Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their report on the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine.

Baturina is referenced in the 87-page report, which was released Wednesday, addressing her payment to Biden’s investment firm in early 2014.

“Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor,” it said in providing background on the businesswoman.

The report described her involvement with Biden as “a financial relationship,” but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made.

The probe also found that Baturina sent 11 wires transfers between May and December 2015 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA, a tech startup that filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.

Nine of those 11 wire transfers were first sent to Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment firm founded by Biden and Chris Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, before being transferred to BAK USA.

Hunter Biden received $3.5M wire transfer from Russian billionaire: Senate report

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their r…

nypost.com

We all know their is massive corruption on both sides of the aisle. Here is an alleged allegation against Hunter Biden who was allegedly enriching himself because his Dad was Vice President.

 

[Ayo]

He is as corrupt, and lies just as much, and that's what I've been saying...

Again, you’re both sidesing way too hard and it costs you credibility

 

[LA - L.A.]

The main question should be is the information accurate and it appears that at least Tony Bobulinski is credible. He spoke with the FBI and turned over all the emails, text messages, etc to the FBI.

But he has emails and text messages to prove what he is claiming.

Who said it was illegal? It looks like corruption to me.

Bobulinski turned over the emails, text messages, etc to the FBI. ...
It looks more like corruption than something illegal other than a possible FARA. ... It's corruption.

Once again, I think this Hunter/Joe Biden story is more about corruption than illegality.

Bottom line reality:

If Bobulinski had any credible evidence of Joe Biden or Hunter Biden doing anything illegal, he would have taken it to AG Barr and Barr would have had a news conference about it.

If Bobulinski had any credible evidence of Joe Biden or Hunter Biden doing anything corrupt, he would have taken it to a Republican Senate committee chairperson and that chairperson would have started a very public hearing on the matter.

The fact that neither of those has happened is fairly credible and compelling evidence that Bobulinski doesn't have any credible evidence to support any of the criminal or corrupt actions that he's accusing Joe Biden and Hunter Biden of doing.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I wouldn't put it past Barr to have a press conference this week announcing an "investigation" without anything substantial to point to because they know suspicion = guilt for those who want to believe, but you're exactly right @LA - L.A.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

They sure didn't have a problem writing story after story from the unverified Steele Dossier.

So, this is a bit frustrating to me, b/c I responded to your first assertion that the media is treating this story differently than they did the Steele Dossier, and you haven't responded to that except to make the same declaration without evidence.

Because from what I've found, the media did NOT write story after story about the unverified Steele Dossier. Can you show me differently?

 

[LA - L.A.]

I wouldn't put it past Barr to have a press conference this week announcing an "investigation" without anything substantial to point to because they know suspicion = guilt for those who want to believe, but you're exactly right @LA - L.A.

That wouldn't surprise me either. If it does happen, hopefully it won't have much sway on voters.

 

[superchuck500]

The FARA reference was tongue in cheek. I believe FARA indictments were very rare until recently. Once again, I think this Hunter/Joe Biden story is more about corruption than illegality.

I think this corruption is just the tip of the iceberg and it's done often by both sides. Hopefully this story will cause others to be exposed, but I won't hold my breath.

I think most true corruption is illegal one way or the other. What conduct specifically do you believe to be corruption? We can then if there's a statute that covers it.

 

[Lapaz]

Some people are dangerously dumb enough to believe that if Joe Biden was involved in corrupt money making schemes that it would show up on his financial records.

The money has to go somewhere. Banks report deposits. If banks get caught not reporting, they get in trouble. If not put into banks, then it has to be laundered, and of course that wouldn't show up on financial records. If he is laundering money, then there may be evidence, such as how Trump allegedly sells condos to launder money. If his lifestyle or purchases don't fit his financial records, that would become evident. Explain what was the corruption?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think most true corruption is illegal one way or the other. What conduct specifically do you believe to be corruption? We can then if there's a statute that covers it.

I've seen this before from others when referencing the Clintons -- they call it "soft corruption". Nothing illegal, but the idea that people with wealth and power can buy access to politicians who then become predisposed to issuing laws and regulations in that favor those with access. It's basically a similar argument to those made against corporate lobbying, campaign finance, etc.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for that concern. However, where they lose me was I've read a number of people use this sort of influence peddling distaste to justify a vote for Trump. Which to me means it was never a real concern of theirs in the first place.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I've seen this before from others when referencing the Clintons -- they call it "soft corruption". Nothing illegal, but the idea that people with wealth and power can buy access to politicians who then become predisposed to issuing laws and regulations in that favor those with access. It's basically a similar argument to those made against corporate lobbying, campaign finance, etc.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for that concern. However, where they lose me was I've read a number of people use this sort of influence peddling distaste to justify a vote for Trump. Which to me means it was never a real concern of theirs in the first place.

The soft corruption folks tend to be the more rational people in my experience. I rarely find myself actually disagreeing with them because the idea that all people in power, even those honestly trying to serve, are vulnerable to using their influence for personal economic gain I think reflects on human nature. There's a reason Elliott Ness put together a group of Untouchables, because those people were so rare.

