Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[old salt]

Now that you've FINALLY cited your source, you're making my point. By the time the WB's case went to DoJ tax (Mar/Apr '19), the DE office had already been investigating Hunter's finances since Jan '19. It made sense for the DoJ "Senior level" to merge the cases. The DE US Atty office was already conducting the lead investigation, so it made sense to merge the investigation & prosecution under Weiss.

Now you've changed your mind: you think the WB's are wrong, and that Barr made the right choice giving it to Weiss.

Small problem now: poof. There goes your conspiracy, and you're glad that Barr appointed Weiss.


Either way? After YEARS of claiming conspiracy, and DoJ "protecting Joe and Hunter"...here you are, admitting there isn't a conspiracy.


Cool. My work is done here. Lets move on....FINALLY!!!

You don't know if the DC or CA US Atty's would have done any better than Weiss, under Biden/Garland's DoJ.
Would Biden/Garland have left them in office ?
Weiss told the WB's he tried to pass the case to the CA & DC US Atty's & they declined.

There was not time to complete the investigation & prosecution before the 90 day pre-election deadline.
As soon as a US Atty convened a Grand Jury, it would become public knowledge,
Trump & Barr would have been accused of election interference.

[a fan]

]You don't know if the DC or CA US Atty's would have done any better than Weiss, under Biden/Garland's DoJ.

And yet this fact didn't deter the Whistleblowers from their complaints.

And now you're telling met that you don't agree with them.

Great. So we agree there is no conspiracy, and Barr did his level best...and so did Weiss.

Weiss will tell you what he did when and why in a matter of months.


And lastly? Had Weiss not let the SOL's lapse? All that would have been was another check for that Hollywood moneybag to cut on Hunter's behalf. That's it. That's the WORST outcome.


Much ado about nothing.

[old salt]

]You don't know if the DC or CA US Atty's would have done any better than Weiss, under Biden/Garland's DoJ.

And yet this fact didn't deter the Whistleblowers from their complaints.

And now you're telling met that you don't agree with them.

Great. So we agree there is no conspiracy, and Barr did his level best...and so did Weiss.

Weiss will tell you what he did when and why in a matter of months.

And lastly? Had Weiss not let the SOL's lapse? All that would have been was another check for that Hollywood moneybag to cut on Hunter's behalf. That's it. That's the WORST outcome.

Much ado about nothing.

Yet you made it a big deal by deflecting & blaming Barr.

The SOL ran for 2014-2015, Hunter's biggest years for foreign earnings & the years most difficult to explain.

I agree with the WB's about Weiss & his staff. I don't think they blame Barr, but you do.
The WB's were like a dog with a bone. They didn't have to worry about politics & the prosecution's public credibility.

Barr had to consider the possibility that Trump would win & there would plenty of time for the investigation & prosecution to conclude before the 2024 Presidential election & Biden would no longer be a factor.
If Biden won, he & Garland would have to deal with the turd in the punch bowl, which they have not done effectively.
It was political malpractice for Biden not to clean up Hunter's taxes & gun cases before he ran.
Hunter should have taken pleas before the WB's came forward.

[a fan]

Yet you made it a big deal by deflecting & blaming Barr.

Nope. That was the whistleblowers

I agree with the WB's about Weiss & his staff. I don't think they blame Barr, but you do.

They 100% blamed Barr, and detailed why they thought his decision to move the prosecution to Weiss was bad. In writing. In front of America. Doesn't get more clear than that, sorry.


Barr appointed Weiss. Add in whatever words you want to this FACT. No Barr, no Weiss. Fact.

Would have been handled by someone else at DoJTaxDivision, just like the WB's wanted.

Fact. Every word here is a fact. Zero opinions here from me...there's literally nothing you can disagree with here, because I haven't offered one single opinion.

[old salt]

Yet you made it a big deal by deflecting & blaming Barr.

Nope. That was the whistleblowers

I agree with the WB's about Weiss & his staff. I don't think they blame Barr, but you do.

They 100% blamed Barr, and detailed why they thought his decision to move the prosecution to Weiss was bad. In writing. In front of America. Doesn't get more clear than that, sorry.


Barr appointed Weiss. Add in whatever words you want to this FACT. No Barr, no Weiss. Fact.

Would have been handled by someone else at DoJTaxDivision, just like the WB's wanted.

Fact. Every word here is a fact. Zero opinions here from me...there's literally nothing you can disagree with here, because I haven't offered one single opinion.

I'd like to see your cite that the WB's -- 100% blamed Barr, and detailed why they thought his decision to move the prosecution to Weiss was bad. In writing. & Would have been handled by someone else at DoJTaxDivision, just like the WB's wanted.

In his testimony, Ziegler said that in his report he recommended that the case go to the DC US Atty office, not to stay in the DoJ Tax Division
(see page 6-7 of Ziegler's testimony, which I'm unable to cut & paste - pdf)
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ ... timony.pdf
He just wanted it to go to a different US Atty, which happened to be in DC, where he worked.
His earliest specific complaint about the DE office was on Dec 8,2020 (after the election).
He said that was the turning point for him when he began to suspect that the DE prosecutors were not acting ethically.
The rest of his complaints were for actions in 2021 & later.
Ziegler went on to say that the Biden appointed DC US Atty did not want to move forward with the case.
The only way it could have been assured to stay in DC would have been for Barr or successor AG to appoint a SC in the final days of the Trump admin.
On PG 11, Ziegler said it was frustrating, but they were following the normal process.
On the bottom of PG 12, he said that it was lawyers from DoJ Tax who raised concerns that charging for 2014-15 might affect the charges for later years which were clearer & stronger. They also opined that Beau's death might elicit sympathy for that period.

Barr was the AG, the WB's were not.
Barr determined that the case merited a US Atty.
That proved insufficient. Garland finally had to name a SC.
When Biden won, Garland should have appointed a SC.

[runrussellrun]

Barr is a Bush family cockled, and we all know that the bushes hate Trump

[a fan]

I'd like to see your cite that the WB's -- 100% blamed Barr, and detailed why they thought his decision to move the prosecution to Weiss was bad. In writing. & Would have been handled by someone else at DoJTaxDivision, just like the WB's wanted.

It's in the same opening statement the WB made to Congress that I've cited for your multiple times. All you have to do is read it. It's just a few pages.


THIS is why we go round and round. You won't even cop to the color blue being the color blue when your political party is involved. So i have to go granular over the simplest of obvious points.

And yet here you are, telling the forum that it's impossible for the WB's to be upset with Barr choice to move the venue from DC to Delaware, even though this specific complaint is right there in writing, for the world to see.

Why is it so freaking hard to believe that the WB's were upset with Barr's choices, OS? Did Bill Barr take you on a swell fishing trip, or something? He's just a man, FFS.

Barr was the AG, the WB's were not.

That's right.

So you FINALLY cop to the choices Barr made? Barr moved the case to Delaware, and that was the start of alllll the problems the WB's had.

No conspiracy. Just a simple choice Barr made. Much ado about nothing. We've been over this "Barr moved the case to DE" multiple times over the last two years....you just keep forgetting the conversations.

