One particular inconvenient fact about the Hunter Biden laptop

"They" have been working it since 2008, and there is nothing yet,.

If so go for it, and Joe will pardon himself and his son, if there is anything that comes out,
If Joe Biden pardons himself he might as well pack his bags and resign...he'd have ZERO authority from that point on!
 
A President can't pardon himself.

And clearly the President isn't worried about anything coming up "bad". He's not the one running around claiming everything is a witch hunt, and threatening witness, prosecutors or anyone else. Ordering people not to testify. Falsely claiming "executive privilege", and other bullshit and lies.

The last time there was an investigation announced, Hillary Clinton shrugged and said "let them investigate". If you have nothing to hide, you're not living in fear of investigations.

If Trump really has done "nothing wrong", why does he lie to the FBI, the Justice Department, and refuse to cooperate. The Biden's and the Clintons invited the FBI to search their homes. So did Mike Pence.

Only Trump played "victim" and how he's being persecuted.
Did Hillary "shrug" AFTER she'd paid to have her servers professionally bleached and smashed all of those Blackberries, Dragonlady? When did the Clintons or the Bidens EVER cooperate in an investigation? They all stonewall their asses off. Claiming they cooperate is LAUGHABLE!
 
It shows that Joe was tasked with being the admin’s point man in Ukraine. Despite what you said about “Joey going rogue”, dupe.
Kindly explain why people in the Administration were surprised by Joe Biden's firing of the prosecutor in Ukraine then, Hutch? The truth is...they were saying that he was doing a good job...yet Joe for some reason suddenly demanded that he be fired. Gee, what would make that happen? Right after a message goes from the boys at Burisma to Hunter that they need help from Washington DC? Come on, Hutch...this ship is sinking and it's sinking fast.
 
Because there is no evidence that Joe Biden knew anything about that text message.

"I'm sitting here with Mick Jagger, and Mick says you have to send me $100,000 or he'll be pissed."

Is this evidence that Mick Jagger and I are extorting you for $100,000?

Hunter Biden's What's App text message is no more evidence that Joe Biden is involved with Hunter's business deals, that this post is proof that Mick Jagger is part of an extortion ring.
Well, let's get his cell phone records and if Joey was with the crackhead on that day. How would we do that? Oh yeah, a subpeona from an impeachment inquiry. Problem solved.
 
Kindly explain why people in the Administration were surprised by Joe Biden's firing of the prosecutor in Ukraine then, Hutch? The truth is...they were saying that he was doing a good job...yet Joe for some reason suddenly demanded that he be fired. Gee, what would make that happen? Right after a message goes from the boys at Burisma to Hunter that they need help from Washington DC? Come on, Hutch...this ship is sinking and it's sinking fast.
NO EVIDENCE!! (accompanied by stamping of feet)
 
A President can't pardon himself.

And clearly the President isn't worried about anything coming up "bad". He's not the one running around claiming everything is a witch hunt, and threatening witness, prosecutors or anyone else. Ordering people not to testify. Falsely claiming "executive privilege", and other bullshit and lies.

The last time there was an investigation announced, Hillary Clinton shrugged and said "let them investigate". If you have nothing to hide, you're not living in fear of investigations.

If Trump really has done "nothing wrong", why does he lie to the FBI, the Justice Department, and refuse to cooperate. The Biden's and the Clintons invited the FBI to search their homes. So did Mike Pence.

Only Trump played "victim" and how he's being persecuted.
Trump and his followers said he could, so it applies to Joe, too.
 
For all the hoopla surrounding Biden's laptop, there is this inescapable, inconvenient, and very glaring fact:

When a new administration comes to the White House, one of the many things on the bucket list of presidential things to do is to fire all the US Attorneys from the previous administration, and bring in the new president's own team.

Joe Biden did this except for one, the US Attorney Delaware, David Weiss (two, actually, he left Durham in place who hasn't come up with squat, either).

Why was he left and not replaced?

Because the previous AG, Bill Barr, assigned this Trump appointed Us Attorney to investigate Hunter Biden. When Joe Biden took over the presidency, so as not to appear trying to tip the scales one way or the other, he left Weiss in place to finish the job, the investigation of his own son.

Does that sound like the work of a corrupt president? Sounds like just the opposite, to me, and should sound like the opposite of corruption to any rational human being who doesn't kneejerk at the first bit of innuendo and scant evidence that comes down the pike.

