Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[cradleandshoot]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

[a fan]

What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

Except you and the Republicans aren't actually listening to the WB's complaints.

1. Their complaints started when Barr was in charge, not Garland. Why does everyone intentionally ignore this?
2. The WB's started their investigations in 2018, and the WB's told you that they weren't ready to pull warrants two years later, in 2020.

Doesn't that seem a tad odd to you? If they didn't have Hunter's Financial records on hand, what were they doing for two years?

Unfortunately, no one on the Dem side (shocker) was smart enough to ask them these questions.

And as I told you would happen---the R's didn't call Barr or Wray or Rettig from the IRS. The R's are snowing you, Cradle. They don't want those guys on the stand to walk you through what they did.

[MDlaxfan76]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

mmm, there was a tape of that call, I don't recall anyone just claiming to have heard something they thought was wrong. We could all listen to the tape and reach judgments as to whether it was a major issue or not.

And no, these guys didn't actually use the whistleblower process they had available to them. Their "interference" stories have been repeatedly refuted, under oath, by multiple US Attorneys as well as the the AG. The key refuter was in the room, a Trump appointee with no reason to lie. The most generous explanation would be that they misunderstood what they thought they heard, the least generous is the "WB's" have a partisan or personal axe to grind, having been let go from those investigations. (EDIT: and as a fan points out, that was back during the Trump/Barr era.)

HUGE difference.

[cradleandshoot]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

mmm, there was a tape of that call, I don't recall anyone just claiming to have heard something they thought was wrong. We could all listen to the tape and reach judgments as to whether it was a major issue or not.

And no, these guys didn't actually use the whistleblower process they had available to them. Their "interference" stories have been repeatedly refuted, under oath, by multiple US Attorneys as well as the the AG. The key refuter was in the room, a Trump appointee with no reason to lie. The most generous explanation would be that they misunderstood what they thought they heard, the least generous is the "WB's" have a partisan or personal axe to grind, having been let go from those investigations. (EDIT: and as a fan points out, that was back during the Trump/Barr era.)

HUGE difference.

No difference at all my friend. What difference does it make if there was a tape of the call? A Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army should know and understand the chain of command that every military personnel has to abide by. To the best of my knowledge the UCMJ isn't restricted to any administration or any AG. The military plays this game by a different set of rules that is what the UCMJ is all about. IMO Lt. Col Vindman should have been court martialed and sent to Ft Leavenworth as a buck private for violating his security clearance and his distain for the chain of command. He gets a pass because he threw trump under the bus. That doesn't excuse what he did unless you subscribe to the philosophy of the end justifies the means.

[njbill]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

I’m not saying they are lying. But I think they misunderstood the perhaps arcane DOJ procedures. Also, they pretty clearly disagreed with those who would make any charging decisions. That doesn’t mean they are liars, just that those who made the decisions didn’t agree the charges were warranted. Happens not infrequently in the workplace. The subordinate wants to do things one way. The boss disagrees. The boss makes the decision so his way rules the day.

I was in particular talking about the WBs’ allegations about unpaid taxes. They contend Hunter had taxable income on which he did not pay tax. I believe Hunter disputes that that money constitutes taxable income to him. My rather general understanding is that Hunter has paid back all the taxes that are not in dispute. There may be some additional areas where Weiss will end up contending Hunter had income he didn’t pay taxes on. Hunter may disagree about that so it will have to be resolved in court.

I think the whistleblowers are anti-Joe, if not full on MAGAs. They got removed from the case, fired if you will, due to their conduct, which, to me, seemed biased. One of the things they did, which demonstrates to me their clear anti-Joe bias, was they wanted to investigate Joe as part of the Hunter income tax investigation. That’s 100% wrong.

[cradleandshoot]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

I’m not saying they are lying. But I think they misunderstood the perhaps arcane DOJ procedures. Also, they pretty clearly disagreed with those who would make any charging decisions. That doesn’t mean they are liars, just that those who made the decisions didn’t agree the charges were warranted. Happens not infrequently in the workplace. The subordinate wants to do things one way. The boss disagrees. The boss makes the decision so his way rules the day.

