Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[a fan]

All of this ambiguity and incessant back and forth points out something painfully obvious. Barr, Garland and Weiss should testify side by side by side under oath and explain their chain of thought. There is enough testimony already on record and under oath that these people should testify not behind closed doors but in front of the American people to verify what they know and when they knew it.

Been saying that for months now.

How many times did you see me ask: why do you think the House isn't calling them?

And not one poster who is sure of this conspiracy can answer this, along with many simple, simple questions I ask........

[old salt]

You have ZERO proof of your allegations of corruption. And what are you doing?

It's a politics page on a lacrosse board... opinions are posted. If those opinions turn out to be wrong... BFD!

Then why are you mocking me for asking reasonable questions that you can't answer? And telling me "I'm getting all spooled up".

"Reasonable questions"? When?

And I'm simply suggesting you relax.

Right back at you! I'm 100% relaxed, and discussing the unfounded allegations of corruption, and simply pointing out that they don't make sense. And when folks like you can't answer my reasonable questions? A reasonable person would take this into consideration, instead of brushing it off.

Your retort is "wait and see', instead of "fair point, but let's wait and see".

It's yet another time where we are likely talking past each other, Tech, and reading stuff into the other's posts that simply aren't there.

To wit: you think Weiss is corrupt. And it took several posts for me to understand that.

I'd say "fair point" if I knew what the point, is. As far as your "reasonable questions", I don't even understand what the hell you're asking half the time.

+1. It's impossible to have a rational discussion in the midst of all the incomprehensible chirping.

Easy way around that, fellas. When someone asks you a direct question, answer it directly, instead of responding vaguely.

So when I ask things like "is Weiss in on it"....it took tech three posts to FINALLY say "yes" so we can move the F on.

And your answer to this same question? It's that you're 100% certain that entire investigation and prosecution into Hunter is clearly corrupt-----yet you're "not sure" if the guy running the whole thing, Weiss, is corrupt.

THAT is why we go round. You won't concede even the most basic points without fighting and misdirection. So I try and ask the question a different way, hoping the problem is me, and that I'm not being clear enough.

I told you that I thought Weiss was doing what he was told to do (during & after Barr's tenure) & that I thought the investigation had not proceeded far enough yet to take before a grand jury by the time that Barr left office. That was based on Barr's earlier interviews & further confirmed by today's interview.

[MDlaxfan76]

I see that tech is now agreeing that for all these right-wing theories to hold water, Weiss must be "in on it", in on the cover-up, too. Indeed, most importantly, he has to be lying to Congress.

What I actually said, post WB testimony, is that Weiss had taken his leads from Garland and I would bet it was Garland who lied about Weiss's jurisdiction when Garland testified. If it makes you feel good calling that right-wing, go for it.

yes, but it would be both Garland and Weiss lying to Congress as Weiss has written to Congress directly, which has the same weight and penalties as testifying.

and yes, "right-wing" is who is promoting this claptrap so loudly...but sure, there are conspiracy theory enthusiasts of all stripes who will believe whatever makes the least sense, just for drill. If it makes you feel better to think of yourself in the latter group, ok with me.

Me, I'll wait for some hard, credible evidence...and will have no compunction about calling for accountability at that time.

Many more people have been reporting on the Biden business/corruption than you think... still in your bubble I see.

Good, keep waiting. We'll see where it goes.

"reporting" by right wing media sources of claims by various unconfirmed sources, is NOT hard, credible evidence.

When there is such, I'll not have any issue with it.

Until then, I just think it would have to be one heck of a conspiracy with a whole lot of moving parts covering it up to think it's likely to have merit that Joe took dirty money in exchange for political favors.

Hunter's foibles are entirely another matter.

[MDlaxfan76]

You have ZERO proof of your allegations of corruption. And what are you doing?

It's a politics page on a lacrosse board... opinions are posted. If those opinions turn out to be wrong... BFD!

Then why are you mocking me for asking reasonable questions that you can't answer? And telling me "I'm getting all spooled up".

"Reasonable questions"? When?

And I'm simply suggesting you relax.

Right back at you! I'm 100% relaxed, and discussing the unfounded allegations of corruption, and simply pointing out that they don't make sense. And when folks like you can't answer my reasonable questions? A reasonable person would take this into consideration, instead of brushing it off.

Your retort is "wait and see', instead of "fair point, but let's wait and see".

It's yet another time where we are likely talking past each other, Tech, and reading stuff into the other's posts that simply aren't there.

To wit: you think Weiss is corrupt. And it took several posts for me to understand that.

I'd say "fair point" if I knew what the point, is. As far as your "reasonable questions", I don't even understand what the hell you're asking half the time.

