Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[MDlaxfan76]

The Dems still held the majority in '21 & '22 with Carolyn Maloney as chairwoman. They had plenty of time.

"Probably a lot" is not good enough.

Things were going well in the ME until Biden took office, diissed the Saudis & tried to revive the nuc deal with Iran.

Deal wasn't reported until April '22. Committee wasn't called for until June 22. So they had like 5 months. But great math including 21!!!

"Probably a lot" is way more than enough for you if it's someone you're told to hate.

Things were going pretty terribly in the ME under Trump with a lot of downs and some ups. Still going badly, with ups and downs. Have been going badly for centuries. Plenty of wins for Biden as well. We're not fighting one major quagmire anymore with minimal US military loss of life in the departure despite Trump's terrible negotiating skills.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jared ... 1649700763

Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners, made the deal shortly after President Donald Trump left office

Jared Kushner's Investment Firm Hires Former Trump Staffers
Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com › news › articles › kushn...
Jan 20, 2022 — Affinity Partners had raised $2 billion by the end of November, according to last month's filing, which didn't include details on the investors.

Dec '21 FTC filing, reported by Bloomberg in Jan '22. Over a full year for Dem lead Congress to inquire & investigate.

https://reports.adviserinfo.sec.gov/crs/crs_315482.pdf

SEC application well before this investor solicitation of Aug '21

https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner ... 2023-2?amp

Accurately reported "non-United States persons" . The Saudis were not the only foreign investors.

According to the Post, on a copy of Kushner's Form ADV, an SEC form to register investment ventures, Kushner also lists the client of the $2 billion in funds under "Pooled investment vehicles as clients" rather than under "Sovereign wealth funds and foreign official institutions."

Chad Mizelle, an adviser to Kushner's company, told the Post in a statement that this was the correct designation, while the SEC declined to comment.

So, you'd have left the sovereign wealth funds and foreign officials institutions box blank?

You'd trust "an adviser to Kushner's company" ?
Member of Federalist Society, close pal of Steven Miller, now part of Affinity Partners?
His wife is an activist partisan judge, both real pieces of work.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida/2 ... k-mandate/

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/an ... appointed/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... t-n1254464

[old salt]

The Dems still held the majority in '21 & '22 with Carolyn Maloney as chairwoman. They had plenty of time.

"Probably a lot" is not good enough.

Things were going well in the ME until Biden took office, diissed the Saudis & tried to revive the nuc deal with Iran.

Deal wasn't reported until April '22. Committee wasn't called for until June 22. So they had like 5 months. But great math including 21!!!

"Probably a lot" is way more than enough for you if it's someone you're told to hate.

Things were going pretty terribly in the ME under Trump with a lot of downs and some ups. Still going badly, with ups and downs. Have been going badly for centuries. Plenty of wins for Biden as well. We're not fighting one major quagmire anymore with minimal US military loss of life in the departure despite Trump's terrible negotiating skills.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jared ... 1649700763

Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners, made the deal shortly after President Donald Trump left office

Jared Kushner's Investment Firm Hires Former Trump Staffers
Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com › news › articles › kushn...
Jan 20, 2022 — Affinity Partners had raised $2 billion by the end of November, according to last month's filing, which didn't include details on the investors.

Dec '21 FTC filing, reported by Bloomberg in Jan '22. Over a full year for Dem lead Congress to inquire & investigate.

https://reports.adviserinfo.sec.gov/crs/crs_315482.pdf

SEC application well before this investor solicitation of Aug '21

https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner ... 2023-2?amp

Accurately reported "non-United States persons" . The Saudis were not the only foreign investors.

According to the Post, on a copy of Kushner's Form ADV, an SEC form to register investment ventures, Kushner also lists the client of the $2 billion in funds under "Pooled investment vehicles as clients" rather than under "Sovereign wealth funds and foreign official institutions."

Chad Mizelle, an adviser to Kushner's company, told the Post in a statement that this was the correct designation, while the SEC declined to comment.

