.
The most serious allegation levied by Republicans, that then-Vice President Joe Biden received a $5 million bribe from Burima, is also among the most thinly sourced, coming from a tipster who reiterated claims dug up by Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine.
In 2020, a confidential human source told the FBI that Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky had claimed that the Bidens coerced him to pay them $10 million in bribes — $5 million to Hunter Biden and $5 million to his father — in order to get then-Vice President Biden to pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was allegedly investigating the company. The source also claimed that Zlochevsky had made 17 secret recordings of his conversations with the Bidens, two with Joe and 15 with Hunter. Investigators found a record of the tip in 2020 in the course of investigating allegations against the Biden family brought by Giuliani. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, says the Justice Department, under Attorney General Bill Barr, investigated the tipster’s claims, “including reviewing suspicious activity reports and interviewing at least one confidential human source,” but closed the investigation eight months later, citing a lack of evidence. Zlochevsky has also denied ever receiving assistance from then Vice President Biden.
House Republicans have also endorsed allegations by Gal Luft, an Israeli-American businessman who worked for CEFC, a Chinese energy company who engaged in joint ventures with Hunter Biden, netting the vice presidential scion millions of dollars.
Luft claims that the Chinese intelligence-linked officials funneled money to the Biden family and that Hunter Biden had a secret one-eyed FBI mole who provided early warning to CEFC founder Ye Jianming and associate Patrick Ho that they were under investigation by the Bureau. (Ho was subsequently convicted of bribery and money laundering in connection with business ventures in Chad and Uganda).
Rep. Comer has called Luft a “whistleblower” and “a very credible witness,” but Luft is also an international fugitive following an indictment this summer by the Justice Department in July. Federal prosecutors charged Luft with acting as an unregistered foreign agent for China, arms trafficking Chinese weapons to Libya, violating U.S. sanctions with Iranian oil deals, and lying to the FBI. Luft was arrested in Cyprus on a U.S. extradition request but fled while out on bail.
Luft claimed to have shared his information about the Bidens in a 2019 meeting with the FBI during an interview in Brussels. Prosecutors charged him with lying to the FBI agents about his knowledge of CEFC’s business dealing with Iran during that same interview. Luft has since claimed that the charges against him are political retaliation for his allegations against the Bidens. Democrats have asked Rep. Comer to investigate whether Luft’s allegations were made in “furtherance of the CCP’s efforts to undermine U.S. security interests and the President of the United States.”
The inquiry comes at a precarious time for McCarthy, who has long faced pressure from the right flank of his caucus to impeach Biden, as well as from former President Trump, who began asking Republicans how many times they planned to impeach Biden on the eve of their 2022 midterm victory.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a persistent critic of McCarthy, argued forcefully for the inquiry but said that the speaker’s decision to move ahead with impeachment won’t affect far-right Republicans’ push to get drastic spending cuts as the federal government faces a potential shutdown over the House’s inability to pass a budget.
But a number of Republicans have expressed unease with the impeachment push. The White House, keen to seize on doubts within the House GOP, issued a memo to the media highlighting quotes from Republican members like Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) who have said that evidence justifying impeachment “doesn’t exist right now.”
Despite those evidentiary concerns, members in vulnerable districts appear to be sticking by McCarthy’s impeachment crusade.
++++++++++++++++
There you have it. The LONG VERSION of another convincing sounding argument by a source pretending to be objective but that completely ignores the compelling evidence and instead uses:
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
+++++++++++++++
There's a mountain of circumstantial evidence they pretend isn't real. When you solve challenging crimes, especially complicated ones that involve 20 shell companies laundering money (that by itself is VERY illegal) the crafty criminals(smartest man that Joe Biden knows and his dad) don't leave behind an easy trail for everybody to follow. In fact, it's CRYSTAL CLEAR that the exact opposite happened with the shell companies used to cover up the crimes.
joj seems to think that they were dumb to do it this way(they almost got away with it, however if not for the Rs having a tiny majority to open the investigation). We should keep in mind that extreme greed AND POWER will motivate dishonest people to take risks and break laws to acquire things. Often because they over estimate how clever they are and the arrogance causes them to assign too much ignorance to their victims(and law enforcers/justice system).
