Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[MDlaxfan76]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

of course I allow for alternative explanations as well as facts to emerge.
And I'm inviting critique of my logic, not shutting it off.

Guess that makes me one of those "big pu$$ie$" ?

However, I've been quite clear that I think the best explanation is the whistle blowers were frustrated that the sorts of evidence they produced was not compelling to the prosecutors and read into their exchanges reasons for not getting the enthusiasm they wanted that were not accurate. Not lies, just wrong. Conflicts between investigators and prosecutors are common.

Likewise, I don't think Weiss lied to Congress in his two letters to them. Nor did Garland in his testimony.

I dunno about Barr as he's a slippery one, but my hunch is he's just been careful to posture without actually lying...and he's not been under oath or questioned thoroughly.

But Barr and Rettig are available for Congress to subpoena...and yet they won't do so...and that speaks volumes IMO

I also doubt that Hunter's perfidies actually involved Joe in any bribery scheme. But I do think Hunter acted unethically and may well have given people the impression that he had actual sway with dad on policy. But I don't think he ever did.

However, I always allow for the possibility that I'm wrong in some way.
Contrary to some people on here...

When did Barr graduate to your level of a "slippery one"? Richard Nixon was always one of the " slippery ones" Yet as a dumb teenage skull full of mush you supported him. Where did you gain this infinite wisdom from your foolish support for Richard Nixon and your newfound contempt for Bill Barr? IMO a guy like you that supported Richard Nixon back in the day has a credibility problem you can't possibly overcome. I'm anxiously awaiting your bullchit excuse, I've already read it before but an encore performance is worth reading one more time. In the land that I grew up in being a Nixon supporter was even more despicable that being a WNC. FTR I'm not being mean to you. I'm just pointing out that any person who was a Nixon accolade back in the day has his own personal demons to deal with.

I'm ok with my "demons".
I was 14 turning 15 when I was canvassing for Nixon. As a 9th grader I was taking a Government elective populated mostly by seniors and a requirement that fall was to work in a campaign. My parents were Republicans in Maryland, which meant a generally progressive point of view relative to today's GOP. But conservative relative to a handful of their friends...but much more progressive than a bunch of others. And I was already more progressive than they were given youth and exposure. But more conservative than many young folks of that era.

And Nixon, putting aside what I was later to learn, had a pretty darn progressive/centrist agenda and got a heck of a lot done. But there was a lot to be disenchanted with in the late '60's and then '70's...of course, it helped that it was the GOP heavyweights that took Nixon out of office. That's who I identified with at that point. Not the fire breathers who were Nixon do or die types through the bitter end and beyond.

Until recently I've been fully comfortable being a member of a party with a big tent, that wasn't perfect, as the other party wasn't either. I wasn't an ideologue, just a moderate with more progressive social views than the right hand side of my party...but more conservative than the left hand side of the Dem party. Had I been living in Alabama or Mississipi I'd have likely been a Dem as the GOP there would have been pretty alien by the 1990's, but in MD and MA I was quite at hone being in the minority party in those states, as the party competed with centrist candidates being those who could actually win. Hogan is a recent example of the sort of Republican I favored, competent, not a hard line ideologue.

As to Barr, he was seen as an ideologue in his first stint in office, though not a flamer. He lost me when he was auditioning to join the Trump Admin, and then his actions under Trump confirmed my assessment. I can't put him in the "straight shooter" class.

[youthathletics]

I was 14 turning 15 when I was canvassing for Nixon.

Is there another way to turn 15 when you 14?

[old salt]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

You don't know how much of the WB's findings made it up to Barr's level & when. The WB's said AUSA Wolf was the primary roadblock.
The timing on Barr sending the FD-1023 to the W PA US Atty & FBI field office was just prior to DoJ's 90 day pre-election window.
After the election, Barr was only around until Dec 14th & was preoccupied with trying to stop Trump's big lie.
Had the lame duck Trump DoJ indicted Hunter, it would have had no credibility & looked like an attempt to undermine the incoming Biden admin.
No need to indict yet. There was still plenty of time on the earliest SOL's & we don't know how ripe the investigations were by then.
Even if initiated before Barr left, it would have had to be prosecuted by the Biden DoJ, which could have just dropped it or let Hunter off with a misdemeanor plea as soon as he dredged up enough "loans" & art sales to pay his tax bill. ...which is what they tried to do, but Weiss muffed it & Hunter's lawyers overreached by going for universal immunity. Weiss also apparently let Hunter skate on his 2014-15 tax bill (w/ penalty & interest) because that SOL ran.

obtw -- Bill Barr is now the leader in video clip airtime on MSNBC & CNN from his interview with Cavuto on FNC.