The fact of the matter is that Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ, to wit, a Trump appointed US Attorney David Weiss for the last three years, and Weiss has, thus far, not given the slightest hint that the President has done anything wrong (only that Hunter might be indicted for taxes and lying on a gun application form, but I doubt there is evidence of taxes, maybe not registering as a foreign agent, or some minor charge which I doubt a US Attorney will have the cajones to indict a sibling of a US President on a chickenshit charge).


So, If the shoe were on Trump's foot, would Trump have left that attorney in place if it were his son being investigated? We don't have to speculate, the answer is no because Trump fired Preet Bharara, the US Attorney who sensed he was about to be asked to do something inappropriate, who was getting regular phone calls from Trump, decided it was best to not answer his calls anymore, to head that prospect off at the pass, so to speak, and a day later, he was fired. Trump's WH reeks of corruption.


That is the one fact which utterly vanquishes all the hysterics and hyperbole surrounding the 'laptop' saga. "In my opinion" and it is my opinion because it's logical

I've seen all the 'evidence' presented thus far and, what I've seen isn't evidence. Oh, it might be classified as some kind of evidence in the evendiary list on some academic chart, but it's not HARD evidence, the kind of evidence that strongly, if not proving, an allegation. Remember, this isn't about Hunter, it's about Joe, and on that score, the score is zero. Last time I checked, Hunter isn't running for office, and THAT is why I don't think it should be about Hunter. Although, 'scuse my whataboutism, but Jared scored $2 billion big ones from the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman on the way out of his gig at the Trump WH, and what, crickets from Republicans? Oh, a House committee commenced an investigation when Dems were in charged, but stalled when Repubs took over. Someone's barking up the wrong tree.

If you think you got proof, put up or shut up, as they say.

So, Put up or shut up. I don't care if you are nice or mean, it makes no real difference to me, but the important thing is, let's be factual. Make sure it will withstand scrutiny in a court cross examination, because I'm going scrutinize your 'evidence', (if that's what you call it). Fire away. Oh, don't tell me to hunt for it, because I sure as hell am not taking your word for what the facts are, even your contention that you think the proof is posted elsewhere this forum, Speaking of which, I have searched for evidence on this forum, and what I see, I can easily poke holes in, and so, the hard evidence, well, it's just not there. If you think you got it, show me.

And confirming this fact is because if it were really evidence, the kind that a prosecutor has confidence in which will hold up under forensic scrutiny in a court of law, we'd have heard from Weiss by now, and he's just not talking. How much can be on that hard drive, anyway? How long does it take just to investigate one man? Three years worth? Bobulinski hasn't produced squat. And the so called '$3.5 million allegedly paid to Hunter from the wife of a Moscow Mayor'? Uh, no, his lawyer, George Mesires, told CNN that Hunter Biden was not an owner of the firm Senate Republicans allege received the $3.5 million payment in 2014. “Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton, so the claim that he was paid $3.5 million is false,” Mesires said.


If you have a problem with CNN, quotes are either factual or they aren't', either Mesires said that or he didn't. Even CNN won't deliberately misquote a lawyer, and if that were not true, we'd have a statement from Mesires, and there is none.

Moreover, Glenn Kessler, WaPos fact checker since 2011 confirms it:




In other words, There is no clear evidence that Hunter Biden received $3.5 million from the former mayor of Moscow's wife.

None, but that's par for the course when it comes to alleged 'evidence' from Republicans.

In September 2020, a Senate Republican report alleged that Elena Baturina, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million to a bank account associated with Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company co-founded by Hunter Biden. The report also alleged that the transaction may have been "linked to prostitution or human trafficking."

However, these allegations have not been substantiated by any credible evidence, and Hunter Biden has denied them. The report was also criticized for relying on unverified and circumstantial information, and for being highly partisan in nature.

It's worth noting that Hunter Biden has faced scrutiny in the past due to his business dealings in Ukraine and China while his father, Joe Biden, was Vice President. However, there is no evidence that he has engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior.

As for this:

It has been debunked here:



The reports retread familiar ground for those who followed the 2019 impeachment inquiry. And it’s hard to read these reports and not come to the same conclusion as those proceedings indicated: Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma had no impact on the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy decisions.

And here.