+1. It's impossible to have a rational discussion in the midst of all the incomprehensible chirping.

Easy way around that, fellas. When someone asks you a direct question, answer it directly, instead of responding vaguely.

So when I ask things like "is Weiss in on it"....it took tech three posts to FINALLY say "yes" so we can move the F on.

And your answer to this same question? It's that you're 100% certain that entire investigation and prosecution into Hunter is clearly corrupt-----yet you're "not sure" if the guy running the whole thing, Weiss, is corrupt.

THAT is why we go round. You won't concede even the most basic points without fighting and misdirection. So I try and ask the question a different way, hoping the problem is me, and that I'm not being clear enough.

I told you that I thought Weiss was doing what he was told to do (during & after Barr's tenure) & that I thought the investigation had not proceeded far enough yet to take before a grand jury by the time that Barr left office. That was based on Barr's earlier interviews & further confirmed by today's interview.

So, Weiss has been lying to Congress?

what, because he was told to do so?

But yeah, it's pretty darn likely that they didn't have enough evidence to "take before a grand jury"...you do realize that a grand jury provides all sorts of investigatory powers...but if they think you don't have probable cause to exercise those powers they'll tell the prosecutor no...so, that means you think they didn't have enough evidence to even have probable cause to ask a grand jury to help drive an investigation.

Yup, I don't think so either...and that directly contradicts the IRS agents' opinions...not facts, opinions.

And I don't think they've had probable cause to go before a grand jury since then, either. Because it simply ain't there is the most plausible explanation, but who knows, maybe some actual cold hard evidence that can actually withstand scrutiny in court will eventually be found...always possible...

[a fan]

Barr's interview with Cavuto just popped up. The Hunter stuff starts around 17:30.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6334108332112

Mess of an interview, and I'm not impressed with his flat out lying.

1. He refutes you and Tech with this "I didn't need to appoint an AG because I didn't have a conflict of interest". Barr thinks you're both wrong that party doesn't matter when prosecuting cases. He thinks that R's can't investigate R's, and D's can't investigate R's. This ignore, of course, that this means Barr thinks the Mueller report was tainted because Mueller was a R. But that's boilerplate R thinking in 2020's: rules for thee, but not for me.

2. He clearly didn't see anything about Joe under his watch. He's learning about Weiss' work along with the rest of us. So when he talks about "new revelations", he means that he didn't get that information on bank stuff when he was in charge. Weiss found it after he left. Which makes me ask.....what the F were they doing for two years of investigating if they didn't find this stuff sooner?

And the whistleblower gave the answer: Barr was dragging his feet. We need to hear why Barr did that. Barr is the reason that we didn't find this supposed dirt on Joe about a year sooner, according to Shapley and Co.

3. He's pretending like he wasn't AG, which is what FoxNation is doing, too. So when Barr asks "why was Burisma paying Hunter"? Who the heck does he think is supposed to investigate that, if not him when he was AG?

How long do you think it took Barr to figure out Hunter worked at Burisma? Five minutes? Ten? Yet he's on Fox pretending like he wasn't in charge of looking into Hunter AT ALL.

4. The part where he, like you and yes, FoxNation....are flat out lying is when he claims "our Justice System is much more aggressive in pursuing Republicans than Democrats". You claim to be actually be reading my posts. Can you figure out why this is a flat out lie, or do I have to repeat myself for the 100th time?

[a fan]

I told you that I thought Weiss was doing what he was told to do (during & after Barr's tenure)

That's great. But you're intentionally pretending that doesn't implicate Weiss in corruption.

I don't get it. He's not your friend. He's not going to buy you dinner.

He's just a guy that's responsible for an investigation that YOU are insisting was corrupt.

Why not just say so, so we can move on?

[a fan]

Weiss' "corrupt" investigations is restarted, moving us now to six years of investigation.

Boy, this nefarious Weiss dude just has no shame when it comes to helping ol' Joe get reelected!







https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter ... -breakdown

[old salt]

Barr's interview with Cavuto just popped up. The Hunter stuff starts around 17:30.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6334108332112

Mess of an interview, and I'm not impressed with his flat out lying.

1. He refutes you and Tech with this "I didn't need to appoint an AG because I didn't have a conflict of interest". Barr thinks you're both wrong that party doesn't matter when prosecuting cases. He thinks that R's can't investigate R's, and D's can't investigate R's. This ignore, of course, that this means Barr thinks the Mueller report was tainted because Mueller was a R. But that's boilerplate R thinking in 2020's: rules for thee, but not for me.
There you go again, telling me what I think. I agree with Barr -- because of conflicts of interest, a SC was not needed in the Trump admin, was needed in the Bigen admin.

