Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[tech37]

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.
Again, not "new" in a literal sense but new to the voting public. Literally taken, no nuance, absolute... classic a fan!

Just what do you mean by "investigation"? Obviously one wasn't opened in a formal sense, was it?

......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.
Not sure where you're getting this. Are you simply making it up? I'm pretty sure both OS and I have mentioned that Weiss was probably following orders from Garland. I'm certain I have.

[tech37]

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".
I don't think anyone's thinking has been "flawed" since not enough is yet known. I think you and others have jumped to conclusions. One reason being, you can't/won't accept Barr's "a lot of red flags" that the public is just starting to learn about.

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.
This is simply whack job territory. When did anyone say they didn't want to hear more, get more information? If we did literally ask that the committee subpoena these people you'd say we're being duped by Republican/FoxNews BS.

[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.

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.

did he discuss business with his son?
I haven't seen that proven to be a lie...it would indeed be embarrassing if he did lie about that.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.
Again, not "new" in a literal sense but new to the voting public. Literally taken, no nuance, absolute... classic a fan!

His point has been that the information was uncovered during the investigation, known to the prosecutor team, known to Weiss and Barr...and not considered probable cause.

Just what do you mean by "investigation"? Obviously one wasn't opened in a formal sense, was it?

......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.
Not sure where you're getting this. Are you simply making it up? I'm pretty sure both OS and I have mentioned that Weiss was probably following orders from Garland. I'm certain I have.

which means that you are claiming that Weiss has twice lied, in writing, to Congress...a felony.

[SCLaxAttack]

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.

did he discuss business with his son?
I haven't seen that proven to be a lie...it would indeed be embarrassing if he did lie about that.

That would be close to the worse thing he could do. 1.His opponents will still never be satisfied. 2. All that leads to is more lies against him that he’d be forced to address because if he didn’t the new narrative would be “this story must be true since he’s not defending himself like before.”

[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.

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.”

In a House impeachment process, that notion applies, though I don't actually agree; as my standard would be tougher than a partisan politician's might be. But the reality that Ford describes is as it was set up, so that's the reality.

There's no chance in hell that Biden is convicted in the Senate based on the nonsense put forth to date, and even lower chance in court.

But hey, the immensely hypocritical GOP scum in the House may think the rest of the House GOP can be bullied into such a vote. It would be a new low point for the GOP.

Looking at this from a political perspective, I think the hyper exposed hypocrisy will create even greater blowback on the GOP, causing a definite loss of the House in 2024. Which is why there's a growing group of Republicans in the House saying they won't go along with it.

[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.

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.

did he discuss business with his son?
I haven't seen that proven to be a lie...it would indeed be embarrassing if he did lie about that.

That would be close to the worse thing he could do. 1.His opponents will still never be satisfied. 2. All that leads to is more lies against him that he’d be forced to address because if he didn’t the new narrative would be “this story must be true since he’s not defending himself like before.”

I agree re tactically.
It only invites more...

But if he really did do more and actually did take money from Hunter he'd gotten from these jobs, even if not for an actual change in policy (crime), then the best thing he could do would be to declare that he's not going to seek a second term for health reasons and will support a robust primary process.

I just doubt that those facts exist.

So, he should let the GOP hypocrites bash themselves against reality.
Don't rise to it as it doesn't deserve it.
Focus on actual problems in the world and policies that positively impact the lives of Americans. Do his job.

[a fan]

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.

Sigh. You and Tech are playing games where you bob and weave, and change what it is you think happened depending on what logic you want to avoid.

Here, you've moved away from your theory that Joe is dirty, and are addressing Hunter. I don't care about Hunter. Hunter has already been investigated for five years. You and Tech want to pretend that never happened, and want five more years. Go right ahead.


You're all over the place. And that's how TeamTinFoil rolls.

As for your stupid timeline: there is nothing-----zero, zippo----keeping the IRS, DoJ, and FBI from opening a case on Joe.

They haven't. That's all i need to know. You and Tech can add 2+2 and answer "squirrels" all you want when it comes to your conspiracies. Knock yourselves out.

[a fan]

Just what do you mean by "investigation"? Obviously one wasn't opened in a formal sense, was it?

Are you serious? If you are, this is why we are having problems....this is the smoking gun. You're coming in 99.9% of the way through the process, and think the investigation is just starting.