[old salt]

Barr did not move the case from DC to DE. It was already in DE US Atty's office & was never in DC US Atty's office . WB Ziegler never knew it.
The only perspective you have is WB Ziegler. You don't have the perspective of AG Barr & his "Senior level" advisors.
You don't know how the DC US Atty would have pursued the tax case & if Garland would have continued him in office.
You don't know why Barr made the executive decisions he made, so you're just making stuff up.
We still don't know what the DE FBI & US Atty were investigating & why, before the tax case was assigned to them.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

Weiss was appointed by Trump

Seems to me that Barr is a complicated figure, not 100% all-in for Trump at all costs, but doing his best to help him at any turn he could without completely violating his own sense of legal bounds (his bounds including what many others believe were unethical if not illegal acts). He has a view of the unitary powers of the Presidency which provide enormously more power to a President than historically they have had. And that, he believes deserves deference and support form those in the Executive Branch, including the AG. Definitely a partisan.

But he did (according to him) draw the line at where he saw no further benefit in pursuing actions that he knew would only damage (himself) and the Executive. Not a full-on fascist, nor cultist.

He created a 'task force' to investigate Hunter at Trump's behest, but unlike cultist fascists like Jordan and Comer, when the evidence kept coming up empty he snapped at Trump that he wouldn't talk to him anymore about Hunter. (Barr's account in his own book). There's no denial of the effort, only that he refused to go further. Likewise, he'd refused to announce a SC or a prosecution of Hunter just before the election as he had seen no evidence that would serve as basis...they'd already investigated.

Likewise, he refused to falsely claim there'd been election changing crimes in the election once he'd looked.

Contrast this approach where Garland is fully independent of the White House, often painfully so from Dem partisan perspectives. He and Biden don't buy the unitary powers ideology at all. Garland even appoints the Trump appointed AG (March 2017 - AG Sessions) who had opened an investigation into the tax and gun charges and other matters, as SC, immediately upon Weiss' request for such additional powers.

Weiss worked for the Trump/Barr DOJ and Barr was fully aware of Weiss' investigations into the more mundane aspects of Hunter's problems. Barr separately opened a task force into the wilder accusations re Ukraine etc, with the PA AG Brady involved. That never had solid basis, which Barr ultimately learned. But he did pursue it.

The WB's were frustrated that things didn't move faster under Barr's DOJ, whether in DC or DE or PA or anywhere else. They continued to be frustrated as Weiss continued to be methodical.

I'm willing to give Weiss the benefit of the doubt until we know 100% otherwise, as he seems to be insisting on prosecuting only what he can prove and was willing to settle without trial on tough but fair terms. those terms included a provision that the DOJ wouldn't be the arbiter of whether Hunter violated probation by future acts as a potential Trump DOJ was not trusted to act consistently with the evidence. Indeed, it was obvious from Trump's statements and many other cultist statements that they would go after Hunter regardless of evidence. The judge disagreed with this arrangement as she was unwilling to take on that responsibility which is properly DOJ's. Rock and a hard place. So, Hunter gets convicted on crimes that would normally have been plead out or not pursued. More prosecution on tax matters to come. Likely to be convictions.

Is it selective prosecution based on notoriety of being the President son? Probably so. But that's simply how the cookie crumbles if you happen to have a high profile. What makes this different though is that a plea deal meant needing to trust a future DOJ which normally is not a problem for most high profile defendants. Still should have take the plea...not Weiss' fault Hunter did not.

But note that Biden and Garland, at each step, refused to interfere.

Very different approach.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

Weiss was appointed by Trump

Seems to me that Barr is a complicated figure, not 100% all-in for Trump at all costs, but doing his best to help him at any turn he could without completely violating his own sense of legal bounds (his bounds including what many others believe were unethical if not illegal acts). He has a view of the unitary powers of the Presidency which provide enormously more power to a President than historically they have had. And that, he believes deserves deference and support form those in the Executive Branch, including the AG. Definitely a partisan.

But he did (according to him) draw the line at where he saw no further benefit in pursuing actions that he knew would only damage (himself) and the Executive. Not a full-on fascist, nor cultist.

He created a 'task force' to investigate Hunter at Trump's behest, but unlike cultist fascists like Jordan and Comer, when the evidence kept coming up empty he snapped at Trump that he wouldn't talk to him anymore about Hunter. (Barr's account in his own book). There's no denial of the effort, only that he refused to go further. Likewise, he'd refused to announce a SC or a prosecution of Hunter just before the election as he had seen no evidence that would serve as basis...they'd already investigated.

Likewise, he refused to falsely claim there'd been election changing crimes in the election once he'd looked.

Contrast this approach where Garland is fully independent of the White House, often painfully so from Dem partisan perspectives. He and Biden don't buy the unitary powers ideology at all. Garland even appoints the Trump appointed AG (March 2017 - AG Sessions) who had opened an investigation into the tax and gun charges and other matters, as SC, immediately upon Weiss' request for such additional powers.

Weiss worked for the Trump/Barr DOJ and Barr was fully aware of Weiss' investigations into the more mundane aspects of Hunter's problems. Barr separately opened a task force into the wilder accusations re Ukraine etc, with the PA AG Brady involved. That never had solid basis, which Barr ultimately learned. But he did pursue it.

The WB's were frustrated that things didn't move faster under Barr's DOJ, whether in DC or DE or PA or anywhere else. They continued to be frustrated as Weiss continued to be methodical.

I'm willing to give Weiss the benefit of the doubt until we know 100% otherwise, as he seems to be insisting on prosecuting only what he can prove and was willing to settle without trial on tough but fair terms. those terms included a provision that the DOJ wouldn't be the arbiter of whether Hunter violated probation by future acts as a potential Trump DOJ was not trusted to act consistently with the evidence. Indeed, it was obvious from Trump's statements and many other cultist statements that they would go after Hunter regardless of evidence. The judge disagreed with this arrangement as she was unwilling to take on that responsibility which is properly DOJ's. Rock and a hard place. So, Hunter gets convicted on crimes that would normally have been plead out or not pursued. More prosecution on tax matters to come. Likely to be convictions.

Is it selective prosecution based on notoriety of being the President son? Probably so. But that's simply how the cookie crumbles if you happen to have a high profile. What makes this different though is that a plea deal meant needing to trust a future DOJ which normally is not a problem for most high profile defendants. Still should have take the plea...not Weiss' fault Hunter did not.

But note that Biden and Garland, at each step, refused to interfere.

Very different approach.

Your last sentence is fascinating. Explain to me how Biden figures into YOUR equation?? Since when and or how your sweetie pie Biden would ever have any say or input into a supposedly non partisan decision on the part of the DoJ? Unless you think and can explain why Biden would have ever had a say in the decision making process of his DoJ? Unless your implying by accidental honesty that Biden and Garland are joined at the hip.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

Weiss was appointed by Trump

Seems to me that Barr is a complicated figure, not 100% all-in for Trump at all costs, but doing his best to help him at any turn he could without completely violating his own sense of legal bounds (his bounds including what many others believe were unethical if not illegal acts). He has a view of the unitary powers of the Presidency which provide enormously more power to a President than historically they have had. And that, he believes deserves deference and support form those in the Executive Branch, including the AG. Definitely a partisan.

