Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[kramerica.inc]

The press in unison: "Really, you standing by the pack of lies you told us earlier?"

https://twitter.com/claytravis/status/1 ... mfE5ey8-Lw

"Grumble, grumble...Uhm...I think I refer you to White House Counsel..."

How in the hell did this incompetent idiot wind up being Bidens press secretary? The poor woman is so far out of her league it is embarrassing. Time for Joe to cut bait on this one. She looks like she needs to spend more time with her family.

I hate Trump and Betsy DeVos. DeVos was a no-brain hack who was just hired to push Trump's BS agenda.

I love Biden, KJ-P and Rachel Levine. So smart. The best in their field. So incredibly sharp. Such an inspiration.

[ggait]

Hunter's gig with Burisma was sleazy AF.

Jared's dealings with the Saudis and other ME regimes is much much much sleazier. 40X the dollars in the pocket. And directly tied to his govt service.

Neither appears to be criminal so far.

So who is Joe's alleged new lawyer? And what is such alleged lawyer supposedly repping Joe on? The lack of details on this gives off the odor of bull shirt. But if you have details, let's see em.

[old salt]

Jared's dealings with the Saudis and other ME regimes is much much much sleazier. 40X the dollars in the pocket. And directly tied to his govt service.

Kushner's investors did not invest until after Kushner left govt service. Trump had been defeated & left office in disgrace. Kushner stated that he had no intentions to return to govt service. No remaining influence in govt. The investments did not go personally to Kushner & family members.

Kushner's investors are getting legal, legit returns on their investments ?

What did Hunter's customers get in return for their payments, some while Joe was still VP ?

[MDlaxfan76]

Jared's dealings with the Saudis and other ME regimes is much much much sleazier. 40X the dollars in the pocket. And directly tied to his govt service.

Kushner's investors did not invest until after Kushner left govt service. Trump had been defeated & left office in disgrace. Kushner stated that he had no intentions to return to govt service. No remaining influence in govt. The investments did not go personally to Kushner & family members.

Kushner's investors are getting legal, legit returns on their investments ?

What did Hunter's customers get in return for their payments, some while Joe was still VP ?

Good lord, are you really defending this too?

And why cut ggaits full statement? So, that you can pretend he didn't say the rest?

jerk move, Salty.

[old salt]

Jared's dealings with the Saudis and other ME regimes is much much much sleazier. 40X the dollars in the pocket. And directly tied to his govt service.

Kushner's investors did not invest until after Kushner left govt service. Trump had been defeated & left office in disgrace. Kushner stated that he had no intentions to return to govt service. No remaining influence in govt. The investments did not go personally to Kushner & family members.

Kushner's investors are getting legal, legit returns on their investments ?

What did Hunter's customers get in return for their payments, some while Joe was still VP ?

Good lord, are you really defending this too?

And why cut ggaits full statement? So, that you can pretend he didn't say the rest?

jerk move, Salty.

...his post is still there for all to read in it's full splendor.

I quote the parts that I am addressing, so there is no confusion about what I'm addressing.

Just as I do when responding to you, cutting the wheat from the chaff.

[youthathletics]

And why cut ggaits full statement? So, that you can pretend he didn't say the rest?
jerk move, Salty.

Wow, you calling Afan a jerk as well, he seldom ever pulls in the full quote.

[a fan]

And why cut ggaits full statement? So, that you can pretend he didn't say the rest?
jerk move, Salty.

Wow, you calling Afan a jerk as well, he seldom ever pulls in the full quote.

I do it for the exact reason Old Salt said he did it: so I can clearly respond to a single assertion at a time. It's when a poster makes several assertions in a single post.

The practice of using colors to respond does not work for me----because when you hit the "quote" function, the colors disappear, making it impossible to distinguish who wrote what.

[MDlaxfan76]

Jared's dealings with the Saudis and other ME regimes is much much much sleazier. 40X the dollars in the pocket. And directly tied to his govt service.

Kushner's investors did not invest until after Kushner left govt service. Trump had been defeated & left office in disgrace. Kushner stated that he had no intentions to return to govt service. No remaining influence in govt. The investments did not go personally to Kushner & family members.

Kushner's investors are getting legal, legit returns on their investments ?

What did Hunter's customers get in return for their payments, some while Joe was still VP ?

Good lord, are you really defending this too?

And why cut ggaits full statement? So, that you can pretend he didn't say the rest?

jerk move, Salty.

...his post is still there for all to read in it's full splendor.

I quote the parts that I am addressing, so there is no confusion about what I'm addressing.

Just as I do when responding to you, cutting the wheat from the chaff.

Numerous posters say it's a jerk move, you know that it removes context, yet you insist upon it...

[MDlaxfan76]

And why cut ggaits full statement? So, that you can pretend he didn't say the rest?
jerk move, Salty.