I was in particular talking about the WBs’ allegations about unpaid taxes. They contend Hunter had taxable income on which he did not pay tax. I believe Hunter disputes that that money constitutes taxable income to him. My rather general understanding is that Hunter has paid back all the taxes that are not in dispute. There may be some additional areas where Weiss will end up contending Hunter had income he didn’t pay taxes on. Hunter may disagree about that so it will have to be resolved in court.

I think the whistleblowers are anti-Joe, if not full on MAGAs. They got removed from the case, fired if you will, due to their conduct, which, to me, seemed biased. One of the things they did, which demonstrates to me their clear anti-Joe bias, was they wanted to investigate Joe as part of the Hunter income tax investigation. That’s 100% wrong.

It is irrelevant what their political ideology is, at least it shouldn't. The only relevant issue should be whether their accusations had merit. To this point in time their concerns have been validated. If anything the DoJ are the folks acting mighty squirrelly when it comes to the specifics of this HB case. Now that Weiss has officially been given the title of SC he can't comment on an ongoing investigation. How convenient is that??

[njbill]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

I’m not saying they are lying. But I think they misunderstood the perhaps arcane DOJ procedures. Also, they pretty clearly disagreed with those who would make any charging decisions. That doesn’t mean they are liars, just that those who made the decisions didn’t agree the charges were warranted. Happens not infrequently in the workplace. The subordinate wants to do things one way. The boss disagrees. The boss makes the decision so his way rules the day.

I was in particular talking about the WBs’ allegations about unpaid taxes. They contend Hunter had taxable income on which he did not pay tax. I believe Hunter disputes that that money constitutes taxable income to him. My rather general understanding is that Hunter has paid back all the taxes that are not in dispute. There may be some additional areas where Weiss will end up contending Hunter had income he didn’t pay taxes on. Hunter may disagree about that so it will have to be resolved in court.

I think the whistleblowers are anti-Joe, if not full on MAGAs. They got removed from the case, fired if you will, due to their conduct, which, to me, seemed biased. One of the things they did, which demonstrates to me their clear anti-Joe bias, was they wanted to investigate Joe as part of the Hunter income tax investigation. That’s 100% wrong.

It is irrelevant what their political ideology is, at least it shouldn't. The only relevant issue should be whether their accusations had merit. To this point in time their concerns have been validated. If anything the DoJ are the folks acting mighty squirrelly when it comes to the specifics of this HB case. Now that Weiss has officially been given the title of SC he can't comment on an ongoing investigation. How convenient is that??

Well, to the extent they are making claims because of their ideology (if that is the case), it’s not irrelevant. As I said, I think a lot of what is driving them is they — the investigators — wanted the investigation to go in certain directions and wanted certain charges to be filed that those whose responsibility it was to lead the investigations and make the charging decisions disagreed with. I don’t think you can say their concerns have been validated, at least on the public record to date.

I believe that Andrew Weissmann, who was on Mueller’s team, wanted Mueller to issue a report that said Trump had committed collusion – type crimes. But Mueller, the boss, declined to do so. As I said, this kind of thing is not uncommon (boss disagrees with what subordinate thinks should be done).

Weiss’ special counsel status isn’t the reason he is declining to answer questions about the investigation. Any prosecutor, federal or state, should decline to answer questions about a pending investigation. I frankly don’t think Weiss should’ve testified at all. Once he is finished and has written his report, then he can testify.

[cradleandshoot]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

I’m not saying they are lying. But I think they misunderstood the perhaps arcane DOJ procedures. Also, they pretty clearly disagreed with those who would make any charging decisions. That doesn’t mean they are liars, just that those who made the decisions didn’t agree the charges were warranted. Happens not infrequently in the workplace. The subordinate wants to do things one way. The boss disagrees. The boss makes the decision so his way rules the day.

I was in particular talking about the WBs’ allegations about unpaid taxes. They contend Hunter had taxable income on which he did not pay tax. I believe Hunter disputes that that money constitutes taxable income to him. My rather general understanding is that Hunter has paid back all the taxes that are not in dispute. There may be some additional areas where Weiss will end up contending Hunter had income he didn’t pay taxes on. Hunter may disagree about that so it will have to be resolved in court.