But he did (according to him) draw the line at where he saw no further benefit in pursuing actions that he knew would only damage (himself) and the Executive. Not a full-on fascist, nor cultist.

He created a 'task force' to investigate Hunter at Trump's behest, but unlike cultist fascists like Jordan and Comer, when the evidence kept coming up empty he snapped at Trump that he wouldn't talk to him anymore about Hunter. (Barr's account in his own book). There's no denial of the effort, only that he refused to go further. Likewise, he'd refused to announce a SC or a prosecution of Hunter just before the election as he had seen no evidence that would serve as basis...they'd already investigated.

Likewise, he refused to falsely claim there'd been election changing crimes in the election once he'd looked.

Contrast this approach where Garland is fully independent of the White House, often painfully so from Dem partisan perspectives. He and Biden don't buy the unitary powers ideology at all. Garland even appoints the Trump appointed AG (March 2017 - AG Sessions) who had opened an investigation into the tax and gun charges and other matters, as SC, immediately upon Weiss' request for such additional powers.

Weiss worked for the Trump/Barr DOJ and Barr was fully aware of Weiss' investigations into the more mundane aspects of Hunter's problems. Barr separately opened a task force into the wilder accusations re Ukraine etc, with the PA AG Brady involved. That never had solid basis, which Barr ultimately learned. But he did pursue it.

The WB's were frustrated that things didn't move faster under Barr's DOJ, whether in DC or DE or PA or anywhere else. They continued to be frustrated as Weiss continued to be methodical.

I'm willing to give Weiss the benefit of the doubt until we know 100% otherwise, as he seems to be insisting on prosecuting only what he can prove and was willing to settle without trial on tough but fair terms. those terms included a provision that the DOJ wouldn't be the arbiter of whether Hunter violated probation by future acts as a potential Trump DOJ was not trusted to act consistently with the evidence. Indeed, it was obvious from Trump's statements and many other cultist statements that they would go after Hunter regardless of evidence. The judge disagreed with this arrangement as she was unwilling to take on that responsibility which is properly DOJ's. Rock and a hard place. So, Hunter gets convicted on crimes that would normally have been plead out or not pursued. More prosecution on tax matters to come. Likely to be convictions.

Is it selective prosecution based on notoriety of being the President son? Probably so. But that's simply how the cookie crumbles if you happen to have a high profile. What makes this different though is that a plea deal meant needing to trust a future DOJ which normally is not a problem for most high profile defendants. Still should have take the plea...not Weiss' fault Hunter did not.

But note that Biden and Garland, at each step, refused to interfere.

Very different approach.

Your last sentence is fascinating. Explain to me how Biden figures into YOUR equation?? Since when and or how your sweetie pie Biden would ever have any say or input into a supposedly non partisan decision on the part of the DoJ? Unless you think and can explain why Biden would have ever had a say in the decision making process of his DoJ? Unless your implying by accidental honesty that Biden and Garland are joined at the hip.

Hard to believe that you are actually this dense, cradle.

Yes, Biden (any President) should properly have zero to do with decision making at DOJ.

Likewise, the AG and subordinates should take no instructions from the White House about any prosecution decisions. Even more important where there's a personal or political self-interest involved.

Contrast this adherence with the former Trump Admin and AG's and even more so what Trump and his acolytes are promising their voters for a second Trump Admin.

Barr and Trump each saw it differently, Barr under this unitary Executive authority doctrine which has never before existed (though Nixon's AG was simply corrupt) and Trump because he's a full-on fascist authoritarian wannabe.

Huge contrast.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

Weiss was appointed by Trump

Seems to me that Barr is a complicated figure, not 100% all-in for Trump at all costs, but doing his best to help him at any turn he could without completely violating his own sense of legal bounds (his bounds including what many others believe were unethical if not illegal acts). He has a view of the unitary powers of the Presidency which provide enormously more power to a President than historically they have had. And that, he believes deserves deference and support form those in the Executive Branch, including the AG. Definitely a partisan.

But he did (according to him) draw the line at where he saw no further benefit in pursuing actions that he knew would only damage (himself) and the Executive. Not a full-on fascist, nor cultist.

He created a 'task force' to investigate Hunter at Trump's behest, but unlike cultist fascists like Jordan and Comer, when the evidence kept coming up empty he snapped at Trump that he wouldn't talk to him anymore about Hunter. (Barr's account in his own book). There's no denial of the effort, only that he refused to go further. Likewise, he'd refused to announce a SC or a prosecution of Hunter just before the election as he had seen no evidence that would serve as basis...they'd already investigated.

Likewise, he refused to falsely claim there'd been election changing crimes in the election once he'd looked.

Contrast this approach where Garland is fully independent of the White House, often painfully so from Dem partisan perspectives. He and Biden don't buy the unitary powers ideology at all. Garland even appoints the Trump appointed AG (March 2017 - AG Sessions) who had opened an investigation into the tax and gun charges and other matters, as SC, immediately upon Weiss' request for such additional powers.

Weiss worked for the Trump/Barr DOJ and Barr was fully aware of Weiss' investigations into the more mundane aspects of Hunter's problems. Barr separately opened a task force into the wilder accusations re Ukraine etc, with the PA AG Brady involved. That never had solid basis, which Barr ultimately learned. But he did pursue it.

The WB's were frustrated that things didn't move faster under Barr's DOJ, whether in DC or DE or PA or anywhere else. They continued to be frustrated as Weiss continued to be methodical.

I'm willing to give Weiss the benefit of the doubt until we know 100% otherwise, as he seems to be insisting on prosecuting only what he can prove and was willing to settle without trial on tough but fair terms. those terms included a provision that the DOJ wouldn't be the arbiter of whether Hunter violated probation by future acts as a potential Trump DOJ was not trusted to act consistently with the evidence. Indeed, it was obvious from Trump's statements and many other cultist statements that they would go after Hunter regardless of evidence. The judge disagreed with this arrangement as she was unwilling to take on that responsibility which is properly DOJ's. Rock and a hard place. So, Hunter gets convicted on crimes that would normally have been plead out or not pursued. More prosecution on tax matters to come. Likely to be convictions.

Is it selective prosecution based on notoriety of being the President son? Probably so. But that's simply how the cookie crumbles if you happen to have a high profile. What makes this different though is that a plea deal meant needing to trust a future DOJ which normally is not a problem for most high profile defendants. Still should have take the plea...not Weiss' fault Hunter did not.

But note that Biden and Garland, at each step, refused to interfere.

Very different approach.

Your last sentence is fascinating. Explain to me how Biden figures into YOUR equation?? Since when and or how your sweetie pie Biden would ever have any say or input into a supposedly non partisan decision on the part of the DoJ? Unless you think and can explain why Biden would have ever had a say in the decision making process of his DoJ? Unless your implying by accidental honesty that Biden and Garland are joined at the hip.

Hard to believe that you are actually this dense, cradle.

Yes, Biden (any President) should properly have zero to do with decision making at DOJ.

Likewise, the AG and subordinates should take no instructions from the White House about any prosecution decisions. Even more important where there's a personal or political self-interest involved.

Contrast this adherence with the former Trump Admin and AG's and even more so what Trump and his acolytes are promising their voters for a second Trump Admin.

