Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[old salt]

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.

No. They're the result of what the House Oversight Comm is extracting.

[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.

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.

Who was the sun in Devon Archer's orbit ? Burisma got their money's worth from Hunter.

[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.

Who was the sun in Devon Archer's orbit ? Burisma got their money's worth from Hunter.

Bring me some hard, cold evidence that will stand up in court of a bribe to change government policy accepted by Joe.

Did Burisma actually get their money's worth from Hunter?...they got a high profile name on the list, that probably was intended to signal that they were trying to be pro-western and cleaning out the Russian influence, and maybe that was worth a ton at the time...I don't see anything else they got of value, do you?

[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.

No. They're the result of what the House Oversight Comm is extracting.

Ok. I'll bite. Again. Where are they "extracting" this information that has come from pulled warrants?

I gave Tech and YA a chance to give me this "new" information, too. It was from the Weiss investigation.

And be specific. Gimme a text or whatever, and tell me where it came from.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

No. They're the result of what the House Oversight Comm is extracting.

Extracting from the investigation that occurred years ago. These issues were all investigated; dead end.

But hey, they're grist for the mill in a campaign season.

[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.

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.

If what you're saying is true, why doesn't Joe make an effort to clear his name/save his legacy? Since his outright lies re "never discussed business with my son" were blown up, he and the WH have been very quiet, no?

If he's innocent I'd think he'd want to prove that.

[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.

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.

Who was the sun in Devon Archer's orbit ? Burisma got their money's worth from Hunter.

Bring me some hard, cold evidence that will stand up in court of a bribe to change government policy accepted by Joe.

Gerald Ford argued on the floor of the House that “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be defined as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers them to be at a moment in history.”

[old salt]

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.

No. They're the result of what the House Oversight Comm is extracting.

Ok. I'll bite. Again. Where are they "extracting" this information that has come from pulled warrants?

I gave Tech and YA a chance to give me this "new" information, too. It was from the Weiss investigation.

And be specific. Gimme a text or whatever, and tell me where it came from.

Hunter's texts, emails & testimony from Devin Archer, Tony Bobulinski & the WB's

[tech37]

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.

No. They're the result of what the House Oversight Comm is extracting.

Ok. I'll bite. Again. Where are they "extracting" this information that has come from pulled warrants?

I gave Tech and YA a chance to give me this "new" information, too. It was from the Weiss investigation.

And be specific. Gimme a text or whatever, and tell me where it came from.

Hunter's texts, emails & testimony from Devin Archer, Tony Bobulinski & the WB's

None of that counts OS.

[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.

No. They're the result of what the House Oversight Comm is extracting.

Ok. I'll bite. Again. Where are they "extracting" this information that has come from pulled warrants?

I gave Tech and YA a chance to give me this "new" information, too. It was from the Weiss investigation.

And be specific. Gimme a text or whatever, and tell me where it came from.

Hunter's texts, emails & testimony from Devin Archer, Tony Bobulinski & the WB's

So.....exactly what I said. All from the investigation.

[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.

No. They're the result of what the House Oversight Comm is extracting.

Ok. I'll bite. Again. Where are they "extracting" this information that has come from pulled warrants?

I gave Tech and YA a chance to give me this "new" information, too. It was from the Weiss investigation.

And be specific. Gimme a text or whatever, and tell me where it came from.

Hunter's texts, emails & testimony from Devin Archer, Tony Bobulinski & the WB's

None of that counts OS.

Of course it counts! No one said it didn't. Are you guys honestly so out of it that you don't understand where "Hunter's texts" came from? Who pulled that warrant, Tech? Your mom? Or was it (drumroll) the FBI, DoJ, and IRS during their five year long investigation into this mess?

They already investigated this stuff, tech.

I ask again: why didn't Barr, Weiss, Rettig, or Wray.....all Republicans.....start investigations into Joe Biden at any point in the last five years?

You run away from the answer, because you know what the answer is. We're not defending anything, and you two can't figure out what folks are telling you......If Joe Biden is corrupt? Fanfreakingtastic!!! Go after him. Right now! Today!