I think the whistleblowers are anti-Joe, if not full on MAGAs. They got removed from the case, fired if you will, due to their conduct, which, to me, seemed biased. One of the things they did, which demonstrates to me their clear anti-Joe bias, was they wanted to investigate Joe as part of the Hunter income tax investigation. That’s 100% wrong.

It is irrelevant what their political ideology is, at least it shouldn't. The only relevant issue should be whether their accusations had merit. To this point in time their concerns have been validated. If anything the DoJ are the folks acting mighty squirrelly when it comes to the specifics of this HB case. Now that Weiss has officially been given the title of SC he can't comment on an ongoing investigation. How convenient is that??

Well, to the extent they are making claims because of their ideology (if that is the case), it’s not irrelevant. As I said, I think a lot of what is driving them is they — the investigators — wanted the investigation to go in certain directions and wanted certain charges to be filed that those whose responsibility it was to lead the investigations and make the charging decisions disagreed with. I don’t think you can say their concerns have been validated, at least on the public record to date.

I believe that Andrew Weissmann, who was on Mueller’s team, wanted Mueller to issue a report that said Trump had committed collusion – type crimes. But Mueller, the boss, declined to do so. As I said, this kind of thing is not uncommon (boss disagrees with what subordinate thinks should be done).

Weiss’ special counsel status isn’t the reason he is declining to answer questions about the investigation. Any prosecutor, federal or state, should decline to answer questions about a pending investigation. I frankly don’t think Weiss should’ve testified at all. Once he is finished and has written his report, then he can testify.

Weiss declined to answer questions in the closed door meeting. He did so because as SC he couldn't answer any questions on an ongoing investigation. If he didn't have the SC designation he could have been free to answer questions?? I'm not understanding the nuance here. I agree that we should wait until Weiss concludes his investigation. The problem is that Weiss has fouled up this investigation to the point his competence or his integrity legitimately can be questioned.
Would it have made a difference if Garland has started fresh with a new SC??

[njbill]

I don’t think the special counsel designation has anything to do with whether Weiss could or should have answered questions. As I said, in my view, he shouldn’t have testified at all until the investigation was over. A regular federal prosecutor who doesn’t have special counsel status should not be commenting on an ongoing investigation.

If your question is would it have made a difference as to whether a special counsel who was someone other than Weiss could have or should have answered questions before Congress, I don’t think so.

[cradleandshoot]

I don’t think the special counsel designation has anything to do with whether Weiss could or should have answered questions. As I said, in my view, he shouldn’t have testified at all until the investigation was over. A regular federal prosecutor who doesn’t have special counsel status should not be commenting on an ongoing investigation.

If your question is would it have made a difference as to whether a special counsel who was someone other than Weiss could have or should have answered questions before Congress, I don’t think so.

I would agree that in most circumstances Weiss should not have testified. You can't undo what has been done. I don't know all of the legalities but testifying to a congressional committee behind closed doors should allow direct answers to blunt questions. Anytime you find an excuse that allows you to avoid answering a questions can easily look like your dodging.

[old salt]

I was in particular talking about the WBs’ allegations about unpaid taxes. They contend Hunter had taxable income on which he did not pay tax. I believe Hunter disputes that that money constitutes taxable income to him.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hea ... %EF%BF%BC/
Both whistleblowers testified that Hunter Biden owes $145,000 in unpaid taxes on $400,000 of income from 2014.

[njbill]

The excerpt you cited does not contain any testimony from any of the whistleblowers specifically saying they contend Hunter owes $145,000 in taxes. Rather, that is simply a statement in one of the bolded section headings prepared by the committee. Even if there is such testimony somewhere to that effect, that is the WB’s contention, which is disputed. My understanding is that Hunter disputes that was taxable income to him. He has paid taxes on all undisputed income as I understand it.

In terms of the statute of limitations, as I have said before, it doesn’t begin to run on unreported income until the IRS knows about it. I believe I gave the example before that if you win $1 million at your Friday night poker game, that is taxable income to you. If you fail to report it on your tax return for the year in which you won the money, the statute does not begin to run when you file that return, but rather not until the IRS knows about your winnings. I think that is the situation with this disputed amount.