Barr and Trump each saw it differently, Barr under this unitary Executive authority doctrine which has never before existed (though Nixon's AG was simply corrupt) and Trump because he's a full-on fascist authoritarian wannabe.

Huge contrast.

I'm not being dense my friend. I asked you in reference to YOUR own words how Biden could interfere in a legal issue he had no business interfering in from jump Street. No sitting POTUS should have any say in an investigation by his AG. Reread your last sentence and explain what controlling legal authority would allow Biden to have any say in the matter. You composed that sentence, it doesn't make any sense.

" But note that Biden and Garland, at each step, refused to interfere"

Perhaps you should think more clearly before you compose your words. Biden couldn't interfere even if he wanted to. Hard to believe your this dense. Those were your words not mine. Unless you can explain any circumstance were Biden should have interfered. I think you need a nice bike ride to clear out the cobwebs.

[old salt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

You offer a detailed & sweeping analysis based on a linked WP article most of us cannot access.
How 'bout a cut & paste for the benefit of non-subscribers ?

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

Weiss was appointed by Trump

Seems to me that Barr is a complicated figure, not 100% all-in for Trump at all costs, but doing his best to help him at any turn he could without completely violating his own sense of legal bounds (his bounds including what many others believe were unethical if not illegal acts). He has a view of the unitary powers of the Presidency which provide enormously more power to a President than historically they have had. And that, he believes deserves deference and support form those in the Executive Branch, including the AG. Definitely a partisan.

But he did (according to him) draw the line at where he saw no further benefit in pursuing actions that he knew would only damage (himself) and the Executive. Not a full-on fascist, nor cultist.

He created a 'task force' to investigate Hunter at Trump's behest, but unlike cultist fascists like Jordan and Comer, when the evidence kept coming up empty he snapped at Trump that he wouldn't talk to him anymore about Hunter. (Barr's account in his own book). There's no denial of the effort, only that he refused to go further. Likewise, he'd refused to announce a SC or a prosecution of Hunter just before the election as he had seen no evidence that would serve as basis...they'd already investigated.

Likewise, he refused to falsely claim there'd been election changing crimes in the election once he'd looked.

Contrast this approach where Garland is fully independent of the White House, often painfully so from Dem partisan perspectives. He and Biden don't buy the unitary powers ideology at all. Garland even appoints the Trump appointed AG (March 2017 - AG Sessions) who had opened an investigation into the tax and gun charges and other matters, as SC, immediately upon Weiss' request for such additional powers.

Weiss worked for the Trump/Barr DOJ and Barr was fully aware of Weiss' investigations into the more mundane aspects of Hunter's problems. Barr separately opened a task force into the wilder accusations re Ukraine etc, with the PA AG Brady involved. That never had solid basis, which Barr ultimately learned. But he did pursue it.

The WB's were frustrated that things didn't move faster under Barr's DOJ, whether in DC or DE or PA or anywhere else. They continued to be frustrated as Weiss continued to be methodical.

I'm willing to give Weiss the benefit of the doubt until we know 100% otherwise, as he seems to be insisting on prosecuting only what he can prove and was willing to settle without trial on tough but fair terms. those terms included a provision that the DOJ wouldn't be the arbiter of whether Hunter violated probation by future acts as a potential Trump DOJ was not trusted to act consistently with the evidence. Indeed, it was obvious from Trump's statements and many other cultist statements that they would go after Hunter regardless of evidence. The judge disagreed with this arrangement as she was unwilling to take on that responsibility which is properly DOJ's. Rock and a hard place. So, Hunter gets convicted on crimes that would normally have been plead out or not pursued. More prosecution on tax matters to come. Likely to be convictions.

Is it selective prosecution based on notoriety of being the President son? Probably so. But that's simply how the cookie crumbles if you happen to have a high profile. What makes this different though is that a plea deal meant needing to trust a future DOJ which normally is not a problem for most high profile defendants. Still should have take the plea...not Weiss' fault Hunter did not.

But note that Biden and Garland, at each step, refused to interfere.

Very different approach.

Your last sentence is fascinating. Explain to me how Biden figures into YOUR equation?? Since when and or how your sweetie pie Biden would ever have any say or input into a supposedly non partisan decision on the part of the DoJ? Unless you think and can explain why Biden would have ever had a say in the decision making process of his DoJ? Unless your implying by accidental honesty that Biden and Garland are joined at the hip.

Hard to believe that you are actually this dense, cradle.

Yes, Biden (any President) should properly have zero to do with decision making at DOJ.

Likewise, the AG and subordinates should take no instructions from the White House about any prosecution decisions. Even more important where there's a personal or political self-interest involved.

Contrast this adherence with the former Trump Admin and AG's and even more so what Trump and his acolytes are promising their voters for a second Trump Admin.

Barr and Trump each saw it differently, Barr under this unitary Executive authority doctrine which has never before existed (though Nixon's AG was simply corrupt) and Trump because he's a full-on fascist authoritarian wannabe.

Huge contrast.

I'm not being dense my friend. I asked you in reference to YOUR own words how Biden could interfere in a legal issue he had no business interfering in from jump Street. No sitting POTUS should have any say in an investigation by his AG. Reread your last sentence and explain what controlling legal authority would allow Biden to have any say in the matter. You composed that sentence, it doesn't make any sense.

" But note that Biden and Garland, at each step, refused to interfere"

Perhaps you should think more clearly before you compose your words. Biden couldn't interfere even if he wanted to. Hard to believe your this dense. Those were your words not mine. Unless you can explain any circumstance were Biden should have interfered. I think you need a nice bike ride to clear out the cobwebs.

yeah, you are indeed proving to be dense.

Barr and Trump were fine with "interfering" with prosecutorial decisions. Whole series of such re friends of the President, and enemies as well, eg the Hunter investigation. They talked about them and Barr, at least up to a point, went along with what Trump wanted.

Trump fired the former AG, Sessions, because he was insufficiently compliant. He hired a second, Barr, who espoused a theory that asserted the President had the power to give such orders. Barr "found" such "controlling legal authority" in the unitary Executive theory. I think that was a crock of horse manure, and hugely problematic, and maybe you do too, but that's what they did.

Biden and Garland have done the opposite, consistent with traditional DOJ independence from political influence.

Moreover, Garland went above and beyond to further insulate the Hunter investigation and prosecution decisions from the rest of DOJ by appointing Weiss (a Trump appointee) to move forward as he solely saw fit. Biden could have fired Garland for doing so, but did not.

And now, Biden could entirely legally simply pardon his son, but he refuses to do so. Compare that to the pardons by Trump of his 'friends' (is anyone actually a friend of Trump, or are they just pawns who help him?)

So, while we apparently 'violently' agree that DOJ should be independent, there's definitely ways that have been shown that some Presidents choose to "interfere".

Others don't expect to do so and hire AG's who would resign if given such an order. And that's how it should be, we agree.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

You offer a detailed & sweeping analysis based on a linked WP article most of us cannot access.
How 'bout a cut & paste for the benefit of non-subscribers ?

I'm not a subscriber either, but I can read the article behind the pop-up...can't cut and paste it though.

Perhaps someone else can.