The IRS opened a formal investigation into Hunter Biden in 2018, tech. The IRS brought in the FBI shortly after that.

Bill Barr came in in 2019, and merged the IRS and FBI case.....putting the FBI work in Delaware, and the IRS in DC.

Hunter was finally indicted after five years of investigating, which is longer than they took for 9/11 and the Mueller report COMBINED.

The House is now reading stuff to you, the public......that came from five years of investigations. And they're doing it in a way to maximize damage to the Biden Campaign.

And your reaction to this is: "boy, they really need to investigate this Hunter guy."


....do you see our disconnect now?

Not sure where you're getting this. Are you simply making it up? I'm pretty sure both OS and I have mentioned that Weiss was probably following orders from Garland. I'm certain I have.

Yes. Your theory is that two men committed felonies "to protect Joe in 2024".

This this "conspiracy" you think happened is working so well, that this Hunter mess has Biden 2024 behind in both polls. If you want to wager $500 that Biden will lose the election today, and will be because guys like you are convinced of this plot? I'm delighted to take that bet.

Your theory makes zero sense, Tech. The appearance of a good deal for Hunter will cost Joe the White House.

And Weiss is a Republican. Has been his whole life. So as I said before, if you're going to jump on TeamTinFoil? The most obvious corrupt thing that is happening, is that Weiss dragged out a simple case for five years.....bringing it to the election season......gave Hunter a nothing sentence...all with the intention of making Joe look corrupt.

My theory at least makes sense. Yours makes none, sorry.

[a fan]

\
I don't think anyone's thinking has been "flawed" since not enough is yet known. I think you and others have jumped to conclusions. One reason being, you can't/won't accept Barr's "a lot of red flags" that the public is just starting to learn about.

Yes, your thinking is flawed. The FBI, DoJ, and IRS turned Hunter's financial life upside down for five years Tech.

And you are telling me here that you don't understand why I ask the question: knowing that these agencies worked on Hunter's finances for five years, why do you think not one of these agencies opened a case on Joe Biden?

I can't be any more clear. These agencies already investigated Barr's "red flags" tech.

So i ask again: do you understand what it means that a case has not been opened on Joe Biden after five years of investigating?

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.
This is simply whack job territory. When did anyone say they didn't want to hear more, get more information? If we did literally ask that the committee subpoena these people you'd say we're being duped by Republican/FoxNews BS.

No. I'd only claim that if they didn't answer the specific questions above.

Because if they answer the above questions? Joe Biden is in the clear. And the House R's don't want Joe to be in the clear in the eyes of the public. You are watching a game, tech

Wanna put some money on this....that they won't put them on the stand, and clear it all up? You're being played, tech. Wake up.

[cradleandshoot]

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.
Again, not "new" in a literal sense but new to the voting public. Literally taken, no nuance, absolute... classic a fan!

His point has been that the information was uncovered during the investigation, known to the prosecutor team, known to Weiss and Barr...and not considered probable cause.

Just what do you mean by "investigation"? Obviously one wasn't opened in a formal sense, was it?

......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.
Not sure where you're getting this. Are you simply making it up? I'm pretty sure both OS and I have mentioned that Weiss was probably following orders from Garland. I'm certain I have.

which means that you are claiming that Weiss has twice lied, in writing, to Congress...a felony.

Weiss has some explaining to do under oath. Maybe he didn't lie he may have just misremembered the facts. There seems to be a lot of misremembering going on from various agencies of the US government. I'm certain those agencies would be more than happy if certain facts remain misremembered forever. The HB debacle proves true just like in Watergate times. If you follow the money trail long enough and with persistence it will lead you to the truth. One thing is obvious. HB was payed a lot of money for a player with no experience and not that bright to boot. The only thing he brought to the table was his old man. His old man sure shows up a lot at those dinners and those conference calls. I guess they all wanted to chat about the weather, their grandkids and other mundane topics like that. It makes a lot of sense if you don't think about it logically and ask why or for what reason.
Weiss has some disturbing discrepancies to clear up. I wonder if his testimony will be behind closed doors or available for all Americans to see?

[a fan]

If you follow the money trail long enough and with persistence it will lead you to the truth

They did that. Three separate agencies, with dozens of eyes looking into it, Cradle.