It requires tenacity and persistence to slowly uncover all the evidence to show the entire crime. That's EXACTLY what the Rs have been doing and should continue on that righteous path as long as possible until they get to the end.
If Joe Biden is innocent, then he should have nothing to hide. The insane objections and defensiveness of the Ds and media right now are extremely telling. If this was me, and I really was innocent, I would be screaming for them to do the investigation and looking forward to the authentic evidence clearing me.
No, there has been no manufactured evidence. Bank records, shell companies, witnesses testifying under oath can't be manufactured.
On the other hand, If I was guilty, I would be doing exactly what the Ds and MSM are doing to obfuscate and try to confuse people about the actual truth by REPEATING in unison and with collusion:
"joe Biden did nothing wrong, the Rs are just being political"
++++++++++++++
Forget that hogwash and let the authentic facts/evidence speak out!!!
Previous impeachment threads:
Prediction
21 responses |
Started by joj - Sept. 2, 2023, 7:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98679/
Rejected Plea Deal
21 responses |
Started by metmike - July 27, 2023, 7:14 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/97654/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/96901/#96907
The US is a very corrupt country
26 responses |
Started by metmike - June 27, 2023, 11:41 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/96752/
Biden corruption/coverup 10+ times worse than Watergate
14 responses |
Started by metmike - June 9, 2023, 8 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/96097/
Press Conference on Biden Investigation 5-10-23
53 responses
Started by metmike - May 9, 2023, 12:27 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/95063/
Biden's speech 6-2-23
6 responses |
Started by metmike - June 2, 2023, 8:36 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/95855/
‘Just Brutal for President Biden!’
12 responses |
Started by metmike - May 7, 2023, 2:53 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/94997/
Biden cover ups
34 responses |
Started by metmike - April 23, 2023, 1:25 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/94709/
How ironic for it to end this way.
when Trump was impeached by the dishonest Ds because he was trying to investigate these exact same Joe Biden crimes in Ukraine, how funny that must have been to the Biden’s.
Not only did they get away cleanly, but they greatly damaged a person for having the audacity to try to investigate their nefarious activities.
Looks like the last laugh is coming from authentic justice trying to do its job, despite being vigorously blocked at every turn.
The blocking of justice by so many very powerful gatekeepers is exactly what makes this 10 times worse than Watergate!
I's sooner say Hunter got the last laugh in this entire mess when he of all the people involved sued the IRS whistle blowers for what? Well for harming his impeccable reputation naturally. If there has been one person who has tried and tried to always follow the straight and narrow its been Hunter for sure.
Damn, bet these same IRS investigators went home every nite and took very long showers to wash some of the filth off they had to read about while following Hunters sorted tales.
I guess the Republican congressman Ken Buck from Colorado is really just a Democrat masquerading as a Republican. (the essence of this thread)
I would never listen/read/watch ANYTHING from Tucker Carlson after the Dominion 797 million dollar settlement revealed that his texts showed that he fostered the big lie while knowing that it was full of cr@p.
Thanks joj,
I agree with you on Tucker, except I use a different methodology that takes politics out of it.
I never rule out a source because they are full of doo doo most of the time and I don't affiliate with either party. Both parties are full of doo doo, at least a good part of the time.
I try to open mindedly consider the possibility that they might be right every time, then fact check it.
You would be surprised to know that Tucker and even Trump have hit several home runs and had grand slams, while still having one of the lowest batting averages in the league!
I watch CNN AND FOX.(My wife, who prefers non confrontational television, used to hate me watching CNN when Trump was president and really hates me watching FOX with Biden as president). This is the biggest disagreement we have in the evenings, so I totally capitulate and let her have complete control of the clicker even though she is sometimes unhappy to have been temporarily subjected to the intense anger being projected by FOX in the evening hosts. She's not a D, just a person that hates politics, debates, anger and negativity.
NPR is what I listen to on the radio in the car even though they are completely full of doo on the climate crisis almost all the time................but not ALL the time. Even in that realm, they make some valid points every once in awhile.
Much of their non climate programming is awesome.