But that's not the sole basis of my "detailed and sweeping analysis". You can use the google machine too.

Including excerpts from Barr's own book.

[ggait]

In the forum, Salty's posts come and go,

Speaking of the whistle blow...

And also of butter-emails, and of Bengahzi, and of expired SOLs.

A zombie troll that will never ever end.

So absurd. So meaningless. So very existential...

[old salt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

You offer a detailed & sweeping analysis based on a linked WP article most of us cannot access.
How 'bout a cut & paste for the benefit of non-subscribers ?

I'm not a subscriber either, but I can read the article behind the pop-up...can't cut and paste it though.

Perhaps someone else can.

But that's not the sole basis of my "detailed and sweeping analysis". You can use the google machine too.

Including excerpts from Barr's own book.

Here's the WP article you linked. As a lapsed subscriber, the WP still recognizes my browser & blocks their content from me. I've now accessed the article (see below) on an old computer.

The article is an interesting account of the Smirnov saga but it makes only passing reference to the laptop, does not reference any of the laptop evidence & does not reference the IRS WB's because they had yet to come forward.

It may help to explain why Barr assigned the Hunter case to DE & why he did not push the investigation as zealously as WB Ziegler & afan think he should have.

In Barr's book, does he mention the laptop or say why he wanted Hunter's tax cases referred to the DE office rather than the DC office ?

How a Bill Barr ‘assignment’ led to a Biden impeachment effort based on a lie

Analysis by Glenn Kessler
The Fact Checker
February 23, 2024 at 3:00 a.m. EST

“We were not making a representation that everything in this 1023 [FBI report] was credible.”

— Former U.S. attorney Scott Brady in an interview with congressional investigators, Oct. 23

The indictment of Alexander Smirnov, a trusted FBI confidential source, on charges of lying about an alleged Ukrainian bribery scheme involving President Biden and his son Hunter is a new twist in a saga that has its roots in a project launched by then-Attorney General William P. Barr soon after President Donald Trump was impeached for the first time.

Trump was impeached Dec. 18, 2019, charged with pressuring the Ukrainian government to turn up dirt on Biden, potentially his most formidable rival in 2020. Sixteen days later, on Jan. 3, 2020, Barr tasked Brady, a U.S. attorney in Western Pennsylvania, with vetting material regarding Biden and Ukraine — some of it supplied by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani — for possible distribution to prosecutors who could use a grand jury to investigate further.

To some extent, this story mirrors that of the “Steele dossier,” a string of unverified and derogatory pieces of information on Trump collected during the 2016 election by a confidential source trusted by the FBI, Christopher Steele, on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Steele’s reports, leaked to the media, created a firestorm of speculation by Democrats about Trump’s ties to Russia — even though much of it turned out to be false. (Steele has said he stands by his work.)

In the same vein, the Smirnov tale has its roots in a Republican effort to target Biden. His story didn’t gain much traction among investigators in 2020 but emerged in 2023 and was immediately embraced as true by many GOP lawmakers. A detailed review of information contained in the indictment, Brady’s testimony before congressional investigators, public statements and other documents shows that — absent Barr’s creation of a Biden task force — Smirnov’s allegations probably never would have appeared in the FBI document that led to his indictment and to the possible collapse of the Republicans’ impeachment case with Smirnov as its star.

Barr spoke briefly to The Fact Checker, off the record, before hanging up the phone.
Here is a timeline of the years-long events ending in Smirnov’s arrest.

First mention of meeting with Burisma CEO
March 1, 2017: Smirnov, an FBI source since 2010, speaks to his FBI handler as part of a routine communication. He says that in the previous month, he had a discussion with Mykola Zlochevsky, the chief executive of the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, about possibly acquiring a U.S.-based petroleum firm. As an aside, he mentions that Hunter Biden is on the Burisma board. He makes no mention of an alleged bribe to the Bidens. The report of the conversation, known as an FD-1023, is filed away.

A ‘discreet assignment’ to vet Giuliani claims
Dec. 18, 2019: Trump is impeached in the House, accused of having dangled favors to the Ukrainian government if it would announce an investigation of Biden. The impeachment probe uncovered how Trump had urged Giuliani to put pressure on the Ukrainians to target Biden.

Jan. 3, 2020: In an email, Brady is informed that Barr and Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen want him to undertake a “discreet assignment.” Brady later told congressional investigators that “we were to take information provided by the public, including Mayor Giuliani, relating to Ukrainian corruption. We were to vet that, and that was how we described it internally, a vetting process.” He said he personally briefed Barr on his progress twice.

Jan. 29: Giuliani is interviewed by Brady and his team at the FBI’s Pittsburgh office. “There were a lot of names, which included details allegedly derived from those people, including … bank account numbers, email addresses, cellphones that would purportedly point toward evidence,” Brady recalled. “There was information about a variety of schemes and accusations not limited to Burisma and Mr. [Joe] Biden.”

Feb. 9: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tells CBS’s “Face The Nation” that he has been told by Barr that the Justice Department has “created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it’s verified.”

Feb. 10: Barr confirms to reporters that the Justice Department has such a project underway. “The DOJ has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant,” Barr says. “But as I did say to Senator Graham, we have to be very careful with respect to any information coming from the Ukraine.”

March: The coronavirus pandemic forces investigators to work remotely, delaying progress. At the end of the month, the FBI opens an assessment — a step before taking information to a grand jury. Brady said that for his team to keep investigating, the FBI assessment needed to be renewed every 30 days, requiring 17 sign-offs at headquarters, and agents would stop working if the renewal lapsed. “The agents would go pens down for weeks at a time,” he said. “And so that was incredibly frustrating.”

March to May: At Brady’s request, the FBI searches in its files for “Burisma” and related search terms because of the information received from Giuliani. “‘Burisma’ appeared in a lot of the material we received from Mr. Giuliani,” Brady said.

Rudy Giuliani in the Rose Garden at the White House on July 29, 2019. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
May 19: Smirnov texts his FBI handler about the release of edited fragments of private phone calls between Biden and a former Ukrainian president by Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker. “Smells bad” for Biden, Smirnov writes. Derkach, an independent member of Ukraine’s parliament who previously aligned with a pro-Russian faction, had previously met with Giuliani. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, posts one of the recordings on Twitter hours later and implies impropriety by Biden.

Smirnov suggests Biden is going to jail and mentions a possible bribe. His handler expresses doubt, saying the claim only makes sense if you believe the story that Biden pushed out Ukraine’s top prosecutor to assist Burisma — “which my [sic] all accounts it was not.” (Indeed, this was a false narrative promoted by Trump.)

“For sure yes,” Smirnov replies. “I’ll try to prove to you bro.”

The 2017 report is discovered
Early June: The 2017 interview with Smirnov is found by FBI Pittsburgh in a Washington Field Office file because of the “Burisma” keyword search and flagged to Brady’s team. For about 20 days, Brady said, FBI officials resist asking the handler to contact the source about the reference. Brady said his impression was the FBI was trying to protect Smirnov so that they could continue to use him as a source.