[The] ...87-page report summing up the findings, released jointly on Wednesday by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges.

I hear lot of innuendo, clever quips like 'Biden Family received $ from China'. However, it is notable that Hunter and his Brother equals 'family'. But, if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just a couple of Americans doing business abroad. So, when Republicans say 'Biden Family', they are hoping the listener won't notice, won't scrutinize the term, and assume 'family' includes Joe, so Republicans are intentionally being deceptive.

Is Hunter trading off dad's name? Well, he's admitted it, and so? Siblings trading off the names of their rich and famous parents are common. ANd It's not a crime. As for the allegation of "peddling influence'. yes, this is called lobbying, and Hunter is a registered lobbyist. As for foreign entities, okay, perhaps he'll get a hand slap for not registering under FARA. As for the salacious stuff on Hunter's laptop, really? this is what you think is going to get traction against Joe Biden? How many families have a troubled sibling, a black sheep, someone who has a drug problem? How many? You want to climb on a lofty perch and look down at Hunter Biden? What kind of person are you? Hunter is a private citizen. Have you forgot?

Steve Schmidt, ( Steve Schmidt - Wikipedia ) sets the record straight.



So let's take a look at Hunter Biden's resume:

Vice Chairman of National Railroad Passenger Corporation s
Headed the Lobbyist firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair
Vice Chairman on the Board Of Directors of Amtrak
Developed Ecommerce policy for Clinton administration
Served on China-based private equity firm, BHR Partners, Inc.

Got his bachelor's at Georgetown and JD at Yale. That's four year post graduate degree, and Yale is not for dummies.

Now, yes, he's a black sheep in the family, no doubt about it, but he's no slacker like the right wants to portray him as.
Yes, I know some of you are going to post memes of Hunter smoking crack, but that only underscores the point given in Schmidt's video, and the point being made; he was an addict and has since recovered, even wrote a book about it, and what, you're going to continue to try and get traction out if ot in the foolish belief it will reflect badly on Joe Biden? Not a chance. People will see through any attempt to dehumanize a troubled soul in need of help, and his father's love, which the evidence proves, in spades.

As for Joe knowing about his son's deals and the right is trying to get a lot of traction that he said he didn't, but he did, actually, in my book, it's more of a case where Joe, being, at times, sloppy with words (like Trump is, but he is all the time) I think he meant that he wasn't deeply involved with his sons dealings, but this idea that Joe couldn't know anything about his son's dealings, that's not even logical, Hunter's dealings has been plastered all over the news for a long time. Clearly, Joe would have a cursory knowledge, but that doesn't prove squat. But, of course, those on the right are trying to get traction that point, but it's silly, whether or not you succeed at a 'gotcha' on that point, it's not a crime, so why harp on it like it is? Moreover, photos of Joe with Hunter's buddies doesn't prove anything more than a photo of Trump with Epstein proves that Trump was schtupping teens on Epstein's island.

What I'm trying to convey is let's dispense with innuendo, like 'biden family received payments' (if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just one or two guys making a buck, the old American way, and you repubs should be proud of Hunter's entrepreneurial spirit! ). Let's deal in hard evidence.

Got any?

I didn't think so.

Weiss has no business being special counsel.
 
.... because you say so? Oh, you goofball, you never disappoint,
.... because you say so? Oh, you goofball, you never disappoint,
John...if Joe Biden pardons his son...let alone himself...he's basically sending a message to the rest of the country that rules are for other people and not for his family. At that point he's done...put a fork in him. He'll go down in history as the most corrupt President ever.
 
Weiss has no business being special counsel.
Merrick Garland appointing the prosecutor that cut that sweetheart deal with Hunter's attorneys as a Special Counsel is giving the middle finger anyone that expected a real investigation of the Biden's by his DOJ.
 
It is not illegal, it is not a crime like what Trump did. Biden did not have the authority and submitted to the law,. I wish MAGA would do that.
Biden was not allowed to forgive ANY student loan debt. He could delay/postpone it, but NOT forgive it.
 
John...if Joe Biden pardons his son...let alone himself...he's basically sending a message to the rest of the country that rules are for other people and not for his family. At that point he's done...put a fork in him. He'll go down in history as the most corrupt President ever.
No, he's not. Trump would do it if he were in such a position. He is not corrupt at all. But Trump was.
 