And every Dept. head was a Republican.....IRS, DoJ, and FBI for the full five years, except the last three in the case of the DoJ. But even then, the lead on the case, Weiss is a lifelong Republican.

At any point over the last five years----ANY POINT-----the IRS, DoJ, and FBI can open a case on Joe, Cradle. And that's true to this day.

So......I ask the same question of you that I asked of Tech and OS: what does it tell you that none of them has opened a case on Joe Biden? All they need is probable cause, my man. You, Barr, Tech, OS, and FoxNation are telling us the cause is there......so....what's the problem?

And when you come back with "I don't know"...then you know what the answer....the ONLY answer, is.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.
Again, not "new" in a literal sense but new to the voting public. Literally taken, no nuance, absolute... classic a fan!

His point has been that the information was uncovered during the investigation, known to the prosecutor team, known to Weiss and Barr...and not considered probable cause.

Just what do you mean by "investigation"? Obviously one wasn't opened in a formal sense, was it?

......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.
Not sure where you're getting this. Are you simply making it up? I'm pretty sure both OS and I have mentioned that Weiss was probably following orders from Garland. I'm certain I have.

which means that you are claiming that Weiss has twice lied, in writing, to Congress...a felony.

Weiss has some explaining to do under oath. Maybe he didn't lie he may have just misremembered the facts. There seems to be a lot of misremembering going on from various agencies of the US government. I'm certain those agencies would be more than happy if certain facts remain misremembered forever. The HB debacle proves true just like in Watergate times. If you follow the money trail long enough and with persistence it will lead you to the truth. One thing is obvious. HB was payed a lot of money for a player with no experience and not that bright to boot. The only thing he brought to the table was his old man. His old man sure shows up a lot at those dinners and those conference calls. I guess they all wanted to chat about the weather, their grandkids and other mundane topics like that. It makes a lot of sense if you don't think about it logically and ask why or for what reason.
Weiss has some disturbing discrepancies to clear up. I wonder if his testimony will be behind closed doors or available for all Americans to see?

Again, you are implying that Weiss lied to Congress, twice, in writing.
Does he really need to explain anything, or has he already refuted the claim that he was interfered with?

Once the process is entirely over (and I don't think the GOP wants it to ever be over), I would expect that Weiss will explain, publicly, that whatever leads they had (leads aren't necessarily evidence that can be used in court) didn't pan out with hard, cold evidence of a crime.

Plenty of unseemly behavior by Hunter, no dispute to that, but nothing proving an actual bribe of Joe or a change in US policy as a result of some leverage, bribe or blackmail. No crime.

I just don't see any scenario where Weiss found a crime and didn't prosecute other than if he's lying to Congress and was actually interfered with...and that means a whole lot of other people are in on and the lie. And that goes against the character that these jobs typically attract...for all of them to be doing a cover-up is a tough sell to me.

As to why Joe communicated with his son, I don't think that's assailable as criminal unless there's testimony and it's corroborated with hard evidence that'll stand up in court that Joe actually asked for Hunter to be paid as a favor to Joe, even wink wink. All we've heard is that Hunter over sold his relationship and access, well beyond reality, according to his partner...and yeah, that's pretty sleazy. We can criticize Joe for either not realizing what was going on or turning a blind eye to it.

I can come up with some pretty fatherly excuses for doing so with a troubled son, whose more serious issues I was worried about...including suicide.

Back to Weiss...one of the core principles of prosecutors is to not discuss evidence or allegations they don't use in court and which therefore can be challenged in due process. So, I could see him, assuming he sticks to those principles, simply stating, repeatedly if necessary, that every lead or allegation he is presented by Congress critters, was followed up and either not found credible or couldn't be corroborated or was tainted by chain of custody issues. No crime to indict. I wouldn't expect him to offer an exoneration of Joe, much less Hunter, as that too would be inappropriate.

But right now he should tell the Congress critters to shove it and wait until he's finished with the prosecution of whatever crimes he actually decides to indict on...or finishes whatever plea agreement instead. He has Special Counsel status, so it's entirely up to him to finish the case...and when he's done so, he's required by statute to explain his decisions in writing to the AG...when that is done, he'll likely be called before Congress and unless there's some classified info involved, that hearing will very likely be in public.

[MDlaxfan76]

If you follow the money trail long enough and with persistence it will lead you to the truth

They did that. Three separate agencies, with dozens of eyes looking into it, Cradle.