June 26: FBI Pittsburgh asks the handler to contact Smirnov. That same day, he telephones Smirnov. This time, the indictment says, Smirnov said he met and spoke with Zlochevsky in 2015 and/or 2016, mentioning specific locations such as Vienna, and was told Biden and his son had each been paid $5 million to oust the prosecutor and protect Burisma. (It is unclear why neither Smirnov nor the handler followed up on the May text exchange until prodded by Brady’s team.) The indictment says this story was a fabrication.

June 30: The handler’s account of the interview is memorialized on a Form 1023, an official record of the FBI, and finalized. Brady’s team reviews it and confirms that it was sent to the Baltimore FBI field office and the U.S. attorney for Delaware, David Weiss.

July-August: To vet Smirnov’s claims, the FBI Pittsburgh office asks him for his travel records, which the indictment says he provided. The FBI then “concluded that all reasonable steps had been completed regarding the Defendant’s allegations” and that the assessment of his claims should be closed.

The indictment does not indicate whether Smirnov’s travel was confirmed. But in his testimony, Brady suggested it was.

“We attempted to use open-source material to check against what was stated in the 1023,” Brady said. “We also interfaced with the CHS’ handler about certain statements relating to travel and meetings to see if they were consistent with his or her understanding. … What we were able to identify, we found that it was consistent. And so we felt that there were sufficient indicia of credibility in this 1023 to pass it on to an office that had a predicated grand jury investigation.”

Curiously, Brady’s lawyer interrupted the congressional interview to prevent Brady from answering specific questions about what the travel records showed. He would not even let him say whether the travel records showed Smirnov had traveled to the locations mentioned in the FBI report.

Aug. 12: The FBI Pittsburgh office is informed that senior officials agree the matter should be closed, the indictment says.

Sept. 3: The FBI assessment is officially closed, according to a letter written in October 2023 by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Sept. 21: Brady submits a report, titled “VETTING,” to a senior Justice Department official, Richard Donoghue, the Grassley letter says. “We summarized some of the allegations that had been brought or alleged by Mr. Giuliani and noted where there was — either we had no basis of opining, or there was conflicting information,” Brady said.

Mid-October: Trump calls Barr and inquires about the investigation into Hunter Biden, whose laptop contents had been disseminated by Giuliani. Barr, in his memoir, says he yelled: “Dammit, Mr. President, I am not going to talk to you about Hunter Biden. Period!”

Oct. 23: Brady and FBI agents brief Weiss’s office on his findings. “We could only present what we had identified, explain to them the sources by which we believed something had indicia of credibility, and then make recommendations about what we think they might want to do with that,” Brady said. With the conclusion of the briefing, Brady’s “tasking” ends. “We pulled up our stakes and folded our tent and went on to other things,” he said.

Nov. 3: Trump loses reelection to Biden.

Dec. 27: In a conversation with Donoghue and Rosen about his efforts to challenge the election results, Trump presses for a special counsel to investigate the Bidens. “You figure out what to do with Hunter Biden,” Trump said, according to Donoghue’s notes and testimony he gave to Congress. “That’s up to you guys.” But “people will criticize the DOJ if Hunter’s not investigated for real.”

The 2020 report catches the attention of Congress
Nov. 16, 2022: Trump announces that he will run for president again.

May 3, 2023: Grassley and Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) release a letter to the Justice Department and the FBI saying they have learned the agencies “possess an unclassified FD-1023 form that describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions.” They say it is unclear what efforts were made to investigate the allegation.

June 5: As GOP lawmakers threaten to hold FBI Director Christopher A. Wray in contempt for not releasing the document, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, says the FBI and Justice Department had reviewed it in 2020 and determined there was no need for more investigative steps.

June 7: Barr tells the Federalist, a conservative online publication, that the inquiry was not closed down. “On the contrary,” he said, “it was sent to Delaware for further investigation.” That same day, Comer cancels a vote to cite Wray for contempt after the FBI director agrees to make the document available to all members of the Oversight Committee.

July: “The FBI requested that the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Delaware assist the FBI in an investigation of allegations related to the 2020 1023,” the indictment says.

July 10: Weiss writes to Graham that his questions regarding the FD-1023 “relate to an ongoing investigation,” so he “cannot comment on them at this time.”

July 20: Grassley and Comer publicly release the document. “Why have they tried to conceal it from Congress and the American people for so long? The Justice Department and FBI have failed to come clean, but Chairman Comer and I intend to find out,” Grassley says in a statement.

July 24: The Federalist, citing a confidential source, claims that Weiss’s office was told in the 2020 briefing that the FBI had corroborated multiple facts included in the FBI report. “The Pittsburgh FBI office obtained travel records for the CHS, and those records confirmed the CHS had traveled to the locales detailed in the FD-1023 during the relevant time period,” the Federalist said. “The trips included a late 2015 or early 2016 visit to Kyiv, Ukraine; a trip a couple of months later to Vienna, Austria; and travel to London in 2019.”

July 26: Hunter Biden’s plea deal on tax and gun charges — which he had agreed to June 20 — falls apart after skeptical questions from a judge and Weiss’s office suggest the deal would not cover an ongoing investigation.

Aug. 11: Weiss is appointed special counsel “for the ongoing investigation and prosecutions referenced and described in United States v. Robert Hunter Biden, as well as for any other matters that arose or may arise from that investigation.”

Aug. 29: FBI investigators speak to Smirnov’s handler about the 2020 document. He says that after the public release of the FD-1023 by Grassley and Comer, he spoke to Smirnov about it. Smirnov “reaffirmed the accuracy of the statements contained in it,” the indictment says. But when the handler reviewed the travel records with FBI investigators, he found they were inconsistent with what Smirnov had said in 2020, the indictment says.

Sept. 27: Smirnov is interviewed by FBI investigators. Given the chance to recant, he reaffirms many of his claims about a bribe and says he had met with Zlochevsky earlier than 2017. He adds more details that the indictment says were also not true. “Notably, these new and inconsistent statements arose only after the Defendant had reviewed messages, emails, and travel information that were in direct conflict with what he reported in the 2020 1023,” the indictment says.

Feb. 14, 2024: Smirnov is arrested when he lands in Las Vegas and charged in the indictment with lying to the FBI.

By Glenn Kessler

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... based-lie/

You offer a detailed & sweeping analysis based on a linked WP article most of us cannot access.
How 'bout a cut & paste for the benefit of non-subscribers ?

I'm not a subscriber either, but I can read the article behind the pop-up...can't cut and paste it though.

Perhaps someone else can.

But that's not the sole basis of my "detailed and sweeping analysis". You can use the google machine too.

Including excerpts from Barr's own book.

Here's the WP article you linked. As a lapsed subscriber, the WP still recognizes my browser & blocks their content from me. I've now accessed the article (see below) on an old computer.

The article is an interesting account of the Smirnov saga but it makes only passing reference to the laptop, does not reference any of the laptop evidence & does not reference the IRS WB's because they had yet to come forward.

It may help to explain why Barr assigned the Hunter case to DE & why he did not push the investigation as zealously as WB Ziegler & afan think he should have.

In Barr's book, does he mention the laptop or say why he wanted Hunter's tax cases referred to the DE office rather than the DC office ?