Wow, you calling Afan a jerk as well, he seldom ever pulls in the full quote.

I do it for the exact reason Old Salt said he did it: so I can clearly respond to a single assertion at a time. It's when a poster makes several assertions in a single post.

The practice of using colors to respond does not work for me----because when you hit the "quote" function, the colors disappear, making it impossible to distinguish who wrote what.

Responding to youth,

When a post thread is very long, or the logic of a response depends on referencing multiple posts, it makes some sense to excerpt what is most relevant and put it together logically.

Cutting material that is clearly contextual is what makes it a jerk move.

ggaits post was very short, all clearly contextual, and the excerpt and its response ignore what was cut...which was quite relevant.

jerk move

[kramerica.inc]

And why cut ggaits full statement? So, that you can pretend he didn't say the rest?
jerk move, Salty.

Wow, you calling Afan a jerk as well, he seldom ever pulls in the full quote.

I do it for the exact reason Old Salt said he did it: so I can clearly respond to a single assertion at a time. It's when a poster makes several assertions in a single post.

The practice of using colors to respond does not work for me----because when you hit the "quote" function, the colors disappear, making it impossible to distinguish who wrote what.

Responding to youth,

When a post thread is very long, or the logic of a response depends on referencing multiple posts, it makes some sense to excerpt what is most relevant and putting it together logically.

Cutting material that is clearly contextual is what makes it a jerk move.

ggaits post was very short, all clearly contextual, and the excerpt and its response ignore what was cut...which was quite relevant.

jerk move

Quite a word salad to justify being disagreeable.

[MDlaxfan76]

And why cut ggaits full statement? So, that you can pretend he didn't say the rest?
jerk move, Salty.

Wow, you calling Afan a jerk as well, he seldom ever pulls in the full quote.

I do it for the exact reason Old Salt said he did it: so I can clearly respond to a single assertion at a time. It's when a poster makes several assertions in a single post.

The practice of using colors to respond does not work for me----because when you hit the "quote" function, the colors disappear, making it impossible to distinguish who wrote what.

Responding to youth,

When a post thread is very long, or the logic of a response depends on referencing multiple posts, it makes some sense to excerpt what is most relevant and put it together logically.

Cutting material that is clearly contextual is what makes it a jerk move.

ggaits post was very short, all clearly contextual, and the excerpt and its response ignore what was cut...which was quite relevant.

jerk move

Quite a word salad to justify being disagreeable.

nope, it was a jerk move.
That I need to explain why is perplexing, but I've tried.

[cradleandshoot]

This is complete wild speculation that I listened to on my way home from the doctor's office. The federal judge who is a trump appointee has to sign off on the Hunter Biden deal. This would create an entire new brand of fresh hell in this case. It would almost demand a special counsel be appointed to review the case and the allegations made by the IRS whistleblowers.
Her name is Maryellen Noreika and she is in an interesting position to say the least.

[old salt]

Context = equivocating & smokescreen. Dragging post chains out to the point of un-readability. Once said is enough.

[ggait]

This is complete wild speculation that I listened to on my way home from the doctor's office. The federal judge who is a trump appointee has to sign off on the Hunter Biden deal. This would create an entire new brand of fresh hell in this case. It would almost demand a special counsel be appointed to review the case and the allegations made by the IRS whistleblowers.
Her name is Maryellen Noreika and she is in an interesting position to say the least.

What problem do you think there would be?

A Trump appointed US Atty has investigated Hunter for five years. Sleepy Joe allowed said US Atty to overstay his term in order to continue investigating Hunter. Said US Atty has negotiated the charges and the pending plea deal.

Every plea deal has to be approved by a judge to go into effect. As I posted weeks ago, odds were that the Delaware federal judge that would be assigned to Hunter's plea deal would be a Trump appointee. As predicted.

So any outcome in Hunter's case would have been investigated, charged and approved by only Trump appointees. So if there's a weaponized DOJ/court system hell bent on letting the Biden crime family get away with everything, blame Trump for appointing the folks responsible for that.

Meanwhile, Jared collects $25 million in annual private equity fees even if all his investments go bankrupt. $2 billion investment in the first time PE fund of a dude with no exactly zero PE experience.

The oversight panel for the Saudis recommended against any investment in Jared. Among other concerns, the panel noted that Jared was inexperienced, charged excessive fees, and his firm’s operations were “unsatisfactory in all aspects.” Also, no one else wanted to invest. Meaning that the Saudis alone would be responsible for the bulk of the investment and risk. MBS personally over-ruled the panel and greenlighted the $2B.

I mean when some dude goes to bat for you after you bone saw an American journalist, you gotta pay that dude back.

[MDlaxfan76]

Context = equivocating & smokescreen. Dragging post chains out to the point of un-readability. Once said is enough.