So, you'd have left the sovereign wealth funds and foreign officials institutions box blank?

You'd trust "an adviser to Kushner's company" ?
Member of Federalist Society, close pal of Steven Miller, now part of Affinity Partners?
His wife is an activist partisan judge, both real pieces of work.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida/2 ... k-mandate/

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/an ... appointed/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... t-n1254464

I'd follow the advise of a lawyer familiar with those filings. As I said, there were more foreign investors than the Saudis.
The SEC declined to comment. Nothing but bluster from the Dem lead House committee. Have you heard of any criminal charges ?

[MDlaxfan76]

The Dems still held the majority in '21 & '22 with Carolyn Maloney as chairwoman. They had plenty of time.

"Probably a lot" is not good enough.

Things were going well in the ME until Biden took office, diissed the Saudis & tried to revive the nuc deal with Iran.

Deal wasn't reported until April '22. Committee wasn't called for until June 22. So they had like 5 months. But great math including 21!!!

"Probably a lot" is way more than enough for you if it's someone you're told to hate.

Things were going pretty terribly in the ME under Trump with a lot of downs and some ups. Still going badly, with ups and downs. Have been going badly for centuries. Plenty of wins for Biden as well. We're not fighting one major quagmire anymore with minimal US military loss of life in the departure despite Trump's terrible negotiating skills.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jared ... 1649700763

Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners, made the deal shortly after President Donald Trump left office

Jared Kushner's Investment Firm Hires Former Trump Staffers
Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com › news › articles › kushn...
Jan 20, 2022 — Affinity Partners had raised $2 billion by the end of November, according to last month's filing, which didn't include details on the investors.

Dec '21 FTC filing, reported by Bloomberg in Jan '22. Over a full year for Dem lead Congress to inquire & investigate.

https://reports.adviserinfo.sec.gov/crs/crs_315482.pdf

SEC application well before this investor solicitation of Aug '21

https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner ... 2023-2?amp

Accurately reported "non-United States persons" . The Saudis were not the only foreign investors.

According to the Post, on a copy of Kushner's Form ADV, an SEC form to register investment ventures, Kushner also lists the client of the $2 billion in funds under "Pooled investment vehicles as clients" rather than under "Sovereign wealth funds and foreign official institutions."

Chad Mizelle, an adviser to Kushner's company, told the Post in a statement that this was the correct designation, while the SEC declined to comment.

So, you'd have left the sovereign wealth funds and foreign officials institutions box blank?

You'd trust "an adviser to Kushner's company" ?
Member of Federalist Society, close pal of Steven Miller, now part of Affinity Partners?
His wife is an activist partisan judge, both real pieces of work.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida/2 ... k-mandate/

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/an ... appointed/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... t-n1254464

I'd follow the advise of a lawyer familiar with those filings. As I said, there were more foreign investors than the Saudis.
The SEC declined to comment. Nothing but bluster from the Dem lead House committee. Have you heard of any criminal charges ?

Nope, nor am I predicting any.

Obviously dirty, and pretty darn obvious that they wanted to hide that reality, but I dunno the rules well enough to call that a crime. Gotta prove willful intent to deceive? Plausible deniability seems to be the pushback.

Sure seems like they should have included that information as the vast bulk of money (reportedly) indeed had those characteristics.

Would it have been approved had they done so? I dunno, but I bet these days, yes.
But if the answer is a clear no, then sure this filing itself would be a big issue...

Note, the "legal advisor" cited is a very specific cat, not someone independent...part of the 'fraud' if there was such.

[old salt]

Note, the "legal advisor" cited is a very specific cat, not someone independent...part of the 'fraud' if there was such.

It was only an "advisor" cited, not necessarily a "legal advisor" or the lawyer who prepared the SEC filing.
You assume a great deal in your smear campaigns. Who's alleging fraud besides you ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

[MDlaxfan76]

Note, the "legal advisor" cited is a very specific cat, not someone independent...part of the 'fraud' if there was such.