They haven't done that.

And instead of relaxing, and considering what we're telling you....and figuring out WHY not one of those Republicans, let alone all of them, haven't opened a case on Joe in five years of chances? You two want to mock the posters that you CLAIM to want a discussion with, and to get answers from.....

Come on, man. A shred of reason goes a long way..... Relax, and breathe reality in for a change.

[tech37]

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.

No. They're the result of what the House Oversight Comm is extracting.

Ok. I'll bite. Again. Where are they "extracting" this information that has come from pulled warrants?

I gave Tech and YA a chance to give me this "new" information, too. It was from the Weiss investigation.

And be specific. Gimme a text or whatever, and tell me where it came from.

Hunter's texts, emails & testimony from Devin Archer, Tony Bobulinski & the WB's

None of that counts OS.

Of course it counts! No one said it didn't. Are you guys honestly so out of it that you don't understand where "Hunter's texts" came from? Who pulled that warrant, Tech? Your mom? Or was it (drumroll) the FBI, DoJ, and IRS during their five year long investigation into this mess?

They already investigated this stuff, tech.

I ask again: why didn't Barr, Weiss, Rettig, or Wray.....all Republicans.....start investigations into Joe Biden at any point in the last five years?

You run away from the answer, because you know what the answer is. We're not defending anything, and you two can't figure out what folks are telling you......If Joe Biden is corrupt? Fanfreakingtastic!!! Go after him. Right now! Today!

They haven't done that.

And instead of relaxing, and considering what we're telling you....and figuring out WHY not one of those Republicans, let alone all of them, haven't opened a case on Joe in five years of chances? You two want to mock the posters that you CLAIM to want a discussion with, and to get answers from.....

Come on, man. A shred of reason goes a long way..... Relax, and breathe reality in for a change.

"None of that counts" to those who won't admit it's evidence or red flags as Barr said.

You're really losing it over, where the evidence is coming from. That's hardly the point. Whether it was actually investigated already or not, it has taken significant time and effort for the committee to obtain information. Sure looks like suppression. And whether Joe is clean or not, someone is working awfully hard to hide the answer. Just politics as usual a fan?

So, I don't really care where info is coming from and you can lighten up on that.

I'm outta here... too late for your gotcha logic tonight.

[a fan]

You're really losing it over, where the evidence is coming from. That's hardly the point.

It's 100% the point. The are rehashing info obtained from a 5 year long investigation into petty tax case.
What you are doing is coming in back in 2019, when the Mueller report came out, and hearing Mueller's report for the first time and telling the Forum, "boy guys, they should really open an investigation into this Trump guy". Yeah...they did. That's why you're hearing the report from this Mueller guy....the investigation is over.

Whether it was actually investigated already or not, it has taken significant time and effort for the committee to obtain information. Sure looks like suppression. And whether Joe is clean or not, someone is working awfully hard to hide the answer. Just politics as usual a fan?

i can't tell if you're serious here. Do you not understand that what's being presented to you is INTENTIONALLY being dragged out to make things look as bad as possible? House Republicans are running this circus. Do you not know that?

And whether Joe is clean or not, someone is working awfully hard to hide the answer. Just politics as usual a fan?

Yes!! The Republicans in the House are playing you, and are working diligently to hide the answer from you, you got it! Want this to end real quick?

Here ya go: put Wray, Rettig, and Barr on the stand. Ask each of them one simple question: "why didn't you open an investigation into Joe Biden's dealings as it relates to Hunter Biden?"

That's it. Boom, done in under 5 minutes. My question to you is: why aren't the House Republicans doing that? I'm trying to help you to understand that you're being played. If you don't want to hear it? Okay. I tried.

I'm outta here... too late for your gotcha logic tonight.

It's not a gotcha question, Tech. It's a simple question to cut through the BS that's being fed to you by House Republicans and your media feed.