And every Dept. head was a Republican.....IRS, DoJ, and FBI for the full five years, except the last three in the case of the DoJ. But even then, the lead on the case, Weiss is a lifelong Republican.

At any point over the last five years----ANY POINT-----the IRS, DoJ, and FBI can open a case on Joe, Cradle. And that's true to this day.

So......I ask the same question of you that I asked of Tech and OS: what does it tell you that none of them has opened a case on Joe Biden? All they need is probable cause, my man. You, Barr, Tech, OS, and FoxNation are telling us the cause is there......so....what's the problem?

And when you come back with "I don't know"...then you know what the answer....the ONLY answer, is.

And of course, that's why the GOP Congress critters don't want to call Rettig, Wray or Barr to testify...they don't want to have them under oath, exposed to actual cross examination.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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.
Again, not "new" in a literal sense but new to the voting public. Literally taken, no nuance, absolute... classic a fan!

His point has been that the information was uncovered during the investigation, known to the prosecutor team, known to Weiss and Barr...and not considered probable cause.

Just what do you mean by "investigation"? Obviously one wasn't opened in a formal sense, was it?

......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.
Not sure where you're getting this. Are you simply making it up? I'm pretty sure both OS and I have mentioned that Weiss was probably following orders from Garland. I'm certain I have.

which means that you are claiming that Weiss has twice lied, in writing, to Congress...a felony.

Weiss has some explaining to do under oath. Maybe he didn't lie he may have just misremembered the facts. There seems to be a lot of misremembering going on from various agencies of the US government. I'm certain those agencies would be more than happy if certain facts remain misremembered forever. The HB debacle proves true just like in Watergate times. If you follow the money trail long enough and with persistence it will lead you to the truth. One thing is obvious. HB was payed a lot of money for a player with no experience and not that bright to boot. The only thing he brought to the table was his old man. His old man sure shows up a lot at those dinners and those conference calls. I guess they all wanted to chat about the weather, their grandkids and other mundane topics like that. It makes a lot of sense if you don't think about it logically and ask why or for what reason.
Weiss has some disturbing discrepancies to clear up. I wonder if his testimony will be behind closed doors or available for all Americans to see?

Again, you are implying that Weiss lied to Congress, twice, in writing.
Does he really need to explain anything, or has he already refuted the claim that he was interfered with?

Once the process is entirely over (and I don't think the GOP wants it to ever be over), I would expect that Weiss will explain, publicly, that whatever leads they had (leads aren't necessarily evidence that can be used in court) didn't pan out with hard, cold evidence of a crime.

Plenty of unseemly behavior by Hunter, no dispute to that, but nothing proving an actual bribe of Joe or a change in US policy as a result of some leverage, bribe or blackmail. No crime.

I just don't see any scenario where Weiss found a crime and didn't prosecute other than if he's lying to Congress and was actually interfered with...and that means a whole lot of other people are in on and the lie. And that goes against the character that these jobs typically attract...for all of them to be doing a cover-up is a tough sell to me.

As to why Joe communicated with his son, I don't think that's assailable as criminal unless there's testimony and it's corroborated with hard evidence that'll stand up in court that Joe actually asked for Hunter to be paid as a favor to Joe, even wink wink. All we've heard is that Hunter over sold his relationship and access, well beyond reality, according to his partner...and yeah, that's pretty sleazy. We can criticize Joe for either not realizing what was going on or turning a blind eye to it.

I can come up with some pretty fatherly excuses for doing so with a troubled son, whose more serious issues I was worried about...including suicide.

Back to Weiss...one of the core principles of prosecutors is to not discuss evidence or allegations they don't use in court and which therefore can be challenged in due process. So, I could see him, assuming he sticks to those principles, simply stating, repeatedly if necessary, that every lead or allegation he is presented by Congress critters, was followed up and either not found credible or couldn't be corroborated or was tainted by chain of custody issues. No crime to indict. I wouldn't expect him to offer an exoneration of Joe, much less Hunter, as that too would be inappropriate.

But right now he should tell the Congress critters to shove it and wait until he's finished with the prosecution of whatever crimes he actually decides to indict on...or finishes whatever plea agreement instead. He has Special Counsel status, so it's entirely up to him to finish the case...and when he's done so, he's required by statute to explain his decisions in writing to the AG...when that is done, he'll likely be called before Congress and unless there's some classified info involved, that hearing will very likely be in public.