[old salt]

It should be a big deal that Biden didn't somehow control his son with regard to exposing the US government to suspicion of being open to bribery. Or at least more clearly disassociate himself from son's activities. While I don't think Biden likely actually participated in any change in policy due to Hunter's involvement, nor did Joe take any such bribes, the reality is that it was just not ok to let the impression be given.

It may well be that Joe's reluctance to run for POTUS was in part because he wanted to leave all of that behind, knowing it would be a problem at the least for Hunter. And maybe that was only overcome by it being so small in comparison to the exigency of defeating Trump, whose issues were 1000X of Biden's reality.

And he may still feel like it's better that he make sure Trump's defeated, regardless of having to endure the further scrutiny.

I can't get inside his head on that.

Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

[a fan]

[Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

Says the guy who just told us that "we don't know if the whistleblower complaints made it all the way up to Barr".


Protip: of course Barr knew he was dragging the case. And of course Joe knew about Hunter's BS job. Simple.

[old salt]

[Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

Says the guy who just told us that "we don't know if the whistleblower complaints made it all the way up to Barr".

Protip: of course Barr knew he was dragging the case. And of course Joe knew about Hunter's BS job. Simple.

Protip : don't speculate about Barr doing his job until he confirms that he delayed the investigation & why.
He has said there were red flags that merited further investigation.
You're just speculating & looking to deflect blame from Garland for letting the early SOL's expire,
when there was still plenty of time remaining when he inherited the investigation.

[a fan]

[Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

Says the guy who just told us that "we don't know if the whistleblower complaints made it all the way up to Barr".

Protip: of course Barr knew he was dragging the case. And of course Joe knew about Hunter's BS job. Simple.

Protip : don't speculate about Barr doing his job until he confirms that he delayed the investigation & why.

Then the same goes for your speculation about what Joe knew, my man. See how that works?

One set of rules. Do that, and we won't argue. Do that, and you'll be a person who doesn't see the world through partisan lense.

He has said there were red flags that merited further investigation.

Great. Then Barr picks up the phone, call his (R) buddy Wray, and gives him the probable cause he found to open a case on Joe.

This stuff happened over 6 years ago now. When the F are these Republican heroes of yours going to get off their *sses, and doe their jobs?

Wray can open a case any time he wants. What's your nonsense reason that he hasn't? Do you have one?

You're just speculating & looking to deflect blame from Garland for letting the early SOL's expire,

DELIGHTED to name him to the list of Old Salt's Conspirators. Does this mean you're ready to pull up to the adult table and admit that this theory of yours is 100000% impossible without Weiss' help? I'd be OVERJOYED to hear it, and we'd stop arguing.

Let me know. I'd be THRILLED to pin this on Garland.

Of course, then you'd be on the hook to FINALLY explain how Garland's corruption doesn't screw Biden out of getting reelected.

You claim to be here for a conversation, and are just asking questions. Yet you keep running away when you meet questions that you can't answer with anything resembling a reasonable answer.

[old salt]

He has said there were red flags that merited further investigation.

Great. Then Barr picks up the phone, call his (R) buddy Wray, and gives him the probable cause he found to open a case on Joe.

This stuff happened over 6 years ago now. When the F are these Republican heroes of yours going to get off their *sses, and doe their jobs?

Wray can open a case any time he wants. What's your nonsense reason that he hasn't? Do you have one?

When did the red flags appear to Barr that he was referencing ? We don't know.

[a fan]

He has said there were red flags that merited further investigation.

Great. Then Barr picks up the phone, call his (R) buddy Wray, and gives him the probable cause he found to open a case on Joe.