2. He clearly didn't see anything about Joe under his watch. He's learning about Weiss' work along with the rest of us. So when he talks about "new revelations", he means that he didn't get that information on bank stuff when he was in charge. Weiss found it after he left. Which makes me ask.....what the F were they doing for two years of investigating if they didn't find this stuff sooner? Who knows ? Maybe it started out as just a failure to file for 2 years, then Hunter's tax rep was in contact with the IRS trying to catch up on the filings. At what point does it elevate to suspected tax evasion, then possible money laundering, FARA, &/or influence peddling bribery. You don't know how & when the investigation proceeded & grew. You're just speculating.

And the whistleblower gave the answer: Barr was dragging his feet. We need to hear why Barr did that. Barr is the reason that we didn't find this supposed dirt on Joe about a year sooner, according to Shapley and Co.
Yeah. Why didn't Barr know, what he didn't know, before he knew it ?

3. He's pretending like he wasn't AG, which is what FoxNation is doing, too. So when Barr asks "why was Burisma paying Hunter"? Who the heck does he think is supposed to investigate that, if not him when he was AG?

How long do you think it took Barr to figure out Hunter worked at Burisma? Five minutes? Ten? Yet he's on Fox pretending like he wasn't in charge of looking into Hunter AT ALL. Have you ever heard of probable cause to open an investigation ?

4. The part where he, like you and yes, FoxNation....are flat out lying is when he claims "our Justice System is much more aggressive in pursuing Republicans than Democrats". You claim to be actually be reading my posts. Can you figure out why this is a flat out lie, or do I have to repeat myself for the 100th time? There you go again, thinking & speaking on my behalf. You're crazy. You just made the case that a (R) AG was not aggressive in pursuing a (D) Biden.

[old salt]

Weiss' "corrupt" investigations is restarted, moving us now to six years of investigation.

Boy, this nefarious Weiss dude just has no shame when it comes to helping ol' Joe get reelected.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter ... -breakdown

Because the wink & a nod, gentleman's agreement, sweetheart plea deal blew up, depriving Hunter of the expected immunity for all related crimes they tried to slip by the Judge.

Was it an honest misunderstanding between opposing lawyers, or did they try to slip one past a Judge who didn't want to have to enforce it if evidence of other crimes emerged ?

[a fan]

here you go again, telling me what I think. I agree with Barr -- because of conflicts of interest, a SC was not needed in the Trump admin, was needed in the Bigen admin.

What conflict? I thought you guys laughed at me, telling me that it's silly to assume a Republican like Weiss can't protect Joe Biden? What happened to that?

This also means you think that Mueller was tainted. You get that, right? Barr is blowing smoke.

Who knows ? Maybe it started out as just a failure to file for 2 years, then Hunter's tax rep was in contact with the IRS trying to catch up on the filings. At what point does it elevate to suspected tax evasion, then possible money laundering, FARA, &/or influence peddling bribery. You don't know how & when the investigation proceeded & grew. You're just speculating.

First of all, Barr knows. Second of all, the whistleblower TOLD YOU that Barr slowed the case. Naturally, you don't believe this. If you did, you'd be question everything Barr. You're not.

Yeah. Why didn't Barr know, what he didn't know, before he knew it ?

There it is. Barr gets a pass. Shocker. You can't help yourself.

Have you ever heard of probable cause to open an investigation ?

]There you go again, thinking & speaking on my behalf. You're crazy. You just made the case that a (R) AG was not aggressive in pursuing a (D) Biden.

Facetiously, yep. You can't come up with a motive for Weiss' corruption, and you don't want to so much as think about it, because it ruins your conspiracy. I tried to come up with one to help Tech out with his conspiracy.

Obviously, you know perfectly well why Barr is lying here with this claim that the Justice System is more aggressive going after R's. So you dodge the question, and claim I'm telling you what you think, when I did no such thing.

[a fan]

Because the wink & a nod, gentleman's agreement, sweetheart plea deal blew up, depriving Hunter of the expected immunity for all related crimes they tried to slip by the Judge.

Yep. Weiss is obviously corrupt. You caught him. Now what?

Was it an honest misunderstanding between opposing lawyers, or did they try to slip one past a Judge who didn't want to have to enforce it if evidence of other crimes emerged ?

You tell me. You're the one insisting Weiss and his entire investigation is corrupt, and is hiding Joe and Hunter's felonies, remember?

The only explanation you can find for any of what happens is that Weiss is protecting Joe Biden's 2024 run.

And the way Weiss is protecting Joe's campaign, is to start year six of a five year investigation.

I think the Joe Biden 2024 might want a refund from Weiss for this big favor you're convinced he has given them.......