For the life of me, I don’t understand how anyone doesn’t see that this is all it is….. the guy was a crack addict….the guy would smoke the crack of your a$$ when fiendin’….. Joe was in business with him and relying on him to run deals….sounds plausible…

[a fan]

If you follow the money trail long enough and with persistence it will lead you to the truth

They did that. Three separate agencies, with dozens of eyes looking into it, Cradle.

And every Dept. head was a Republican.....IRS, DoJ, and FBI for the full five years, except the last three in the case of the DoJ. But even then, the lead on the case, Weiss is a lifelong Republican.

At any point over the last five years----ANY POINT-----the IRS, DoJ, and FBI can open a case on Joe, Cradle. And that's true to this day.

So......I ask the same question of you that I asked of Tech and OS: what does it tell you that none of them has opened a case on Joe Biden? All they need is probable cause, my man. You, Barr, Tech, OS, and FoxNation are telling us the cause is there......so....what's the problem?

And when you come back with "I don't know"...then you know what the answer....the ONLY answer, is.

And of course, that's why the GOP Congress critters don't want to call Rettig, Wray or Barr to testify...they don't want to have them under oath, exposed to actual cross examination.

They don't want those men to say under oath "i didn't open a case into Joe Biden, because there was no evidence that he had committed a crime".

I don't understand how it is our fellow posters don't understand this obvious reality.

Yet here we are.....

[a fan]

For the life of me, I don’t understand how anyone doesn’t see that this is all it is….. the guy was a crack addict….the guy would smoke the crack of your a$$ when fiendin’….. Joe was in business with him and relying on him to run deals….sounds plausible…

It's simple. They're Republicans.

It's why they understood....with no trouble whatsoever....that the Jan 6th hearings run by those little D's was a political circus.

Yet they are unable to understand that these House hearings, run by the little R's, is the same circus.


This is how they keep us divided. Americans are unable to think clearly anymore.

[cradleandshoot]

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.
Again, not "new" in a literal sense but new to the voting public. Literally taken, no nuance, absolute... classic a fan!

His point has been that the information was uncovered during the investigation, known to the prosecutor team, known to Weiss and Barr...and not considered probable cause.

Just what do you mean by "investigation"? Obviously one wasn't opened in a formal sense, was it?

......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.
Not sure where you're getting this. Are you simply making it up? I'm pretty sure both OS and I have mentioned that Weiss was probably following orders from Garland. I'm certain I have.

which means that you are claiming that Weiss has twice lied, in writing, to Congress...a felony.

Weiss has some explaining to do under oath. Maybe he didn't lie he may have just misremembered the facts. There seems to be a lot of misremembering going on from various agencies of the US government. I'm certain those agencies would be more than happy if certain facts remain misremembered forever. The HB debacle proves true just like in Watergate times. If you follow the money trail long enough and with persistence it will lead you to the truth. One thing is obvious. HB was payed a lot of money for a player with no experience and not that bright to boot. The only thing he brought to the table was his old man. His old man sure shows up a lot at those dinners and those conference calls. I guess they all wanted to chat about the weather, their grandkids and other mundane topics like that. It makes a lot of sense if you don't think about it logically and ask why or for what reason.
Weiss has some disturbing discrepancies to clear up. I wonder if his testimony will be behind closed doors or available for all Americans to see?

Again, you are implying that Weiss lied to Congress, twice, in writing.
Does he really need to explain anything, or has he already refuted the claim that he was interfered with?

Once the process is entirely over (and I don't think the GOP wants it to ever be over), I would expect that Weiss will explain, publicly, that whatever leads they had (leads aren't necessarily evidence that can be used in court) didn't pan out with hard, cold evidence of a crime.

Plenty of unseemly behavior by Hunter, no dispute to that, but nothing proving an actual bribe of Joe or a change in US policy as a result of some leverage, bribe or blackmail. No crime.

I just don't see any scenario where Weiss found a crime and didn't prosecute other than if he's lying to Congress and was actually interfered with...and that means a whole lot of other people are in on and the lie. And that goes against the character that these jobs typically attract...for all of them to be doing a cover-up is a tough sell to me.