This stuff happened over 6 years ago now. When the F are these Republican heroes of yours going to get off their *sses, and doe their jobs?

Wray can open a case any time he wants. What's your nonsense reason that he hasn't? Do you have one?

When did the red flags appear to Barr that he was referencing ? We don't know.

Great. Then Republican Weiss can pick up the phone and call Republican Wray, at any point in the last five years.

Or, since we don't know if the FBI case is open or closed on Hunter........


All arrows point to Joe being legally clean, OS. And all indicators show the Weiss' mess has cost Biden the election.

I'm fine with both outcomes. Protip: next time your son takes a BS job in the country that you're supposed to clean up as VP? You shouldn't be electable.

Now if your Republican party can apply these same ethical rules to Trump? Now we are cooking with oil, and we might get a functioning adult to vote for in 2024.

[MDlaxfan76]

I was 14 turning 15 when I was canvassing for Nixon.

Is there another way to turn 15 when you 14?

I turned 15 that fall after election.

[old salt]

He has said there were red flags that merited further investigation.

Great. Then Barr picks up the phone, call his (R) buddy Wray, and gives him the probable cause he found to open a case on Joe.

This stuff happened over 6 years ago now. When the F are these Republican heroes of yours going to get off their *sses, and doe their jobs?

Wray can open a case any time he wants. What's your nonsense reason that he hasn't? Do you have one?

When did the red flags appear to Barr that he was referencing ? We don't know.

Great. Then Republican Weiss can pick up the phone and call Republican Wray, at any point in the last five years.

Or, since we don't know if the FBI case is open or closed on Hunter........


All arrows point to Joe being legally clean, OS. And all indicators show the Weiss' mess has cost Biden the election.

I'm fine with both outcomes. Protip: next time your son takes a BS job in the country that you're supposed to clean up as VP? You shouldn't be electable.

Now if your Republican party can apply these same ethical rules to Trump? Now we are cooking with oil, and we might get a functioning adult to vote for in 2024.

All the arrows have yet to be unleashed. The timing & links between the stream of foreign revenue & the actions of VP Biden have yet to be investigated & examined in detail.

[old salt]

I was 14 turning 15 when I was canvassing for Nixon.

Is there another way to turn 15 when you 14?

I turned 15 that fall after election.

My hometown HS sweetheart (then a Mizzou J-school Jr) almost broke up with me because I wouldn't denounce Nixon.
I assured her that Nixon & Henry the K would bomb the N Vietnamese to the peace table before I could get my wings.

[MDlaxfan76]

It should be a big deal that Biden didn't somehow control his son with regard to exposing the US government to suspicion of being open to bribery. Or at least more clearly disassociate himself from son's activities. While I don't think Biden likely actually participated in any change in policy due to Hunter's involvement, nor did Joe take any such bribes, the reality is that it was just not ok to let the impression be given.

It may well be that Joe's reluctance to run for POTUS was in part because he wanted to leave all of that behind, knowing it would be a problem at the least for Hunter. And maybe that was only overcome by it being so small in comparison to the exigency of defeating Trump, whose issues were 1000X of Biden's reality.

And he may still feel like it's better that he make sure Trump's defeated, regardless of having to endure the further scrutiny.

I can't get inside his head on that.

Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

no, I don't think money was being funneled to Joe and Jill. Let's say I'd be sorely disappointed in them if there was. And I'd be totally on board with prosecuting for taking bribes if so. BUT, I've seen zero credible evidence that would stand up in court that suggests any crime was actually committed.

I do think it's possible that Joe was aware that Hunter was using his last name to get paid rather excessively, but if there was no policy 'ask' that Joe would have entertained, then no crime.

I think the whole, rather common, practice of trading on family name and access is unseemly, but it's done rampantly in business, law, politics, media, whatever...people use whatever edge they can get, then need to make their way from there.

Criminal activity is obviously another thing, but trading on whatever advantages one's family or other connections, however gained, is totally commonplace.

Where I have an issue, at a minimum, with Joe is that he should have somehow shut it down, or somehow made it super obvious that he wasn't open for any leverage or influence. Just being confident that you're not 'open' misses the point of appearance of impropriety.