The fact that you can't tell me why not one single department is opening a case on Joe at any point over the last five years tells you there's nothing there. IRS can open a case. FBI can open a case. DoJ can open a case. All chasing down the money you're 100% certain is corrupt.

And you are telling me that this is a "gotcha" question.

[old salt]

It's why I say that if we were all having beers at a big table........folks might bring up Hunter for a moment, but then move on to far more important issues.

Maybe we don't have fun discussions like that anymore because you issued all of us binary team jerseys & tell some of us we're no longert allowed to have a differing opinion, then you tell us what you think we think. ...or you're just aggravated because I don't agree with you as much.

You don't want to examine if there's a payback for Hunter's influence peddling when Pop was the VP. It's not important...& whatabout Trump.

[a fan]

It's why I say that if we were all having beers at a big table........folks might bring up Hunter for a moment, but then move on to far more important issues.

Maybe we don't have fun discussions like that anymore because you issued all of us binary team jerseys & tell some of us we're no longert allowed to have a differing opinion

It's not an opinion, I'm disputing your claims of fact. You're telling me this "information" is new. It's not. It was gathered by the very people you are insisting are corrupt, in the very investigation you now think didn't happen.

......then you tell us what you think we think.

You continually confuse where your logic takes your claims with me telling you what you think. It is impossible, for example, for you to claim that the Weiss' investigation was stopped or slowed by Garland without Weiss's own compliance and corruption. You don't like that this is what your logic does, so you claim I'm telling you what you think. Sorry man, it's just basic logic.

You don't want to examine if there's a payback for Hunter's influence peddling when Pop was the VP.

Nope. That's YOU, the House, and your Republican party members in the position to do something about it.

Wray, Rettig, and Barr were welcome to get off their *sses, and open a case on Joe.

The House, is welcome to have Wray, Rettig, and Barr on the stand, and ask them "hey fellas, why didn't you open an investigation into whether there was payback for Hunter's influence peddling when Pop was the VP at any time over the last six plus years"


Naturally, no one in your party is bright enough to do that. You just want to whine and complain about corruption, all while ignoring that you have had R's running the IRS, the DoJ, and the FBi for YEARS now. Oh, and the House R's are running this current sham of an "investigation" where your team is so mind-numbingly stupid (or corrupt) that they can't be bothered to put Wray, Rettig, and Barr on the stand and ask them why they didn't open a case on Joe.

So here we are, with no one to blame but you and your fellow party members. Wake me up when you figure this out, and actually do something about this corruption you are SO certain happened, yet have no interest in asking pertinent questions about it. I can ASSURE you that i'm not in your way. I'm just sitting here, laughing at your claims that the Dems and the man on the moon are in your way.

[old salt]

It's why I say that if we were all having beers at a big table........folks might bring up Hunter for a moment, but then move on to far more important issues.

Maybe we don't have fun discussions like that anymore because you issued all of us binary team jerseys & tell some of us we're no longert allowed to have a differing opinion

It's not an opinion, I'm disputing your claims of fact. You're telling me this "information" is new. It's not. It was gathered by the very people you are insisting are corrupt, in the very investigation you now think didn't happen.

......then you tell us what you think we think.

You continually confuse where your logic takes your claims with me telling you what you think. It is impossible, for example, for you to claim that the Weiss' investigation was stopped or slowed by Garland without Weiss's own compliance and corruption. You don't like that this is what your logic does, so you claim I'm telling you what you think. Sorry man, it's just basic logic.

You don't want to examine if there's a payback for Hunter's influence peddling when Pop was the VP.

Nope. That's YOU, the House, and your Republican party members in the position to do something about it.

Wray, Rettig, and Barr were welcome to get off their *sses, and open a case on Joe.

The House, is welcome to have Wray, Rettig, and Barr on the stand, and ask them "hey fellas, why didn't you open an investigation into whether there was payback for Hunter's influence peddling when Pop was the VP at any time over the last six plus years"


Naturally, no one in your party is bright enough to do that. You just want to whine and complain about corruption, all while ignoring that you have had R's running the IRS, the DoJ, and the FBi for YEARS now. Oh, and the House R's are running this current sham of an "investigation" where your team is so mind-numbingly stupid (or corrupt) that they can't be bothered to put Wray, Rettig, and Barr on the stand and ask them why they didn't open a case on Joe.