It was only an "advisor" cited, not necessarily a "legal advisor" or the lawyer who prepared the SEC filing.
You assume a great deal in your smear campaigns. Who's alleging fraud besides you ?

Chad Mizelle is specifically cited. Do you not know who he is?
Prior roles, current role?
Chief Counsel ain't "legal adviser"?

And yeah, IF there was a material omission with the purpose of deceiving the government that would constitute fraud.

However, I would very much doubt that such would be easily proven (thus should be prosecuted) unless someone confessed to it or there was some sort of recording/written of a discussion of the intent to check avoid mentioning sovereign wealth fund etc so that it would get approved...and that's a heck of a lot to expect to find.

so, I wouldn't expect any crime to be prosecuted, just like I initially responded.

As we've previously discussed, as frustrating at sometimes is, these sorts of crimes typically require proof of willful intent to commit the crime, not just a stumble. No matter how much we might suspect the intent, if it can't be proven, no prosecution should happen..."no lock her up" no "lock him up" should be chanted.

These guys seem to have an excuse that could give them plausible deniability of intent to deceive.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

Yup, Salty doesn't think these guys are dirty.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

Yup, Salty doesn't think these guys are dirty.

This thread is about Hunter. You feel a need to deflect and divert attention. If Garland so chooses he can release the hounds on Kushner anytime he so chooses. Then we can start a Jared Kushner tinfoil hat thread.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

Yup, Salty doesn't think these guys are dirty.

This thread is about Hunter. You feel a need to deflect and divert attention. If Garland so chooses he can release the hounds on Kushner anytime he so chooses. Then we can start a Jared Kushner tinfoil hat thread.

Looks to me like Salty brought up Kushner, certainly not me.

I don't think there's a prosecution to be had, at least not based on what I've read, which is what I responded twice above.

How about you read the thread discussion then chip in?

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

Yup, Salty doesn't think these guys are dirty.

This thread is about Hunter. You feel a need to deflect and divert attention. If Garland so chooses he can release the hounds on Kushner anytime he so chooses. Then we can start a Jared Kushner tinfoil hat thread.

Looks to me like Salty brought up Kushner, certainly not me.

I don't think there's a prosecution to be had, at least not based on what I've read, which is what I responded twice above.

How about you read the thread discussion then chip in?

I've read the discussion and it doesn't matter who brought up Kushner first. My point was the topic was begining to gravitate more towards Kushner. Since you brought it up there appears to nothing to prosecute Kushner about. The whining and bellyaching is about his sweetheart deal that broke no laws that are known. Is there anyone on this forum who would turn their back on this same deal if it was offered to them?

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

Yup, Salty doesn't think these guys are dirty.

This thread is about Hunter. You feel a need to deflect and divert attention. If Garland so chooses he can release the hounds on Kushner anytime he so chooses. Then we can start a Jared Kushner tinfoil hat thread.

Looks to me like Salty brought up Kushner, certainly not me.

I don't think there's a prosecution to be had, at least not based on what I've read, which is what I responded twice above.

How about you read the thread discussion then chip in?

I've read the discussion and it doesn't matter who brought up Kushner first. My point was the topic was begining to gravitate more towards Kushner. Since you brought it up there appears to nothing to prosecute Kushner about. The whining and bellyaching is about his sweetheart deal that broke no laws that are known. Is there anyone on this forum who would turn their back on this same deal if it was offered to them?

Then don't claim that I'm the one changing the topic or that I want to "deflect and divert attention". I responded to what was being discussed, no change in topic.

And yeah, who on this thread could possibly be "offered" "this same deal". Pretty sure a bunch of us have a heck of a lot more investment and financial market experience than Jared, so, this ain't about the usual ways an investment manager is chosen.

So, yeah, pay off is pretty obvious.

HOWEVER, unless something is found that proves otherwise, not a prosecutable crime.
My hunch would be that they avoided anything that could prove otherwise.

Still dirty.