Shutting down a source that has positions that we disagree with(especially strongly held views) eliminates our access to information that we can't get from sources that we agree with.
This means getting all our information, only from sources that share our opinion........which will ALWAYS reinforce what we think that we know because we don't fact check information that we agree with. Our brains automatically receive it as authentic.
We usually only fact check information that we disagree with, while limiting access to those sources with it because of the assumption that those source are:
1. Striking out almost every time
2. Most importantly. It's very unpleasant for human beings to listen to people spouting crapola that we strongly disagree with. We go to sources that tell us what we want to hear/read because we agree with it and because it's against the natural instinct of the human psyche to apply the scientific method. The scientific method, compels us to FIRST try to prove ourselves wrong before having any confidence that we are right. Only after genuinely being unable to prove ourselves or our opinion wrong with a robust effort to do so, should we have the confidence to know that we are right.
"I would never listen/read/watch ANYTHING from Tucker Carlson after the Dominion 797 million dollar settlement revealed that his texts showed that he fostered the big lie while knowing that it was full of cr@p. "
Yet we are supposed to accept the NYT that did extremely poor coverage of the concentration camps in wwll. Dispite being owned by a Jewish family. Poor coverage of Hunter's laptop, ect.(50 some officials declare it to bee RUSSIAN ...) The NYT never been sued ???
My advice on Tucker is to evaluate the interviewee. Example the interview of Victor Orban. Very eye opening, Very credible.
JMHO
Another related point.
Larry is a moderate and very objective/open minded(you're open minded too). I can't remember the conversation but it was along these lines. He mentioned that he didn't have the time to spend reading everything from every source.
This was actually profound. People have limited time in their busy lives and prefer that many things, like the news be delivered with maximum information and minimum time.
Maximum information sources for joj are going to be defined completely different than maximum information sources for cutworm, entirely because they belong to 2 different parties even though they might have similar objectives.
Even if both of them have shown they are very capable of being objective and open minded, they don't have time every day to get their latest addition of the news from what their political affiliation identifies as a source with very low credibility.
Actually, even though I actually enjoy listening/reading stuff that disagrees with me and spend far too much time on it, I have the same constraints. However, with much more free time to focus on the authenticity of specific topics that turn my crank..........it's sort of what I do here as part of my effort to bring objective truths and science to my very small part of the world.
So we would never expect you to accept anything coming from Tucker and to be honest, now that he's not on FOX and easy to watch because of my routine/habits and tv, I've not tuned into him 1 time, unless somebody here posts a link with him and I do it to fact check him.
I have very few sources that I will actually go to for JUST THEIR view on whatever THEY decide the topic is. The topic hits me, THEN I gather information.
I might go to the Washington Examiner a couple of times a week, just to see what the latest is with Hunter Biden.
The 1 complete exception to all of that is WUWT. On some days, I might go there more than once. They usually have several articles every day. Sometimes on topics that weren't on my radar. It's also the only other place where I make comments/posts.
Even with that being the case, I absolutely DO a fact check on everything, especially when it lines up with what I think that I know (and much of it does there).
In doing so, I filter out over half of the articles as being something to NOT pass on because I find bias and/or too much flawed information supporting the topic in an article. Especially when I want to believe the points. If they are not strongly supported by the data, they are dead to me.
But the comments section is often the best place to obtain wonderful golden nuggets from readers like me that pass on profound, authentic science.
Sadly, in recent years it's become more of an echo chamber and if anybody disagrees with the skeptical narratives, including those with solid points to support the disagreement, they get crushed with negative, sometimes means comments.
That included me a few times, so I prefer to chime in when I have something authentic and positive related specifically to my expertise and knowledge as a scientist, that will be received with open minds.
And many of the comments come from readers that are true deniers in the proven physical laws that define greenhouse gas warming but that's what you will get at sites like that or on social media that doesn't censor. People with bs can post with DISinformation with impunity and the average person that isn't an expert in that field can't tell if it's authentic or not.
That's one of the biggest problems in society right now!
So I pass on certain articles/comments here(including mine) , only AFTER I've did some vetting so I have confidence it's authentic/the truth.