How a Bill Barr ‘assignment’ led to a Biden impeachment effort based on a lie

Analysis by Glenn Kessler
The Fact Checker
February 23, 2024 at 3:00 a.m. EST

“We were not making a representation that everything in this 1023 [FBI report] was credible.”

— Former U.S. attorney Scott Brady in an interview with congressional investigators, Oct. 23

The indictment of Alexander Smirnov, a trusted FBI confidential source, on charges of lying about an alleged Ukrainian bribery scheme involving President Biden and his son Hunter is a new twist in a saga that has its roots in a project launched by then-Attorney General William P. Barr soon after President Donald Trump was impeached for the first time.

Trump was impeached Dec. 18, 2019, charged with pressuring the Ukrainian government to turn up dirt on Biden, potentially his most formidable rival in 2020. Sixteen days later, on Jan. 3, 2020, Barr tasked Brady, a U.S. attorney in Western Pennsylvania, with vetting material regarding Biden and Ukraine — some of it supplied by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani — for possible distribution to prosecutors who could use a grand jury to investigate further.

To some extent, this story mirrors that of the “Steele dossier,” a string of unverified and derogatory pieces of information on Trump collected during the 2016 election by a confidential source trusted by the FBI, Christopher Steele, on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Steele’s reports, leaked to the media, created a firestorm of speculation by Democrats about Trump’s ties to Russia — even though much of it turned out to be false. (Steele has said he stands by his work.)

In the same vein, the Smirnov tale has its roots in a Republican effort to target Biden. His story didn’t gain much traction among investigators in 2020 but emerged in 2023 and was immediately embraced as true by many GOP lawmakers. A detailed review of information contained in the indictment, Brady’s testimony before congressional investigators, public statements and other documents shows that — absent Barr’s creation of a Biden task force — Smirnov’s allegations probably never would have appeared in the FBI document that led to his indictment and to the possible collapse of the Republicans’ impeachment case with Smirnov as its star.

Barr spoke briefly to The Fact Checker, off the record, before hanging up the phone.
Here is a timeline of the years-long events ending in Smirnov’s arrest.

First mention of meeting with Burisma CEO
March 1, 2017: Smirnov, an FBI source since 2010, speaks to his FBI handler as part of a routine communication. He says that in the previous month, he had a discussion with Mykola Zlochevsky, the chief executive of the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, about possibly acquiring a U.S.-based petroleum firm. As an aside, he mentions that Hunter Biden is on the Burisma board. He makes no mention of an alleged bribe to the Bidens. The report of the conversation, known as an FD-1023, is filed away.

A ‘discreet assignment’ to vet Giuliani claims
Dec. 18, 2019: Trump is impeached in the House, accused of having dangled favors to the Ukrainian government if it would announce an investigation of Biden. The impeachment probe uncovered how Trump had urged Giuliani to put pressure on the Ukrainians to target Biden.

Jan. 3, 2020: In an email, Brady is informed that Barr and Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen want him to undertake a “discreet assignment.” Brady later told congressional investigators that “we were to take information provided by the public, including Mayor Giuliani, relating to Ukrainian corruption. We were to vet that, and that was how we described it internally, a vetting process.” He said he personally briefed Barr on his progress twice.

Jan. 29: Giuliani is interviewed by Brady and his team at the FBI’s Pittsburgh office. “There were a lot of names, which included details allegedly derived from those people, including … bank account numbers, email addresses, cellphones that would purportedly point toward evidence,” Brady recalled. “There was information about a variety of schemes and accusations not limited to Burisma and Mr. [Joe] Biden.”

Feb. 9: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tells CBS’s “Face The Nation” that he has been told by Barr that the Justice Department has “created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it’s verified.”

Feb. 10: Barr confirms to reporters that the Justice Department has such a project underway. “The DOJ has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant,” Barr says. “But as I did say to Senator Graham, we have to be very careful with respect to any information coming from the Ukraine.”

March: The coronavirus pandemic forces investigators to work remotely, delaying progress. At the end of the month, the FBI opens an assessment — a step before taking information to a grand jury. Brady said that for his team to keep investigating, the FBI assessment needed to be renewed every 30 days, requiring 17 sign-offs at headquarters, and agents would stop working if the renewal lapsed. “The agents would go pens down for weeks at a time,” he said. “And so that was incredibly frustrating.”

March to May: At Brady’s request, the FBI searches in its files for “Burisma” and related search terms because of the information received from Giuliani. “‘Burisma’ appeared in a lot of the material we received from Mr. Giuliani,” Brady said.

Rudy Giuliani in the Rose Garden at the White House on July 29, 2019. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
May 19: Smirnov texts his FBI handler about the release of edited fragments of private phone calls between Biden and a former Ukrainian president by Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker. “Smells bad” for Biden, Smirnov writes. Derkach, an independent member of Ukraine’s parliament who previously aligned with a pro-Russian faction, had previously met with Giuliani. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, posts one of the recordings on Twitter hours later and implies impropriety by Biden.

Smirnov suggests Biden is going to jail and mentions a possible bribe. His handler expresses doubt, saying the claim only makes sense if you believe the story that Biden pushed out Ukraine’s top prosecutor to assist Burisma — “which my [sic] all accounts it was not.” (Indeed, this was a false narrative promoted by Trump.)

“For sure yes,” Smirnov replies. “I’ll try to prove to you bro.”

The 2017 report is discovered
Early June: The 2017 interview with Smirnov is found by FBI Pittsburgh in a Washington Field Office file because of the “Burisma” keyword search and flagged to Brady’s team. For about 20 days, Brady said, FBI officials resist asking the handler to contact the source about the reference. Brady said his impression was the FBI was trying to protect Smirnov so that they could continue to use him as a source.

June 26: FBI Pittsburgh asks the handler to contact Smirnov. That same day, he telephones Smirnov. This time, the indictment says, Smirnov said he met and spoke with Zlochevsky in 2015 and/or 2016, mentioning specific locations such as Vienna, and was told Biden and his son had each been paid $5 million to oust the prosecutor and protect Burisma. (It is unclear why neither Smirnov nor the handler followed up on the May text exchange until prodded by Brady’s team.) The indictment says this story was a fabrication.

June 30: The handler’s account of the interview is memorialized on a Form 1023, an official record of the FBI, and finalized. Brady’s team reviews it and confirms that it was sent to the Baltimore FBI field office and the U.S. attorney for Delaware, David Weiss.

July-August: To vet Smirnov’s claims, the FBI Pittsburgh office asks him for his travel records, which the indictment says he provided. The FBI then “concluded that all reasonable steps had been completed regarding the Defendant’s allegations” and that the assessment of his claims should be closed.

The indictment does not indicate whether Smirnov’s travel was confirmed. But in his testimony, Brady suggested it was.

“We attempted to use open-source material to check against what was stated in the 1023,” Brady said. “We also interfaced with the CHS’ handler about certain statements relating to travel and meetings to see if they were consistent with his or her understanding. … What we were able to identify, we found that it was consistent. And so we felt that there were sufficient indicia of credibility in this 1023 to pass it on to an office that had a predicated grand jury investigation.”

Curiously, Brady’s lawyer interrupted the congressional interview to prevent Brady from answering specific questions about what the travel records showed. He would not even let him say whether the travel records showed Smirnov had traveled to the locations mentioned in the FBI report.