The cited excerpt does not contain any testimony from a whistleblower to the effect that anything is barred by the statute of limitations. Again, that is simply a section heading prepared by the committee in their report.

[Kismet]

salttine does this all the time in his usual bloviating waste of bandwidth on this topic

Ironically, in another thread he actually said this

"Being accused does not make someone a criminal."

That apparently is his defense of Orange Fatso but doesn't seem to apply to Hunter Biden who he routinely trashes as if he were guilty and a criminal here every effing day.

[MDlaxfan76]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

mmm, there was a tape of that call, I don't recall anyone just claiming to have heard something they thought was wrong. We could all listen to the tape and reach judgments as to whether it was a major issue or not.

And no, these guys didn't actually use the whistleblower process they had available to them. Their "interference" stories have been repeatedly refuted, under oath, by multiple US Attorneys as well as the the AG. The key refuter was in the room, a Trump appointee with no reason to lie. The most generous explanation would be that they misunderstood what they thought they heard, the least generous is the "WB's" have a partisan or personal axe to grind, having been let go from those investigations. (EDIT: and as a fan points out, that was back during the Trump/Barr era.)

HUGE difference.

No difference at all my friend. What difference does it make if there was a tape of the call? A Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army should know and understand the chain of command that every military personnel has to abide by. To the best of my knowledge the UCMJ isn't restricted to any administration or any AG. The military plays this game by a different set of rules that is what the UCMJ is all about. IMO Lt. Col Vindman should have been court martialed and sent to Ft Leavenworth as a buck private for violating his security clearance and his distain for the chain of command. He gets a pass because he threw trump under the bus. That doesn't excuse what he did unless you subscribe to the philosophy of the end justifies the means.

Yevgeny or Alex?
My understanding is that Yevgeny properly attempted to work through chain of command prior to filing for WB status with the appropriate IG. That’s the way it is supposed to work.

[old salt]

The excerpt you cited does not contain any testimony from any of the whistleblowers specifically saying they contend Hunter owes $145,000 in taxes. Rather, that is simply a statement in one of the bolded section headings prepared by the committee. Even if there is such testimony somewhere to that effect, that is the WB’s contention, which is disputed. My understanding is that Hunter disputes that was taxable income to him. He has paid taxes on all undisputed income as I understand it.

In terms of the statute of limitations, as I have said before, it doesn’t begin to run on unreported income until the IRS knows about it. I believe I gave the example before that if you win $1 million at your Friday night poker game, that is taxable income to you. If you fail to report it on your tax return for the year in which you won the money, the statute does not begin to run when you file that return, but rather not until the IRS knows about your winnings. I think that is the situation with this disputed amount.

The cited excerpt does not contain any testimony from a whistleblower to the effect that anything is barred by the statute of limitations. Again, that is simply a section heading prepared by the committee in their report.

I saw Ziegler cite the numbers in his televised testimony.. If the IRS accepted Hunter's dispute claim, the WB's would not have cited the undeclared income & unpaid taxes. I alao observed Ziegler complain that the SOL had been allowed to run.
Here's the basis of the undeclared $400k.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... s-n1250973

Hunter Biden’s former business partner sent him an email in 2017 saying he did not disclose on his tax returns $400,000 in income from the Ukrainian natural gas company where he sat on the board, according to a copy of the email obtained by NBC News.

The message from Eric Schwerin, then president of Rosemont Seneca Partners, says Hunter Biden would need to “amend” his 2014 returns to reflect the “unreported” income, according to the copy of the email.

“In 2014 you joined the Burisma board and we still need to amend your 2014 returns to reflect the unreported Burisma income,” says the email dated Jan. 16, 2017.

The email goes on to note that Hunter Biden, who is now the subject of a federal tax probe, netted more than $1.2 million for the year. The earnings include the $400,000 from Burisma as well as income from Rosemont Seneca Advisors and a legal firm.

[old salt]

salttine does this all the time in his usual bloviating waste of bandwidth on this topic

Ironically, in another thread he actually said this

"Being accused does not make someone a criminal."