Prosecutor will do so,

In GA, she has to prove the fake electors stuff with proof that those asking and those being asked knew that was being asked was illegal.

That's a high standard. Let's see if she can prove it.
 
For all the hoopla surrounding Biden's laptop, there is this inescapable, inconvenient, and very glaring fact:

When a new administration comes to the White House, one of the many things on the bucket list of presidential things to do is to fire all the US Attorneys from the previous administration, and bring in the new president's own team.

Joe Biden did this except for one, the US Attorney Delaware, David Weiss (two, actually, he left Durham in place who hasn't come up with squat, either).

Why was he left and not replaced?

Because the previous AG, Bill Barr, assigned this Trump appointed Us Attorney to investigate Hunter Biden. When Joe Biden took over the presidency, so as not to appear trying to tip the scales one way or the other, he left Weiss in place to finish the job, the investigation of his own son.

Does that sound like the work of a corrupt president? Sounds like just the opposite, to me, and should sound like the opposite of corruption to any rational human being who doesn't kneejerk at the first bit of innuendo and scant evidence that comes down the pike.

The fact of the matter is that Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ, to wit, a Trump appointed US Attorney David Weiss for the last three years, and Weiss has, thus far, not given the slightest hint that the President has done anything wrong (only that Hunter might be indicted for taxes and lying on a gun application form, but I doubt there is evidence of taxes, maybe not registering as a foreign agent, or some minor charge which I doubt a US Attorney will have the cajones to indict a sibling of a US President on a chickenshit charge).


So, If the shoe were on Trump's foot, would Trump have left that attorney in place if it were his son being investigated? We don't have to speculate, the answer is no because Trump fired Preet Bharara, the US Attorney who sensed he was about to be asked to do something inappropriate, who was getting regular phone calls from Trump, decided it was best to not answer his calls anymore, to head that prospect off at the pass, so to speak, and a day later, he was fired. Trump's WH reeks of corruption.


That is the one fact which utterly vanquishes all the hysterics and hyperbole surrounding the 'laptop' saga. "In my opinion" and it is my opinion because it's logical

I've seen all the 'evidence' presented thus far and, what I've seen isn't evidence. Oh, it might be classified as some kind of evidence in the evendiary list on some academic chart, but it's not HARD evidence, the kind of evidence that strongly, if not proving, an allegation. Remember, this isn't about Hunter, it's about Joe, and on that score, the score is zero. Last time I checked, Hunter isn't running for office, and THAT is why I don't think it should be about Hunter. Although, 'scuse my whataboutism, but Jared scored $2 billion big ones from the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman on the way out of his gig at the Trump WH, and what, crickets from Republicans? Oh, a House committee commenced an investigation when Dems were in charged, but stalled when Repubs took over. Someone's barking up the wrong tree.

If you think you got proof, put up or shut up, as they say.

So, Put up or shut up. I don't care if you are nice or mean, it makes no real difference to me, but the important thing is, let's be factual. Make sure it will withstand scrutiny in a court cross examination, because I'm going scrutinize your 'evidence', (if that's what you call it). Fire away. Oh, don't tell me to hunt for it, because I sure as hell am not taking your word for what the facts are, even your contention that you think the proof is posted elsewhere this forum, Speaking of which, I have searched for evidence on this forum, and what I see, I can easily poke holes in, and so, the hard evidence, well, it's just not there. If you think you got it, show me.

And confirming this fact is because if it were really evidence, the kind that a prosecutor has confidence in which will hold up under forensic scrutiny in a court of law, we'd have heard from Weiss by now, and he's just not talking. How much can be on that hard drive, anyway? How long does it take just to investigate one man? Three years worth? Bobulinski hasn't produced squat. And the so called '$3.5 million allegedly paid to Hunter from the wife of a Moscow Mayor'? Uh, no, his lawyer, George Mesires, told CNN that Hunter Biden was not an owner of the firm Senate Republicans allege received the $3.5 million payment in 2014. “Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton, so the claim that he was paid $3.5 million is false,” Mesires said.


If you have a problem with CNN, quotes are either factual or they aren't', either Mesires said that or he didn't. Even CNN won't deliberately misquote a lawyer, and if that were not true, we'd have a statement from Mesires, and there is none.

Moreover, Glenn Kessler, WaPos fact checker since 2011 confirms it:




In other words, There is no clear evidence that Hunter Biden received $3.5 million from the former mayor of Moscow's wife.