Aug. 12: The FBI Pittsburgh office is informed that senior officials agree the matter should be closed, the indictment says.

Sept. 3: The FBI assessment is officially closed, according to a letter written in October 2023 by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Sept. 21: Brady submits a report, titled “VETTING,” to a senior Justice Department official, Richard Donoghue, the Grassley letter says. “We summarized some of the allegations that had been brought or alleged by Mr. Giuliani and noted where there was — either we had no basis of opining, or there was conflicting information,” Brady said.

Mid-October: Trump calls Barr and inquires about the investigation into Hunter Biden, whose laptop contents had been disseminated by Giuliani. Barr, in his memoir, says he yelled: “Dammit, Mr. President, I am not going to talk to you about Hunter Biden. Period!”

Oct. 23: Brady and FBI agents brief Weiss’s office on his findings. “We could only present what we had identified, explain to them the sources by which we believed something had indicia of credibility, and then make recommendations about what we think they might want to do with that,” Brady said. With the conclusion of the briefing, Brady’s “tasking” ends. “We pulled up our stakes and folded our tent and went on to other things,” he said.

Nov. 3: Trump loses reelection to Biden.

Dec. 27: In a conversation with Donoghue and Rosen about his efforts to challenge the election results, Trump presses for a special counsel to investigate the Bidens. “You figure out what to do with Hunter Biden,” Trump said, according to Donoghue’s notes and testimony he gave to Congress. “That’s up to you guys.” But “people will criticize the DOJ if Hunter’s not investigated for real.”

The 2020 report catches the attention of Congress
Nov. 16, 2022: Trump announces that he will run for president again.

May 3, 2023: Grassley and Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) release a letter to the Justice Department and the FBI saying they have learned the agencies “possess an unclassified FD-1023 form that describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions.” They say it is unclear what efforts were made to investigate the allegation.

June 5: As GOP lawmakers threaten to hold FBI Director Christopher A. Wray in contempt for not releasing the document, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, says the FBI and Justice Department had reviewed it in 2020 and determined there was no need for more investigative steps.

June 7: Barr tells the Federalist, a conservative online publication, that the inquiry was not closed down. “On the contrary,” he said, “it was sent to Delaware for further investigation.” That same day, Comer cancels a vote to cite Wray for contempt after the FBI director agrees to make the document available to all members of the Oversight Committee.

July: “The FBI requested that the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Delaware assist the FBI in an investigation of allegations related to the 2020 1023,” the indictment says.

July 10: Weiss writes to Graham that his questions regarding the FD-1023 “relate to an ongoing investigation,” so he “cannot comment on them at this time.”

July 20: Grassley and Comer publicly release the document. “Why have they tried to conceal it from Congress and the American people for so long? The Justice Department and FBI have failed to come clean, but Chairman Comer and I intend to find out,” Grassley says in a statement.

July 24: The Federalist, citing a confidential source, claims that Weiss’s office was told in the 2020 briefing that the FBI had corroborated multiple facts included in the FBI report. “The Pittsburgh FBI office obtained travel records for the CHS, and those records confirmed the CHS had traveled to the locales detailed in the FD-1023 during the relevant time period,” the Federalist said. “The trips included a late 2015 or early 2016 visit to Kyiv, Ukraine; a trip a couple of months later to Vienna, Austria; and travel to London in 2019.”

July 26: Hunter Biden’s plea deal on tax and gun charges — which he had agreed to June 20 — falls apart after skeptical questions from a judge and Weiss’s office suggest the deal would not cover an ongoing investigation.

Aug. 11: Weiss is appointed special counsel “for the ongoing investigation and prosecutions referenced and described in United States v. Robert Hunter Biden, as well as for any other matters that arose or may arise from that investigation.”

Aug. 29: FBI investigators speak to Smirnov’s handler about the 2020 document. He says that after the public release of the FD-1023 by Grassley and Comer, he spoke to Smirnov about it. Smirnov “reaffirmed the accuracy of the statements contained in it,” the indictment says. But when the handler reviewed the travel records with FBI investigators, he found they were inconsistent with what Smirnov had said in 2020, the indictment says.

Sept. 27: Smirnov is interviewed by FBI investigators. Given the chance to recant, he reaffirms many of his claims about a bribe and says he had met with Zlochevsky earlier than 2017. He adds more details that the indictment says were also not true. “Notably, these new and inconsistent statements arose only after the Defendant had reviewed messages, emails, and travel information that were in direct conflict with what he reported in the 2020 1023,” the indictment says.

Feb. 14, 2024: Smirnov is arrested when he lands in Las Vegas and charged in the indictment with lying to the FBI.

By Glenn Kessler

Yes, it focuses on Barr and Brady, not so much Weiss. My point was simply that Barr was actively involved in causing investigations of Hunter (which itself is inappropriate other than as an approval) and they reported to him. He knew what they were doing, what they had and didn't have, and ultimately refused Trump's demands that they announce a prosecution. I don't know for a fact, but my sense is they didn't have credible evidence to do so, else would have.

A fan's point is that the WB's have expressed frustration that the DOJ, anywhere, and throughout, didn't act on the WB's desires. That began with the Trump/Barr DOJ.

Again, my sense is that if they had the goods on Hunter, much less Joe, they'd have acted on it. The WB's, to my mind, are whining about the normal tensions that exist between investigators and those who demand more to get to a prosecution. As they rightfully should.

I don't recall whether Barr explains his decision making re Hunter etc, as I think I only read various reports about it not the full book. As I recall the critiques of his book was that he spun things to make himself look better. He's not entirely trustworthy. As I said above, IMO he's "complicated".

[a fan]

A fan's point is that the WB's have expressed frustration that the DOJ, anywhere, and throughout, didn't act on the WB's desires. That began with the Trump/Barr DOJ.

Yep. That's it, you get it with no problem.

OS is getting there...as you can now see him defending Bill Barr's choices, which clearly shows that he finally understands that the WB's complaints started with Barr.

It's not all that complicated: we have a bunch of Republicans trying to invent another Dem conspiracy.

The reality, as always, is far simple: the WB's complaint had nothing to do with what party Weiss and Barr were in. They didn't like how they handled the case.

No conspiracy needed, which is what Old Salt has figured out: Barr made his choices, and by all accounts and without proof to the contrary, they were honest decisions every AG has to make in their job.

[MDlaxfan76]

A fan's point is that the WB's have expressed frustration that the DOJ, anywhere, and throughout, didn't act on the WB's desires. That began with the Trump/Barr DOJ.

Yep. That's it, you get it with no problem.

OS is getting there...as you can now see him defending Bill Barr's choices, which clearly shows that he finally understands that the WB's complaints started with Barr.

It's not all that complicated: we have a bunch of Republicans trying to invent another Dem conspiracy.

The reality, as always, is far simple: the WB's complaint had nothing to do with what party Weiss and Barr were in. They didn't like how they handled the case.

No conspiracy needed, which is what Old Salt has figured out: Barr made his choices, and by all accounts and without proof to the contrary, they were honest decisions every AG has to make in their job.

Likewise the two Trump appointed AG's under Barr, apparently.