But the hypocrisy on this is off the charts.

Frankly, I think there needs to be a top to bottom overhaul of ethics throughout our society.

[MDlaxfan76]

I was 14 turning 15 when I was canvassing for Nixon.

Is there another way to turn 15 when you 14?

I turned 15 that fall after election.

My hometown HS sweetheart (then a Mizzou J-school Jr) almost broke up with me because I wouldn't denounce Nixon.
I assured her that Nixon & Henry the K would bomb the N Vietnamese to the peace table before I could get my wings.

I think the thing that really disappointed me the most in that era (other than police shooting college kids) was the Pentagon Papers. I kinda understood how My Lai could happen, but the rampant lying by military brass as well as the politicians was a huge disappointment in authority. But their full import didn't really break through to my young consciousness in '71... Watergate was the break on recognizing how far things were wrong. The realization that all of it needed to be reexamined.

[tech37]

It should be a big deal that Biden didn't somehow control his son with regard to exposing the US government to suspicion of being open to bribery. Or at least more clearly disassociate himself from son's activities. While I don't think Biden likely actually participated in any change in policy due to Hunter's involvement, nor did Joe take any such bribes, the reality is that it was just not ok to let the impression be given.

It may well be that Joe's reluctance to run for POTUS was in part because he wanted to leave all of that behind, knowing it would be a problem at the least for Hunter. And maybe that was only overcome by it being so small in comparison to the exigency of defeating Trump, whose issues were 1000X of Biden's reality.

And he may still feel like it's better that he make sure Trump's defeated, regardless of having to endure the further scrutiny.

I can't get inside his head on that.

Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

no, I don't think money was being funneled to Joe and Jill. Let's say I'd be sorely disappointed in them if there was. And I'd be totally on board with prosecuting for taking bribes if so. BUT, I've seen zero credible evidence that would stand up in court that suggests any crime was actually committed.

I do think it's possible that Joe was aware that Hunter was using his last name to get paid rather excessively, but if there was no policy 'ask' that Joe would have entertained, then no crime.

I think the whole, rather common, practice of trading on family name and access is unseemly, but it's done rampantly in business, law, politics, media, whatever...people use whatever edge they can get, then need to make their way from there.

Criminal activity is obviously another thing, but trading on whatever advantages one's family or other connections, however gained, is totally commonplace.

Where I have an issue, at a minimum, with Joe is that he should have somehow shut it down, or somehow made it super obvious that he wasn't open for any leverage or influence. Just being confident that you're not 'open' misses the point of appearance of impropriety.

But the hypocrisy on this is off the charts.

Frankly, I think there needs to be a top to bottom overhaul of ethics throughout our society.

Cognitive dissonance on display

[old salt]

It should be a big deal that Biden didn't somehow control his son with regard to exposing the US government to suspicion of being open to bribery. Or at least more clearly disassociate himself from son's activities. While I don't think Biden likely actually participated in any change in policy due to Hunter's involvement, nor did Joe take any such bribes, the reality is that it was just not ok to let the impression be given.

It may well be that Joe's reluctance to run for POTUS was in part because he wanted to leave all of that behind, knowing it would be a problem at the least for Hunter. And maybe that was only overcome by it being so small in comparison to the exigency of defeating Trump, whose issues were 1000X of Biden's reality.

And he may still feel like it's better that he make sure Trump's defeated, regardless of having to endure the further scrutiny.

I can't get inside his head on that.

Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

no, I don't think money was being funneled to Joe and Jill. Let's say I'd be sorely disappointed in them if there was. And I'd be totally on board with prosecuting for taking bribes if so. BUT, I've seen zero credible evidence that would stand up in court that suggests any crime was actually committed.

I do think it's possible that Joe was aware that Hunter was using his last name to get paid rather excessively, but if there was no policy 'ask' that Joe would have entertained, then no crime.

I think the whole, rather common, practice of trading on family name and access is unseemly, but it's done rampantly in business, law, politics, media, whatever...people use whatever edge they can get, then need to make their way from there.

Criminal activity is obviously another thing, but trading on whatever advantages one's family or other connections, however gained, is totally commonplace.

