Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[ggait]

Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?

I’ll give you 5/1 odds.

Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.

The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.

[cradleandshoot]

Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?

I’ll give you 5/1 odds.

Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.

The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.

Did you not read the part where I said this is wild speculation? That depends on if the judge pays any credence to the testimony of the 2 IRS agents which was given under oath. I know the judge has a huge decision to make. I'm a gambling man but I wouldn't bet anything on this one. My gut says she doesn't want to be responsible for the repercussions if she doesn't sign off.

[a fan]

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.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

[ggait]

Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?

I’ll give you 5/1 odds.

Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.

The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.

Did you not read the part where I said this is wild speculation? That depends on if the judge pays any credence to the testimony of the 2 IRS agents which was given under oath. I know the judge has a huge decision to make. I'm a gambling man but I wouldn't bet anything on this one. My gut says she doesn't want to be responsible for the repercussions if she doesn't sign off.

So said another way, you are posting about total nonsense and bull shirt. Which will be completely ignored by the trump judge.

[ggait]

You said there was going to be fresh hell and a new special prosecutor.

That was totally stupid and wrong and baseless. As you now admit.

Stop drinking the conspiracy kool aid. Stop embarrassing yourself. And stop wasting our time.

If the trump does anything other than rubber stamp the plea deal in July, come back and give me a hard time.

And if the judge does approve it, how about you comeback and admit I was right completely, you were wrong completely, and pledge to get and use some better info sources in the future.

Sheesh!

[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.

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

Yeah, his condemnation of Hunter was irrelevant...

[Typical Lax Dad]

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.

Yeah, his condemnation of Hunter was irrelevant...

Presenting information out of context is something dishonest people do routinely.

[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.

Yeah, his condemnation of Hunter was irrelevant...

Presenting information out of context is something dishonest people do routinely.

The "context" was irrelevant. I was talking about the details of Kushner's venture. Hunter had nothing to do with it.

How are the Saudis doing on their investment ?

ggaslamp says only the Saudis invested. The Emirates kicked in $200 million also.

Reuters reported that Kishner had raised > $3 billion @ Dec 2021, not just the Saudi $2 billion.

[cradleandshoot]

Cradle — how many dollars you want to bet the trump judge approves hunters plea deal in July?

I’ll give you 5/1 odds.

Which is a suckers bet. Since the chance of approval is 100%.

The bull shirt-ery on this is so ridiculous.

Did you not read the part where I said this is wild speculation? That depends on if the judge pays any credence to the testimony of the 2 IRS agents which was given under oath. I know the judge has a huge decision to make. I'm a gambling man but I wouldn't bet anything on this one. My gut says she doesn't want to be responsible for the repercussions if she doesn't sign off.

So said another way, you are posting about total nonsense and bull shirt. Which will be completely ignored by the trump judge.

Back up the bus there counselor. I had never heard of this judge and was not even aware a federal judge had to sign off on the deal until 2:00 pm this afternoon when I was driving home from a doctor's appointment. I heard it on my car radio and became intrigued. I don't give a chit one way or another what the judge does or does not do. I just thought it created a fascinating hypothetical scenario. I only explained that to you 3 times and yet you became all unhinged at the possibility. Your irrational reaction does tell me the possibility does have you terrified. As a lawyer you should already know the pitfalls of predicting how any judge will rule on any given matter.

[cradleandshoot]

You said there was going to be fresh hell and a new special prosecutor.

That was totally stupid and wrong and baseless. As you now admit.

Stop drinking the conspiracy kool aid. Stop embarrassing yourself. And stop wasting our time.

If the trump does anything other than rubber stamp the plea deal in July, come back and give me a hard time.

And if the judge does approve it, how about you comeback and admit I was right completely, you were wrong completely, and pledge to get and use some better info sources in the future.

Sheesh!

I thought as a lawyer you paid attention to detail. What I said was IF the judge refuses to sign off on the plea deal the DOJ is in deep doo doo. How do you turn this pickle back into a cucumber? How does the DOJ try and regroup under the allegations being made by the whistleblowers? The only remedy would be to appoint an independent special counsel. That was my point but you were too discombobulated at the time to understand it. So let me throw you my own hypothetical scenario. IF the judge refuses to sign off what does Garlands DOJ do next?

[Typical Lax Dad]

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.

Yeah, his condemnation of Hunter was irrelevant...

Presenting information out of context is something dishonest people do routinely.