And if we want to play the what about game, definitely much more dirty than the Hunter situation, based on the known facts. But both have a yuck factor for sure. Neither excuses the other.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

Yup, Salty doesn't think these guys are dirty.

This thread is about Hunter. You feel a need to deflect and divert attention. If Garland so chooses he can release the hounds on Kushner anytime he so chooses. Then we can start a Jared Kushner tinfoil hat thread.

Looks to me like Salty brought up Kushner, certainly not me.

I don't think there's a prosecution to be had, at least not based on what I've read, which is what I responded twice above.

How about you read the thread discussion then chip in?

I've read the discussion and it doesn't matter who brought up Kushner first. My point was the topic was begining to gravitate more towards Kushner. Since you brought it up there appears to nothing to prosecute Kushner about. The whining and bellyaching is about his sweetheart deal that broke no laws that are known. Is there anyone on this forum who would turn their back on this same deal if it was offered to them?

Then don't claim that I'm the one changing the topic or that I want to "deflect and divert attention". I responded to what was being discussed, no change in topic.

And yeah, who on this thread could possibly be "offered" "this same deal". Pretty sure a bunch of us have a heck of a lot more investment and financial market experience than Jared, so, this ain't about the usual ways an investment manager is chosen.

So, yeah, pay off is pretty obvious.

HOWEVER, unless something is found that proves otherwise, not a prosecutable crime.
My hunch would be that they avoided anything that could prove otherwise.

Still dirty.

And if we want to play the what about game, definitely much more dirty than the Hunter situation, based on the known facts. But both have a yuck factor for sure. Neither excuses the other.

As I said in a previous post, can't Garland release the hounds or is that out of the question without probable cause? Kushners deal stinks to high heaven to me and I have zippo investment experience.

[cradleandshoot]

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju ... leblowers/

The interesting observation in this op-ed comes in the first paragraph

David Weiss says " I'm not the deciding official"

Merrick Garland told the public and Congress that Weiss had total authority over his investigation. How is that possible when Weiss declares that he is not the deciding official? Who is the deciding official for crying out loud?

[youthathletics]

Silly cradle...the entire goal is ambiguity, so that there is no single throat to choke for screwing up.

[old salt]

Note, the "legal advisor" cited is a very specific cat, not someone independent...part of the 'fraud' if there was such.

It was only an "advisor" cited, not necessarily a "legal advisor" or the lawyer who prepared the SEC filing.
You assume a great deal in your smear campaigns. Who's alleging fraud besides you ?

Chad Mizelle is specifically cited. Do you not know who he is?
Prior roles, current role?
Chief Counsel ain't "legal adviser"?

Cited as what ? "advisor" . You don't now what part he played in the SEC filing or what his role is in the company.
He might just be a spokesman. You're just speculating & smearing.

[old salt]

Looks to me like Salty brought up Kushner, certainly not me.
How about you read the thread discussion then chip in?

Follow your own advice. You're wrong, as usual.
I responded to a series of whataboutism posts about Jared Kushner on page [39].

[MDlaxfan76]

Looks to me like Salty brought up Kushner, certainly not me.
How about you read the thread discussion then chip in?

Follow your own advice. You're wrong, as usual.
I responded to a series of whataboutism posts about Jared Kushner on page [39].

on page 39...well, I certainly wasn't involved...

[MDlaxfan76]

Note, the "legal advisor" cited is a very specific cat, not someone independent...part of the 'fraud' if there was such.

It was only an "advisor" cited, not necessarily a "legal advisor" or the lawyer who prepared the SEC filing.
You assume a great deal in your smear campaigns. Who's alleging fraud besides you ?

Chad Mizelle is specifically cited. Do you not know who he is?
Prior roles, current role?
Chief Counsel ain't "legal adviser"?

Cited as what ? "advisor" . You don't now what part he played in the SEC filing or what his role is in the company.
He might just be a spokesman. You're just speculating & smearing.

He's the Chief Counsel of the darn fund, Salty...he's the "adviser" in your article.
Lawyer.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

Yup, Salty doesn't think these guys are dirty.