Huh?
His post was short and to the point.

You removed key context and pretended as if he hadn't written what he did.

You do it to me frequently. Jerk move.

[old salt]

Context = equivocating & smokescreen. Dragging post chains out to the point of un-readability. Once said is enough.

Huh?
His post was short and to the point.

You removed key context and pretended as if he hadn't written what he did.

You do it to me frequently. Jerk move.

I made it clear precisely what I was addressing. The context, once stated, became redundant & a diversion.

[cradleandshoot]

This is complete wild speculation that I listened to on my way home from the doctor's office. The federal judge who is a trump appointee has to sign off on the Hunter Biden deal. This would create an entire new brand of fresh hell in this case. It would almost demand a special counsel be appointed to review the case and the allegations made by the IRS whistleblowers.
Her name is Maryellen Noreika and she is in an interesting position to say the least.

What problem do you think there would be?

A Trump appointed US Atty has investigated Hunter for five years. Sleepy Joe allowed said US Atty to overstay his term in order to continue investigating Hunter. Said US Atty has negotiated the charges and the pending plea deal.

Every plea deal has to be approved by a judge to go into effect. As I posted weeks ago, odds were that the Delaware federal judge that would be assigned to Hunter's plea deal would be a Trump appointee. As predicted.

So any outcome in Hunter's case would have been investigated, charged and approved by only Trump appointees. So if there's a weaponized DOJ/court system hell bent on letting the Biden crime family get away with everything, blame Trump for appointing the folks responsible for that.

Meanwhile, Jared collects $25 million in annual private equity fees even if all his investments go bankrupt. $2 billion investment in the first time PE fund of a dude with no exactly zero PE experience.

The oversight panel for the Saudis recommended against any investment in Jared. Among other concerns, the panel noted that Jared was inexperienced, charged excessive fees, and his firm’s operations were “unsatisfactory in all aspects.” Also, no one else wanted to invest. Meaning that the Saudis alone would be responsible for the bulk of the investment and risk. MBS personally over-ruled the panel and greenlighted the $2B.

I mean when some dude goes to bat for you after you bone saw an American journalist, you gotta pay that dude back.

That is why I used the term wild speculation. If the judge sees merit in the sworn testimony of the 2 IRS agents and thinks something hinky went on she may decide a second look is not an unreasonable option. What is being claimed by the agents is that the FBI and the DOJ hindered their investigation. Which possibly could taint the plea deal made. Like I said wild speculation that depends on what the judge decides. If the judge refuses to sign off on the deal then all hell will break loose at the DOJ. The only avenue left will bypass the current DOJ and require a special counsel take over the case. That will require a whole lot of high level DOJ and FBI folks also having to answer questions under oath. From what I have read these 2 agents did a thorough job of crossing their Ts and dotting their Is. FTR how does any of this have anything to do with Jared??

[ggait]

Go ahead and bring in hunter’s prosecutor to testify.

He’s on record that every thing you are talking about is bull shirt.

So you’re saying a trump appointed prosecutor is in the tank for hunter. And that he’ll lie about it under oath before congress.

Should we talk about the bridge I’d like to sell you?

The trump judge will approve hunters plea deal. Because it is routine and normal. Not a crime family conspiracy theory. Eye roll.

[a fan]

From what I have read these 2 agents did a thorough job of crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

They're on Trump's payroll. Admitted getting paid by former Trump aide.

More Trump shenanigans.

Some folks want to forget that the ENTIRETY of the investigation into Hunter (2018-2023) the FBI was run by a Trump appointee, Wray. IRS head from 2018-2023) Rettig? ...again, appointed by Trump.


They also want to forget that they 1 1/2 years to investigate and indict a run of the mill "I didn't pay taxes for two years" case. PLENTY of time.

And if you need more time than that? How the heck do you turn around and claim that they're "dragging their feet"?

None of this holds up.

[cradleandshoot]

From what I have read these 2 agents did a thorough job of crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

They're on Trump's payroll. Admitted getting paid by former Trump aide.

More Trump shenanigans.

Some folks want to forget that the ENTIRETY of the investigation into Hunter (2018-2023) the FBI was run by a Trump appointee, Wray. IRS head from 2018-2023) Rettig? ...again, appointed by Trump.


They also want to forget that they 1 1/2 years to investigate and indict a run of the mill "I didn't pay taxes for two years" case. PLENTY of time.

And if you need more time than that? How the heck do you turn around and claim that they're "dragging their feet"?

None of this holds up.

What holds up is they testified under oath. They have skin in the game. What is that called again when you lie under oath? The wild speculation comes into play if the judge refuses to sign off on the deal. If I can find the link I posted Jonathan Turley gave a very good rationale for why this case took so long. I'll try and find it.