The "context" was irrelevant. I was talking about the details of Kushner's venture. Hunter had nothing to do with it.

How are the Saudis doing on their investment ?

ggaslamp says only the Saudis invested. The Emirates kicked in $200 million also.

Reuters reported that Kishner had raised > $3 billion @ Dec 2021, not just the Saudi $2 billion.

How Jared’s fund performs is immaterial to the Saudis.

[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.

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

Yeah, his condemnation of Hunter was irrelevant...

Presenting information out of context is something dishonest people do routinely.

The "context" was irrelevant. I was talking about the details of Kushner's venture. Hunter had nothing to do with it.

How are the Saudis doing on their investment ?

ggaslamp says only the Saudis invested. The Emirates kicked in $200 million also.

Reuters reported that Kishner had raised > $3 billion @ Dec 2021, not just the Saudi $2 billion.

How Jared’s fund performs is immaterial to the Saudis.

Yes, they got what they wanted; way more valuable than any financial returns from this, to them, little fund...and may get even more if Trump is re-elected.

[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.

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

Yeah, his condemnation of Hunter was irrelevant...

Presenting information out of context is something dishonest people do routinely.

The "context" was irrelevant. I was talking about the details of Kushner's venture. Hunter had nothing to do with it.

How are the Saudis doing on their investment ?

ggaslamp says only the Saudis invested. The Emirates kicked in $200 million also.

Reuters reported that Kishner had raised > $3 billion @ Dec 2021, not just the Saudi $2 billion.

Again, exactly why you cut other people's actual words...so that you can misstate them, even say they said things they didn't say.

Here's his post:

ggait
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:23 pm
Contact: Contact ggait
Re: Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues
Report Quote
Post by ggait » Sun Jun 25, 2023 10:38 pm

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.

Above you claim that ggait "says only the Saudis invested."
Flat not true.

Your response? Kushner's payoff (Saudi investment) was after Trump was out of office, as if that made it all hunky dorry.

ggait says "Neither appears to be criminal so far."
Yup.

But "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."

Hunter was never in government, never positioned to make decisions on behalf of the US. No US interest portfolio. And the $ pale in comparison.

But his actions were "sleazy AF" according to ggait...but hey, that ain't important, you just want to defend Kushner...

Why? What rational purpose would you have in not agreeing, "sleazy AF" for Kushner?

[Typical Lax Dad]

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.

Yeah, his condemnation of Hunter was irrelevant...

Presenting information out of context is something dishonest people do routinely.

The "context" was irrelevant. I was talking about the details of Kushner's venture. Hunter had nothing to do with it.

How are the Saudis doing on their investment ?

ggaslamp says only the Saudis invested. The Emirates kicked in $200 million also.

Reuters reported that Kishner had raised > $3 billion @ Dec 2021, not just the Saudi $2 billion.

How Jared’s fund performs is immaterial to the Saudis.

Yes, they got what they wanted; way more valuable than any financial returns from this, to them, little fund...and may get even more if Trump is re-elected.

Yes….that’s is why they placed $2 billion with Jared and the return is absolutely immaterial. Look at Old Salt’s LIV tour that he’s a fan of and the soccer league. A measurable financial return is not material to the activities of those ventures. Old Salt should know that. Saudis IRR involves a different calculus. They may even be on record with that.

[AOD]

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.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

[cradleandshoot]

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.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

[cradleandshoot]

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.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists. That then makes them prime candidates for being charged by the DOJ with perjury. Why would they do something like that?

[Kismet]

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.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists.

Under oath in a congressional hearing not a court. DoJ would have to prosecute them which is highly unlikely and the GOPers on the committee would have to ask them to - none of this is going to happen because it is in the GOP politicians interest to keep this going regardless if the agents are lying or not. I'd maintain that they know this already. In addition, there is no additional evidence corroborating their story.

[ggait]

Saudis were the first and only investor in Jared’s fund in mid 2021 when they put in the $2B. The anchor tenant.

UAE subsequently put in $200M. Qatar subsequently put in $200M. Those are called “subsequent” closings salty. They happened later and only after the Saudis went first.

As the Saudi investment board stated, the risk and investment of Jared’s fund was going to be mostly on them. If you knew anything about pe, you would know how effed up that is.

If Jared’s fund was such a good deal, how come no typical pe funders wanted to play? Where are the university endowments and pension funds? How come only me governments want play?