Where I have an issue, at a minimum, with Joe is that he should have somehow shut it down, or somehow made it super obvious that he wasn't open for any leverage or influence. Just being confident that you're not 'open' misses the point of appearance of impropriety.

But the hypocrisy on this is off the charts.

Frankly, I think there needs to be a top to bottom overhaul of ethics throughout our society.

So your theory is that Biden family earnings are fungable ? Given the amounts & sources Hunter generated, I'm not sure the IRS would concur if examined in detail. In the case of Trump's 4 years in office, his family businesses filed taxes & kept receipts.

[MDlaxfan76]

It should be a big deal that Biden didn't somehow control his son with regard to exposing the US government to suspicion of being open to bribery. Or at least more clearly disassociate himself from son's activities. While I don't think Biden likely actually participated in any change in policy due to Hunter's involvement, nor did Joe take any such bribes, the reality is that it was just not ok to let the impression be given.

It may well be that Joe's reluctance to run for POTUS was in part because he wanted to leave all of that behind, knowing it would be a problem at the least for Hunter. And maybe that was only overcome by it being so small in comparison to the exigency of defeating Trump, whose issues were 1000X of Biden's reality.

And he may still feel like it's better that he make sure Trump's defeated, regardless of having to endure the further scrutiny.

I can't get inside his head on that.

Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

no, I don't think money was being funneled to Joe and Jill. Let's say I'd be sorely disappointed in them if there was. And I'd be totally on board with prosecuting for taking bribes if so. BUT, I've seen zero credible evidence that would stand up in court that suggests any crime was actually committed.

I do think it's possible that Joe was aware that Hunter was using his last name to get paid rather excessively, but if there was no policy 'ask' that Joe would have entertained, then no crime.

I think the whole, rather common, practice of trading on family name and access is unseemly, but it's done rampantly in business, law, politics, media, whatever...people use whatever edge they can get, then need to make their way from there.

Criminal activity is obviously another thing, but trading on whatever advantages one's family or other connections, however gained, is totally commonplace.

Where I have an issue, at a minimum, with Joe is that he should have somehow shut it down, or somehow made it super obvious that he wasn't open for any leverage or influence. Just being confident that you're not 'open' misses the point of appearance of impropriety.

But the hypocrisy on this is off the charts.

Frankly, I think there needs to be a top to bottom overhaul of ethics throughout our society.

Cognitive dissonance on display

How so?

[a fan]

All the arrows have yet to be unleashed. The timing & links between the stream of foreign revenue & the actions of VP Biden have yet to be investigated & examined in detail.

Again, incorrect. I've tried to help the forum understand this multiple times now.

These "reports" are all products of the Weiss investigation....being read to you by Republican members of the House. Members who DESPERATELY want to convince Americans that this is brand new information.

Much of this info. was obtained under Barr, as much as you hate to hear it...for reasons I don't get.

[a fan]

It should be a big deal that Biden didn't somehow control his son with regard to exposing the US government to suspicion of being open to bribery. Or at least more clearly disassociate himself from son's activities. While I don't think Biden likely actually participated in any change in policy due to Hunter's involvement, nor did Joe take any such bribes, the reality is that it was just not ok to let the impression be given.

It may well be that Joe's reluctance to run for POTUS was in part because he wanted to leave all of that behind, knowing it would be a problem at the least for Hunter. And maybe that was only overcome by it being so small in comparison to the exigency of defeating Trump, whose issues were 1000X of Biden's reality.

And he may still feel like it's better that he make sure Trump's defeated, regardless of having to endure the further scrutiny.

I can't get inside his head on that.

Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

no, I don't think money was being funneled to Joe and Jill. Let's say I'd be sorely disappointed in them if there was. And I'd be totally on board with prosecuting for taking bribes if so. BUT, I've seen zero credible evidence that would stand up in court that suggests any crime was actually committed.

I do think it's possible that Joe was aware that Hunter was using his last name to get paid rather excessively, but if there was no policy 'ask' that Joe would have entertained, then no crime.

I think the whole, rather common, practice of trading on family name and access is unseemly, but it's done rampantly in business, law, politics, media, whatever...people use whatever edge they can get, then need to make their way from there.