None, but that's par for the course when it comes to alleged 'evidence' from Republicans.

In September 2020, a Senate Republican report alleged that Elena Baturina, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million to a bank account associated with Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company co-founded by Hunter Biden. The report also alleged that the transaction may have been "linked to prostitution or human trafficking."

However, these allegations have not been substantiated by any credible evidence, and Hunter Biden has denied them. The report was also criticized for relying on unverified and circumstantial information, and for being highly partisan in nature.

It's worth noting that Hunter Biden has faced scrutiny in the past due to his business dealings in Ukraine and China while his father, Joe Biden, was Vice President. However, there is no evidence that he has engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior.

As for this:

It has been debunked here:



The reports retread familiar ground for those who followed the 2019 impeachment inquiry. And it’s hard to read these reports and not come to the same conclusion as those proceedings indicated: Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma had no impact on the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy decisions.

And here.


[The] ...87-page report summing up the findings, released jointly on Wednesday by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges.

I hear lot of innuendo, clever quips like 'Biden Family received $ from China'. However, it is notable that Hunter and his Brother equals 'family'. But, if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just a couple of Americans doing business abroad. So, when Republicans say 'Biden Family', they are hoping the listener won't notice, won't scrutinize the term, and assume 'family' includes Joe, so Republicans are intentionally being deceptive.

Is Hunter trading off dad's name? Well, he's admitted it, and so? Siblings trading off the names of their rich and famous parents are common. ANd It's not a crime. As for the allegation of "peddling influence'. yes, this is called lobbying, and Hunter is a registered lobbyist. As for foreign entities, okay, perhaps he'll get a hand slap for not registering under FARA. As for the salacious stuff on Hunter's laptop, really? this is what you think is going to get traction against Joe Biden? How many families have a troubled sibling, a black sheep, someone who has a drug problem? How many? You want to climb on a lofty perch and look down at Hunter Biden? What kind of person are you? Hunter is a private citizen. Have you forgot?

Steve Schmidt, ( Steve Schmidt - Wikipedia ) sets the record straight.



So let's take a look at Hunter Biden's resume:

Vice Chairman of National Railroad Passenger Corporation s
Headed the Lobbyist firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair
Vice Chairman on the Board Of Directors of Amtrak
Developed Ecommerce policy for Clinton administration
Served on China-based private equity firm, BHR Partners, Inc.

Got his bachelor's at Georgetown and JD at Yale. That's four year post graduate degree, and Yale is not for dummies.

Now, yes, he's a black sheep in the family, no doubt about it, but he's no slacker like the right wants to portray him as.
Yes, I know some of you are going to post memes of Hunter smoking crack, but that only underscores the point given in Schmidt's video, and the point being made; he was an addict and has since recovered, even wrote a book about it, and what, you're going to continue to try and get traction out if ot in the foolish belief it will reflect badly on Joe Biden? Not a chance. People will see through any attempt to dehumanize a troubled soul in need of help, and his father's love, which the evidence proves, in spades.

As for Joe knowing about his son's deals and the right is trying to get a lot of traction that he said he didn't, but he did, actually, in my book, it's more of a case where Joe, being, at times, sloppy with words (like Trump is, but he is all the time) I think he meant that he wasn't deeply involved with his sons dealings, but this idea that Joe couldn't know anything about his son's dealings, that's not even logical, Hunter's dealings has been plastered all over the news for a long time. Clearly, Joe would have a cursory knowledge, but that doesn't prove squat. But, of course, those on the right are trying to get traction that point, but it's silly, whether or not you succeed at a 'gotcha' on that point, it's not a crime, so why harp on it like it is? Moreover, photos of Joe with Hunter's buddies doesn't prove anything more than a photo of Trump with Epstein proves that Trump was schtupping teens on Epstein's island.

What I'm trying to convey is let's dispense with innuendo, like 'biden family received payments' (if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just one or two guys making a buck, the old American way, and you repubs should be proud of Hunter's entrepreneurial spirit! ). Let's deal in hard evidence.

Got any?

I didn't think so.


Look. You are trying to reason with people who hear that a two year investigation totally cleared the election workers in Georgia and claim cover up. You are talking about people who just won’t believe anything except their preconceived notions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top