That apparently is his defense of Orange Fatso but doesn't seem to apply to Hunter Biden who he routinely trashes as if he were guilty and a criminal here every effing day.

...boo hoo. I want Hunter to pay his taxes like the rest of us have to. I'd be ok with a plea deal w/supervised probation in lieu of incarceration, so long as ALL back taxes, penalties & interest were paid, by Hunter rather than his political supporters.

[njbill]

The excerpt you cited does not contain any testimony from any of the whistleblowers specifically saying they contend Hunter owes $145,000 in taxes. Rather, that is simply a statement in one of the bolded section headings prepared by the committee. Even if there is such testimony somewhere to that effect, that is the WB’s contention, which is disputed. My understanding is that Hunter disputes that was taxable income to him. He has paid taxes on all undisputed income as I understand it.

In terms of the statute of limitations, as I have said before, it doesn’t begin to run on unreported income until the IRS knows about it. I believe I gave the example before that if you win $1 million at your Friday night poker game, that is taxable income to you. If you fail to report it on your tax return for the year in which you won the money, the statute does not begin to run when you file that return, but rather not until the IRS knows about your winnings. I think that is the situation with this disputed amount.

The cited excerpt does not contain any testimony from a whistleblower to the effect that anything is barred by the statute of limitations. Again, that is simply a section heading prepared by the committee in their report.

I saw Ziegler cite the numbers in his televised testimony.. If the IRS accepted Hunter's dispute claim, the WB's would not have cited the undeclared income & unpaid taxes. I alao observed Ziegler complain that the SOL had been allowed to run.
Here's the basis of the undeclared $400k.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... s-n1250973

Hunter Biden’s former business partner sent him an email in 2017 saying he did not disclose on his tax returns $400,000 in income from the Ukrainian natural gas company where he sat on the board, according to a copy of the email obtained by NBC News.

The message from Eric Schwerin, then president of Rosemont Seneca Partners, says Hunter Biden would need to “amend” his 2014 returns to reflect the “unreported” income, according to the copy of the email.

“In 2014 you joined the Burisma board and we still need to amend your 2014 returns to reflect the unreported Burisma income,” says the email dated Jan. 16, 2017.

The email goes on to note that Hunter Biden, who is now the subject of a federal tax probe, netted more than $1.2 million for the year. The earnings include the $400,000 from Burisma as well as income from Rosemont Seneca Advisors and a legal firm.

Well, that’s the issue, isn’t it? Whether the IRS and the DOJ have accepted Hunter’s position? Yes, the whistleblowers don’t, but do their superiors at the IRS and the DOJ? My understanding is that that is still an open question.

The email is almost 7 years old. OK, so maybe he hadn’t paid his taxes seven years ago. Maybe he has paid them since then.

[Farfromgeneva]

The whistleblower stuff is simply their allegations. Not clear if Weiss even agrees with their arguments. Let’s see what he does.

It has been my understanding that whistleblowers willing to come forward and risk their jobs and their reputations have no reason to lie. This case seems to be the exception to that rule. When that Army Lt. Col. became the WB regarding Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader his honesty and integrity was never doubted. Even though he thoroughly and completely ignored the chain of command with his allegations. What is painfully obvious is the veracity of allegations made by any WB are proportionate to the political party seeking to gain any possible advantage or embarrass the other side.

I’m not saying they are lying. But I think they misunderstood the perhaps arcane DOJ procedures. Also, they pretty clearly disagreed with those who would make any charging decisions. That doesn’t mean they are liars, just that those who made the decisions didn’t agree the charges were warranted. Happens not infrequently in the workplace. The subordinate wants to do things one way. The boss disagrees. The boss makes the decision so his way rules the day.

I was in particular talking about the WBs’ allegations about unpaid taxes. They contend Hunter had taxable income on which he did not pay tax. I believe Hunter disputes that that money constitutes taxable income to him. My rather general understanding is that Hunter has paid back all the taxes that are not in dispute. There may be some additional areas where Weiss will end up contending Hunter had income he didn’t pay taxes on. Hunter may disagree about that so it will have to be resolved in court.