Criminal activity is obviously another thing, but trading on whatever advantages one's family or other connections, however gained, is totally commonplace.

Where I have an issue, at a minimum, with Joe is that he should have somehow shut it down, or somehow made it super obvious that he wasn't open for any leverage or influence. Just being confident that you're not 'open' misses the point of appearance of impropriety.

But the hypocrisy on this is off the charts.

Frankly, I think there needs to be a top to bottom overhaul of ethics throughout our society.

Cognitive dissonance on display

No. Logic.

Tech: why hasn't FBI head (R) Wray opened an investigation on Joe and the Biden family? Answer this very, very simple question. Wray doesn't need permission to do this.

[MDlaxfan76]

It should be a big deal that Biden didn't somehow control his son with regard to exposing the US government to suspicion of being open to bribery. Or at least more clearly disassociate himself from son's activities. While I don't think Biden likely actually participated in any change in policy due to Hunter's involvement, nor did Joe take any such bribes, the reality is that it was just not ok to let the impression be given.

It may well be that Joe's reluctance to run for POTUS was in part because he wanted to leave all of that behind, knowing it would be a problem at the least for Hunter. And maybe that was only overcome by it being so small in comparison to the exigency of defeating Trump, whose issues were 1000X of Biden's reality.

And he may still feel like it's better that he make sure Trump's defeated, regardless of having to endure the further scrutiny.

I can't get inside his head on that.

Do you really believe that Pop Joe was unaware of where Hunter's revenues were coming from & didn't realize that access to him was being sold ?
Do you really think that Hunter was not funneling a considerable % of that revenue to Joe & Jill, directly or indirectly ?
There's plausible deniability & then there's willful obtuseness.

no, I don't think money was being funneled to Joe and Jill. Let's say I'd be sorely disappointed in them if there was. And I'd be totally on board with prosecuting for taking bribes if so. BUT, I've seen zero credible evidence that would stand up in court that suggests any crime was actually committed.

I do think it's possible that Joe was aware that Hunter was using his last name to get paid rather excessively, but if there was no policy 'ask' that Joe would have entertained, then no crime.

I think the whole, rather common, practice of trading on family name and access is unseemly, but it's done rampantly in business, law, politics, media, whatever...people use whatever edge they can get, then need to make their way from there.

Criminal activity is obviously another thing, but trading on whatever advantages one's family or other connections, however gained, is totally commonplace.

Where I have an issue, at a minimum, with Joe is that he should have somehow shut it down, or somehow made it super obvious that he wasn't open for any leverage or influence. Just being confident that you're not 'open' misses the point of appearance of impropriety.

But the hypocrisy on this is off the charts.

Frankly, I think there needs to be a top to bottom overhaul of ethics throughout our society.

So your theory is that Biden family earnings are fungable ? Given the amounts & sources Hunter generated, I'm not sure the IRS would concur if examined in detail. In the case of Trump's 4 years in office, his family businesses filed taxes & kept receipts.

Frankly, I have no idea where you glean that. I simply don't think Joe was taking money from Hunter that he was getting paid by someone else so as to influence government policy...and I don't think any government policy was influenced.

If there's hard evidence that will stand up in court otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with condemning Joe for that...but not until then. And I don't see ANYTHING yet that meets that threshold.

Just a lot of partisan BS...from known liars.
And the lack of their credibility holds huge sway in the absence of actual hard, cold evidence.

As to Trump, he obviously profited hugely personally from various business interests while in office that various players knew would garner his approval.

Did that move the needle on any policy matters, heck, I don't know...but Trump is a proven liar and a cheater and con artist, so I have much more difficulty giving him the benefit of any ethical doubt at all.

What we do know is that his charity was found to have committed fraud, he and his children are banned from operating a charity, his business and CFO found to have committed fraud, and he's indicted out that wazoo for all sorts of crimes...I'd still surprised he hasn't been personally charged with tax evasion and bank fraud...but the IRS really is overwhelmed by complex cases and Trump's business dealings are nothing if not complex. And that doesn't cover all the hangers-on, sycophants and fellow grifters in his orbit.