As to why Joe communicated with his son, I don't think that's assailable as criminal unless there's testimony and it's corroborated with hard evidence that'll stand up in court that Joe actually asked for Hunter to be paid as a favor to Joe, even wink wink. All we've heard is that Hunter over sold his relationship and access, well beyond reality, according to his partner...and yeah, that's pretty sleazy. We can criticize Joe for either not realizing what was going on or turning a blind eye to it.

I can come up with some pretty fatherly excuses for doing so with a troubled son, whose more serious issues I was worried about...including suicide.

Back to Weiss...one of the core principles of prosecutors is to not discuss evidence or allegations they don't use in court and which therefore can be challenged in due process. So, I could see him, assuming he sticks to those principles, simply stating, repeatedly if necessary, that every lead or allegation he is presented by Congress critters, was followed up and either not found credible or couldn't be corroborated or was tainted by chain of custody issues. No crime to indict. I wouldn't expect him to offer an exoneration of Joe, much less Hunter, as that too would be inappropriate.

But right now he should tell the Congress critters to shove it and wait until he's finished with the prosecution of whatever crimes he actually decides to indict on...or finishes whatever plea agreement instead. He has Special Counsel status, so it's entirely up to him to finish the case...and when he's done so, he's required by statute to explain his decisions in writing to the AG...when that is done, he'll likely be called before Congress and unless there's some classified info involved, that hearing will very likely be in public.

Holy cow MD, you keep implying something I never said. There are discrepancies between what the WB documented over the course of their investigation. The most unusual was Weiss telling not only the 2 WB but another group of agents in a meeting the decision to prosecute HB was out of his hands. Weiss has since denied that and said he always had the authority to make the decision. Why do you think I keep harping on the fact someone is lying? You keep trying to spin a different scenario that the WBs were confused or misunderstood what Weiss was telling them. That is why I want to hear testimony from 3 people. Bill Barr, Merrick Garland and Weiss. The 2 whistleblowers I believe documented in their notes what Weiss told them in the aforementioned meeting. So Weiss will have the perfect opportunity to marry up what the agents remember him saying to them and what he claims he said. No matter how hard you try to twist it one side or the other is lying or guilty of some industrial strength misremembering. I'm going to reserve judgement until the 3 of them have testified and see then where the chips fall.

[cradleandshoot]

If you follow the money trail long enough and with persistence it will lead you to the truth

They did that. Three separate agencies, with dozens of eyes looking into it, Cradle.

And every Dept. head was a Republican.....IRS, DoJ, and FBI for the full five years, except the last three in the case of the DoJ. But even then, the lead on the case, Weiss is a lifelong Republican.

At any point over the last five years----ANY POINT-----the IRS, DoJ, and FBI can open a case on Joe, Cradle. And that's true to this day.

So......I ask the same question of you that I asked of Tech and OS: what does it tell you that none of them has opened a case on Joe Biden? All they need is probable cause, my man. You, Barr, Tech, OS, and FoxNation are telling us the cause is there......so....what's the problem?

And when you come back with "I don't know"...then you know what the answer....the ONLY answer, is.

And of course, that's why the GOP Congress critters don't want to call Rettig, Wray or Barr to testify...they don't want to have them under oath, exposed to actual cross examination.

They don't want those men to say under oath "i didn't open a case into Joe Biden, because there was no evidence that he had committed a crime".

I don't understand how it is our fellow posters don't understand this obvious reality.

Yet here we are.....

Where we are at is the surface was hardly scratched in regards to the HB debacle. Much was not known and in dribs and drabs more information is coming to the surface. Do you want all of the truth to be known or are are you satisfied with the status quo? I'm fairly certain there are a number of players in this affair that a have vested interest in the truth never being known.

[a fan]

I'm going to reserve judgement until the 3 of them have testified and see then where the chips fall.

Which is why the House either won't call them, or won't ask the important questions if they do call them.

The House R's want you to keep speculating about "the conspiracy"......and vote for Trump.

The House hearings, just like the Jan 6th hearings, is about the 2024 elections.

Neither hearing has ANYTHING to do with providing real, accurate information to the American people.

If you guy are going to assume Government Corruption? Great news: apply this mindset to the corrupt R's in the House who want your vote, instead of the truth.

Ask yourself a simple question: would these massive House hearings be happening for Jan 6th or Hunter's IRS be happening if Trump or Joe weren't running?

Of course not, right? Well, there you go. Act and think accordingly.