This thread is about Hunter. You feel a need to deflect and divert attention. If Garland so chooses he can release the hounds on Kushner anytime he so chooses. Then we can start a Jared Kushner tinfoil hat thread.

Looks to me like Salty brought up Kushner, certainly not me.

I don't think there's a prosecution to be had, at least not based on what I've read, which is what I responded twice above.

How about you read the thread discussion then chip in?

I've read the discussion and it doesn't matter who brought up Kushner first. My point was the topic was begining to gravitate more towards Kushner. Since you brought it up there appears to nothing to prosecute Kushner about. The whining and bellyaching is about his sweetheart deal that broke no laws that are known. Is there anyone on this forum who would turn their back on this same deal if it was offered to them?

Then don't claim that I'm the one changing the topic or that I want to "deflect and divert attention". I responded to what was being discussed, no change in topic.

And yeah, who on this thread could possibly be "offered" "this same deal". Pretty sure a bunch of us have a heck of a lot more investment and financial market experience than Jared, so, this ain't about the usual ways an investment manager is chosen.

So, yeah, pay off is pretty obvious.

HOWEVER, unless something is found that proves otherwise, not a prosecutable crime.
My hunch would be that they avoided anything that could prove otherwise.

Still dirty.

And if we want to play the what about game, definitely much more dirty than the Hunter situation, based on the known facts. But both have a yuck factor for sure. Neither excuses the other.

As I said in a previous post, can't Garland release the hounds or is that out of the question without probable cause? Kushners deal stinks to high heaven to me and I have zippo investment experience.

Do you mean green light an investigation by "hounds"?
Certainly not a prosecution...but even an investigation needs to be more than just what seems obvious as stinks. Gotta at least have a theory of the specific crime. ..and something to base that on other than supposition.

And while it sure feels like a payoff, Jared no longer had a government position...but yeah, feels like some poking around would be in order...sometimes that means the press...

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... udi-arabia

Yup, Salty doesn't think these guys are dirty.

This thread is about Hunter. You feel a need to deflect and divert attention. If Garland so chooses he can release the hounds on Kushner anytime he so chooses. Then we can start a Jared Kushner tinfoil hat thread.

Looks to me like Salty brought up Kushner, certainly not me.

I don't think there's a prosecution to be had, at least not based on what I've read, which is what I responded twice above.

How about you read the thread discussion then chip in?

I've read the discussion and it doesn't matter who brought up Kushner first. My point was the topic was begining to gravitate more towards Kushner. Since you brought it up there appears to nothing to prosecute Kushner about. The whining and bellyaching is about his sweetheart deal that broke no laws that are known. Is there anyone on this forum who would turn their back on this same deal if it was offered to them?

Then don't claim that I'm the one changing the topic or that I want to "deflect and divert attention". I responded to what was being discussed, no change in topic.

And yeah, who on this thread could possibly be "offered" "this same deal". Pretty sure a bunch of us have a heck of a lot more investment and financial market experience than Jared, so, this ain't about the usual ways an investment manager is chosen.

So, yeah, pay off is pretty obvious.

HOWEVER, unless something is found that proves otherwise, not a prosecutable crime.
My hunch would be that they avoided anything that could prove otherwise.

Still dirty.

And if we want to play the what about game, definitely much more dirty than the Hunter situation, based on the known facts. But both have a yuck factor for sure. Neither excuses the other.

As I said in a previous post, can't Garland release the hounds or is that out of the question without probable cause? Kushners deal stinks to high heaven to me and I have zippo investment experience.

Do you mean green light an investigation by "hounds"?
Certainly not a prosecution...but even an investigation needs to be more than just what seems obvious as stinks. Gotta at least have a theory of the specific crime. ..and something to base that on other than supposition.

And while it sure feels like a payoff, Jared no longer had a government position...but yeah, feels like some poking around would be in order...sometimes that means the press...

That is why I inserted the phrase " probable cause" I find it hard to believe that with a little digging that some nefariousness would not come to the surface.