So here we are, with no one to blame but you and your fellow party members. Wake me up when you figure this out, and actually do something about this corruption you are SO certain happened, yet have no interest in asking pertinent questions about it. I can ASSURE you that i'm not in your way. I'm just sitting here, laughing at your claims that the Dems and the man on the moon are in your way.

JFC! Who cares ? The (R)'s just gained control of the House this year. They are just getting started. They' were complaining about Wray & trying to get documents during the Trump admin but they were the House minority after 2018 & he blew them off. They have to lay out the evidence. Biden's DoJ offered the failed plea deal & allowed the early SOL's to expire. You can't lay that off on the Trump admin. Why don't you focus on substance & see what they come up with, then you can tell us why it does not matter.

[a fan]

JFC! Who cares ? The (R)'s just gained control of the House this year. They are just getting started.

What the F does the House have to do with anything? All they do is make noise. They can't prosecute or open an investigation that holds up in court, and now here you are acting like that's what they do. The entire purpose to the House is to keep you foaming at the mouth.

It's working. Because of course it is. And it's why they aren't calling obvious witnesses who can answer easy questions quickly.

How come you figured out that Pelosi's Jan 6th House hearings were a political joke-----yet you and Tech are here playing dumb, acting like the R's aren't playing the same stupid political games with voters like you?

They' were complaining about Wray & trying to get documents during the Trump admin but they were the House minority & he blew them off. They have to lay out the evidence.

The House? What are you talking about? Who is it that you think runs our Criminal Justice system OS? The House is in the legislative branch, my man. They are 100% immaterial to any criminal proceeding, outside of lying under oath or refusing subpoenas.

Biden's DoJ offered the failed plea deal & allowed the early SOL's to expire. You can't lay that off on the Trump admin.

I never have. I have laid it off on (R) Weiss. You don't like that Weiss is on your team, so you try and fob this choice off on anyone you can find with a D by their name.

Why don't you focus on substance & see what they come up with

I have! And have told you what they found....in substance..... going on twenty times now. You don't want to hear it, and are here with a straight face, pretending that the last five years of investigations into a stupid tax case didn't happen. Or, better still, these were corrupt investigations, led by Republicans.


i told you why your thinking is flawed. And just now, I told you who can fix your problem for you. Your response was "who cares".

Wray (R) can tell you why he doesn't have an open case on Joe Biden.

Weiss (R) can tell you why he didn't expand his investigation into Joe Biden

Barr (R) can tell you why he didn't open an investigation into Joe Biden.

Rettig (R) can tell you why he didn't open an investigation into Joe Biden.


You and tech don't want to hear from any of them. And you don't want the House to call them. You don't want answers. Keep on keeping on. I'm done helping you figure things out.

[old salt]

JFC! Who cares ? The (R)'s just gained control of the House this year. They are just getting started.

What the F does the House have to do with anything? All they do is make noise. They can't prosecute or open an investigation that holds up in court, and now here you are acting like that's what they do. The entire purpose to the House is to keep you foaming at the mouth.

It's working. Because of course it is. And it's why they aren't calling obvious witnesses who can answer easy questions quickly.

How come you figured out that Pelosi's Jan 6th House hearings were a political joke-----yet you and Tech are here playing dumb, acting like the R's aren't playing the same stupid political games with voters like you?

They' were complaining about Wray & trying to get documents during the Trump admin but they were the House minority & he blew them off. They have to lay out the evidence.

The House? What are you talking about? Who is it that you think runs our Criminal Justice system OS? The House is in the legislative branch, my man. They are 100% immaterial to any criminal proceeding, outside of lying under oath or refusing subpoenas.

Biden's DoJ offered the failed plea deal & allowed the early SOL's to expire. You can't lay that off on the Trump admin.