Protip: has it occurred to anyone on TeamTinFoil that a plea deal for Hunter doesn't preclude the FBI and DoJ from going after Joe Biden in a separate case?? Or that Bill Barr could have opened a case on Joe the day after the election if he had the goods.

[old salt]

You're the one insisting Weiss and his entire investigation is corrupt,

You keep saying that on my behalf. I'm not ready to say that Weiss is corrupt. I want to know what happened, why did the SOLs expire (well into the Biden DoJ's term) ? Weiss was not acting alone. He was just another US Atty. He was not an Independent Counsel. I want the IRS WB's claims refuted or explained. I want to know how & why that plea deal was offered. You keep ragging on me for posting info the might lead to the answers. You've made up your mind & you're playing whataboutism to shut me up & stifle the questioning. Keep playing your tedious diversionary game. This isn't going away.

[tech37]

2. He clearly didn't see anything about Joe under his watch. Maybe... unknown. He's learning about Weiss' work along with the rest of us. So when he talks about "new revelations", he means that he didn't get that information on bank stuff when he was in charge. Weiss found it after he left. Probably... you did hear Barr say, there are a lot of "red flags"? Which makes me ask.....what the F were they doing for two years of investigating if they didn't find this stuff sooner? Trying not to catch Covid?

[tech37]

Joe Biden's 'Robert Peters' Pseudonym Under Scrutiny as GOP Probes Emails

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-rob ... ls-1820709

[runrussellrun]

Weiss' "corrupt" investigations is restarted, moving us now to six years of investigation.

Boy, this nefarious Weiss dude just has no shame when it comes to helping ol' Joe get reelected!







https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter ... -breakdown

Not sure if anyone remembers that ALL governments.......were NOT doing something during ALL of 2020.

stay home, stay safe, doesn't lead to productive IRS/FBI investigations, now does they ?

but, sure, afan.......keep on defending Hunter. so cool.

your a TAATS believer, you just wont admit.

[runrussellrun]

It’s been about mocking the hypocrisy and the conspiracy theorists which is not the same thing as defending Hunter Biden.

Yep. That's it. Plain and simple.

Yes.....that simple.

Now, regarding Hunter Biden........and please be specific.....WHICH conspiracy theory are you mocking ?

Hey! English! You bump your head or something? Welcome back! What a chump........

That Wray, Barr, and Rettig found a mess of provable felonies involving Hunter's work in Ukraine, and are all hiding it from the public.

[a fan]

Not sure if anyone remembers that ALL governments.......were NOT doing something during ALL of 2020.

stay home, stay safe, doesn't lead to productive IRS/FBI investigations, now does they ?

Working with bank records and computers is SO hard, you're right. How were Amazon's sales in 2020, my man? Shut down, right?

but, sure, afan.......keep on defending Hunter. so cool.

Oh no! I'm not ironic and hip enough for you again! Keep up the sooper-cool fake contrarianism, where you pretend that I haven't said 1,000 times to throw Hunter in Jail, or that I hate Joe Biden.

You're a card carrying member of TeamTinFoil.....OF COURSE you think there's a conspiracy surrounding Hunter.

[a fan]

2. He clearly didn't see anything about Joe under his watch.

Maybe... unknown.
Then he's in on it, my man. If he had probable cause (code for red flags), he'd open a case. Gotta fun answer for that? Something like "ha ha a fan, you do you".

Or are you going to think on this for a second, and realize Barr isn't telling you the whole story here?

If Bill Barr saw a felony committed by Joe, he would have opened an investigation, just like every other prosecutor would in America. And if you and OS don't want to hear this obvious point? You're right up there with flat Earthers, where reason and thought are just.....gone.

Ignoring all the evidence that runs counter to your conspiracies is flat Earth stuff, my man. All I'm asking you is to think for a minute about what these sources you're consuming----while mocking MDlax for "not getting all the info--------are not telling you.

Probably... you did hear Barr say, there are a lot of "red flags"?

Sure did. So again, why didn't he open up a case? Was his morning yoga in the way of him doing that?

Trying not to catch Covid?

So, like OS, you ignore the Whistleblowers when it suits you, and listen to them when you like what they tell you. They told you the problems started under Barr. And neither you nor OS care, or are even the least bit curious...you both just thunder on, talking about the information found in the investigation itself, and pretending that Weiss doesn't know all this stuff-----because he's the guy who obtained what you're reading.

This is why I make fun, my man.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

This is a tactic similar to Donald and Rudy wanting Zelensky to announce, on TV, that the Bidens were being investigated. No interest in a credible investigation…..just wanted the idea of an investigation in the air so that it could be talked about “ad nauseam”…….wild speculation does enough damage.