I think the whistleblowers are anti-Joe, if not full on MAGAs. They got removed from the case, fired if you will, due to their conduct, which, to me, seemed biased. One of the things they did, which demonstrates to me their clear anti-Joe bias, was they wanted to investigate Joe as part of the Hunter income tax investigation. That’s 100% wrong.

It is irrelevant what their political ideology is, at least it shouldn't. The only relevant issue should be whether their accusations had merit. To this point in time their concerns have been validated. If anything the DoJ are the folks acting mighty squirrelly when it comes to the specifics of this HB case. Now that Weiss has officially been given the title of SC he can't comment on an ongoing investigation. How convenient is that??

Are you really being a biyach about grammar today with this (and a Illini other posts of yours)?

[old salt]

The excerpt you cited does not contain any testimony from any of the whistleblowers specifically saying they contend Hunter owes $145,000 in taxes. Rather, that is simply a statement in one of the bolded section headings prepared by the committee. Even if there is such testimony somewhere to that effect, that is the WB’s contention, which is disputed. My understanding is that Hunter disputes that was taxable income to him. He has paid taxes on all undisputed income as I understand it.

In terms of the statute of limitations, as I have said before, it doesn’t begin to run on unreported income until the IRS knows about it. I believe I gave the example before that if you win $1 million at your Friday night poker game, that is taxable income to you. If you fail to report it on your tax return for the year in which you won the money, the statute does not begin to run when you file that return, but rather not until the IRS knows about your winnings. I think that is the situation with this disputed amount.

The cited excerpt does not contain any testimony from a whistleblower to the effect that anything is barred by the statute of limitations. Again, that is simply a section heading prepared by the committee in their report.

I saw Ziegler cite the numbers in his televised testimony.. If the IRS accepted Hunter's dispute claim, the WB's would not have cited the undeclared income & unpaid taxes. I alao observed Ziegler complain that the SOL had been allowed to run.
Here's the basis of the undeclared $400k.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... s-n1250973

Hunter Biden’s former business partner sent him an email in 2017 saying he did not disclose on his tax returns $400,000 in income from the Ukrainian natural gas company where he sat on the board, according to a copy of the email obtained by NBC News.

The message from Eric Schwerin, then president of Rosemont Seneca Partners, says Hunter Biden would need to “amend” his 2014 returns to reflect the “unreported” income, according to the copy of the email.

“In 2014 you joined the Burisma board and we still need to amend your 2014 returns to reflect the unreported Burisma income,” says the email dated Jan. 16, 2017.

The email goes on to note that Hunter Biden, who is now the subject of a federal tax probe, netted more than $1.2 million for the year. The earnings include the $400,000 from Burisma as well as income from Rosemont Seneca Advisors and a legal firm.

Well, that’s the issue, isn’t it? Whether the IRS and the DOJ have accepted Hunter’s position? Yes, the whistleblowers don’t, but do their superiors at the IRS and the DOJ? My understanding is that that is still an open question.

The email is almost 7 years old. OK, so maybe he hadn’t paid his taxes seven years ago. Maybe he has paid them since then.

This WB statement is a PDF doc, from which my browser will not cut & paste.
Re. 2014, see pgs 3,4,5,11,14

If Hunter had reached an agreement with the IRS re. his 2014 tax liability, IRS WB Ziegler would have known about it by the time he testified.
It would have also come out in all the discussions & reporting about the failed plea deal.

[Kismet]

salttine does this all the time in his usual bloviating waste of bandwidth on this topic

Ironically, in another thread he actually said this

"Being accused does not make someone a criminal."

That apparently is his defense of Orange Fatso but doesn't seem to apply to Hunter Biden who he routinely trashes as if he were guilty and a criminal here every effing day.

...boo hoo. I want Hunter to pay his taxes like the rest of us have to. I'd be ok with a plea deal w/supervised probation in lieu of incarceration, so long as ALL back taxes, penalties & interest were paid, by Hunter rather than his political supporters.

A pity you don't apply the same standard to your hero Orange Fatso for which there is much more evidence of wrongdoing - in that case you want to "wait and see" and stop being hysterical (which often is YOU on this topic day after day)

This has been my point all along about your discussion double standard.