I never have. I have laid it off on (R) Weiss. You don't like that Weiss is on your team, so you try and fob this choice off on anyone you can find with a D by their name.

Why don't you focus on substance & see what they come up with

I have! And have told you what they found....in substance..... going on twenty times now. You don't want to hear it, and are here with a straight face, pretending that the last five years of investigations into a stupid tax case didn't happen. Or, better still, these were corrupt investigations, led by Republicans.


i told you why your thinking is flawed. And just now, I told you who can fix your problem for you. Your response was "who cares".

Wray (R) can tell you why he doesn't have an open case on Joe Biden.

Weiss (R) can tell you why he didn't expand his investigation into Joe Biden

Barr (R) can tell you why he didn't open an investigation into Joe Biden.

Rettig (R) can tell you why he didn't open an investigation into Joe Biden.


You and tech don't want to hear from any of them. And you don't want the House to call them. You don't want answers. Keep on keeping on. I'm done helping you figure things out.

Rettig, Weiss, Barr & Wray did open an investigation at some point in 2018, at first about Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine & China.. They didn't notify Hunter that his taxes were under investigation until Dec 2020. So the investigation wasn't that far along if they didn't ask Hunter about his taxes until a month after the election.

You can blow off the House investigations if you like, but they're finally dragging the info out. Their hearings were probably a factor in the plea deal blowing up.

FTR -- here's a timeline to help you blameshift to (R) team members.
The timing is obvious. They did not want to influence the primary or general elections, so they held off on notifying Hunter until after the elections. No harm in waiting. It was a nonviolent, white collar crime with plenty of time on the SOL remaining. Had they acted sooner, they'd have been accused of trying to influence the election.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hunter- ... d=74634682
{Thursday} December 10, 2020
Hunter Biden, the president-elect's embattled son, announced Wednesday that federal prosecutors in Delaware are investigating his "tax affairs," a development that marks the latest controversy surrounding the Biden family's private business endeavors.

Federal investigators are looking into Hunter's business dealings in China and elsewhere, including scrutinizing whether he may have committed tax crimes stemming from those overseas business dealings.

In a statement released through the Biden-Harris transition team, Hunter Biden, 50, said he and his attorney learned of the investigation on Tuesday, and that he remains "confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors."

A separate source with knowledge of the investigation said the tax probe began in 2018, and that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware waited to notify Hunter Biden's legal team due to sensitivities around the 2020 presidential election.

In fact, the investigation was put on pause for several months while the Democratic primaries and then the general election campaigns played out.

While government watchdogs have broadly taken issue with the ethical implications of Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings, Wednesday's development marks the first instance in which the legality of Hunter Biden's finances have been called into question.

[tech37]

You're really losing it over, where the evidence is coming from. That's hardly the point.

It's 100% the point. The are rehashing info obtained from a 5 year long investigation into petty tax case.
What you are doing is coming in back in 2019, when the Mueller report came out, and hearing Mueller's report for the first time and telling the Forum, "boy guys, they should really open an investigation into this Trump guy". Yeah...they did. That's why you're hearing the report from this Mueller guy....the investigation is over.
This is just beyond silly. No one has claimed the information is "new" but that it is new to the public. Surely you understand this? The voting public up until now has not had any idea since it's been suppressed. Of course the DOJ and FBI have had the info (how long doesn't matter except for SOL concerns).

You could not have stated the obvious more than you have.

Whether it was actually investigated already or not, it has taken significant time and effort for the committee to obtain information. Sure looks like suppression. And whether Joe is clean or not, someone is working awfully hard to hide the answer. Just politics as usual a fan?

i can't tell if you're serious here. Do you not understand that what's being presented to you is INTENTIONALLY being dragged out to make things look as bad as possible? House Republicans are running this circus. Do you not know that?

And whether Joe is clean or not, someone is working awfully hard to hide the answer. Just politics as usual a fan?

Yes!! The Republicans in the House are playing you, and are working diligently to hide the answer from you, you got it! Want this to end real quick?

Here ya go: put Wray, Rettig, and Barr on the stand. Ask each of them one simple question: "why didn't you open an investigation into Joe Biden's dealings as it relates to Hunter Biden?"
Instead of freaking out, why not wait to see if they do take the stand? I'd love to see it actually and have said as much.

That's it. Boom, done in under 5 minutes. My question to you is: why aren't the House Republicans doing that? I'm trying to help you to understand that you're being played. If you don't want to hear it? Okay. I tried.

I'm outta here... too late for your gotcha logic tonight.

It's not a gotcha question, Tech. It's a simple question to cut through the BS that's being fed to you by House Republicans and your media feed.
Right, I said... gotcha logic. It's how you approach most topics IMO and one reason why I find it hard to communicate with you so often.

If you think what the committee is uncovering is BS, fine, that's your opinion... we'll see.

The fact that you can't tell me why not one single department is opening a case on Joe at any point over the last five years tells you there's nothing there. IRS can open a case. FBI can open a case. DoJ can open a case. All chasing down the money you're 100% certain is corrupt.
Ha! I'm not 100% certain about anything. Actually it's pretty clear you're the absolutist on here.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You're really losing it over, where the evidence is coming from. That's hardly the point.

It's 100% the point. The are rehashing info obtained from a 5 year long investigation into petty tax case.
What you are doing is coming in back in 2019, when the Mueller report came out, and hearing Mueller's report for the first time and telling the Forum, "boy guys, they should really open an investigation into this Trump guy". Yeah...they did. That's why you're hearing the report from this Mueller guy....the investigation is over.
[color=#FF8000]This is just beyond silly. No one has claimed the information is "new" but that it is new to the public. Surely you understand this? The voting public up until now has not had any idea since it's been suppressed. Of course the DOJ and FBI have had the info (how long doesn't matter except for SOL reasons).

You could not have stated the obvious more than you have.[/color]

Whether it was actually investigated already or not, it has taken significant time and effort for the committee to obtain information. Sure looks like suppression. And whether Joe is clean or not, someone is working awfully hard to hide the answer. Just politics as usual a fan?

i can't tell if you're serious here. Do you not understand that what's being presented to you is INTENTIONALLY being dragged out to make things look as bad as possible? House Republicans are running this circus. Do you not know that?

And whether Joe is clean or not, someone is working awfully hard to hide the answer. Just politics as usual a fan?

Yes!! The Republicans in the House are playing you, and are working diligently to hide the answer from you, you got it! Want this to end real quick?

Here ya go: put Wray, Rettig, and Barr on the stand. Ask each of them one simple question: "why didn't you open an investigation into Joe Biden's dealings as it relates to Hunter Biden?"
Instead of freaking out, why not wait to see if they do take the stand? I'd love to see it actually and have said as much.

That's it. Boom, done in under 5 minutes. My question to you is: why aren't the House Republicans doing that? I'm trying to help you to understand that you're being played. If you don't want to hear it? Okay. I tried.

I'm outta here... too late for your gotcha logic tonight.

It's not a gotcha question, Tech. It's a simple question to cut through the BS that's being fed to you by House Republicans and your media feed.
Right, I said... gotcha logic. It's how you approach most topics IMO and one reason why I find it hard to communicate with you so often.

If you think what the committee is uncovering is BS, fine, that's your opinion... we'll see.

The fact that you can't tell me why not one single department is opening a case on Joe at any point over the last five years tells you there's nothing there. IRS can open a case. FBI can open a case. DoJ can open a case. All chasing down the money you're 100% certain is corrupt.
Ha! I'm not 100% certain about anything. Actually it's pretty clear you're the absolutist on here.

So…whether the activity was criminal or whether there wasn’t enough there there for professional investigators is no longer your issue….. you want the information out there for political purposes? I believe that’s already been established as your desire as well as rights wing media. Whether the information meets the hurdle to prosecute is immaterial… “just go on TV and make an announcement”….. that’s your mindset. You can deny it but that’s the truth.