I find the majority these days go to the "lock them up" stage of claiming criminal acts without being able to show any actual criminality. this is because of our culture of opposition and belief that if you don't agree with someone politically they must be a crook. After all, how could someone honest disagree with us?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The soft corruption folks tend to be the more rational people in my experience. I rarely find myself actually disagreeing with them because the idea that all people in power, even those honestly trying to serve, are vulnerable to using their influence for personal economic gain I think reflects on human nature. There's a reason Elliott Ness put together a group of Untouchables, because those people were so rare.

I find the majority these days go to the "lock them up" stage of claiming criminal acts without being able to show any actual criminality. this is because of our culture of opposition and belief that if you don't agree with someone politically they must be a crook. After all, how could someone honest disagree with us?

If people were serious about "soft corruption", they would push either for laws and regulations or at least a strengthening of norms regarding the financial assets of people in power. Public transparency on tax returns, assets and debts, no direct control of assets or businesses that may be affected by their decisions, no family members in positions of power or access to privileged information that can be profited on. And so on. I would support all of those.

Trump doesn't even pretend to hold to those norms and pushes the boundaries in a very clear and definable way.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The soft corruption folks tend to be the more rational people in my experience. I rarely find myself actually disagreeing with them because the idea that all people in power, even those honestly trying to serve, are vulnerable to using their influence for personal economic gain I think reflects on human nature. There's a reason Elliott Ness put together a group of Untouchables, because those people were so rare.

I find the majority these days go to the "lock them up" stage of claiming criminal acts without being able to show any actual criminality. this is because of our culture of opposition and belief that if you don't agree with someone politically they must be a crook. After all, how could someone honest disagree with us?

I'll add that people also seem to think that honesty as a trait is digital (either 1 or 0) when in fact it is very much analog with a very wide scale. Basically honest people aren't completely honest and compulsive liars sometimes tell the truth.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I think most true corruption is illegal one way or the other. What conduct specifically do you believe to be corruption? We can then if there's a statute that covers it.

Thank you for this!!! He has repeatedly stated that he is talking about corruption but it's not illegal. I'm pretty sure by definition "corruption" is a criminal act and that is more true for elected officials because there are laws and regulations they are legally bound to uphold. It seems to me that he doesn't understand the difference between corruption and unethical.

 

[RebSaint]

The challenge is the right-wing press and their lapdogs that sop up everything they say and spread it like melted butter on toast have been all over the place on this. The narrative has been so chaotic they haven't been able to get it to stick because most people can't even understand it. With Hillary it was pretty easy:

• She sent classified emails from a private email address and should be in jail.

Stupid, but simple. Everyone that wanted an excuse to say "BuT theY da' same!" had an easy chicken nuggie to chew on.

The Hunter/Joe story though...

• Burisma!
• Oh, wait, Joe fired the prosecutor for Hunter!
• Oh, oh, wait! China... 1.5 Billion!
• Oh, Oh, Oh, wait! Russia Mayor 3.5 million!
• Laptop! Laptop! Laptop!
• Child Porn!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Joe was selling influence in 2017 (when he was out of government)
• Biden Crime Family! His brother!
• Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh! Clandestine meetings in hotel bars with this one dude!

It's like the dog in Up screaming "Squirrel!" in the middle of sentences. They haven't had a simple direct narrative (because there isn't one). They have been so good at getting people to bite on misinformation that they think they can just shout random stuff and everyone will buy it.

Once again, not saying it won't work. I have no faith in the American electorate anymore. However, it sure is crazy to watch.

I think this summary is a great, concise way to describe the difference.

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Clinton's use of private servers to send sensitive state-dept. e-mails was a prosecutable offense, but since no real criminal "intent" was provable (or evidence revealed that it was sheer incompetence) there was an argument made that such oversight and negligence was enough to merit not touching the White House with a 10 ft. pole; The e-mail controversy, combined with the other shadiness in general that has come from the Clintons was enough to put ding-dong in the White House.

The point is that the butter e-mails investigation and controversy was a seriously bad look for Clinton and revealed a carelessness that someone who is the Sec'y of State should not have. It had some teeth, but of course the right wingers wanted her burned at the stake for something that was pretty bad, but not deserving of the moniker "crooked Hillary" At worse, it revealed incompetence.

This stuff on Hunter Biden, and by association, Joe Biden seems to be based on a lot of speculation with no evidence and completely political with no merit and little or no evidence, whereas the e-mail controversy had some legitimacy to looking into further and a case for investigating wrong-doing. It was a "clean" narrative because what Clinton did wasn't proper procedure, and possibly dangerous to national security.

 

[RebSaint]

I've got one even better. If voters and politicians alike were interested in removing a lot of soft and hard corruption, or whatever kinds of chicanery from politics on either side, they would support severely limiting the flow of money into the political system from corporations and special interests.

But we have the Citizens United v. FEC to live with indefinitely now.

 

[superchuck500]

I think this summary is a great, concise way to describe the difference.

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Clinton's use of private servers to send sensitive state-dept. e-mails was a prosecutable offense, but since no real criminal "intent" was provable (or evidence revealed that it was sheer incompetence) there was an argument made that such oversight and negligence was enough to merit not touching the White House with a 10 ft. pole; The e-mail controversy, combined with the other shadiness in general that has come from the Clintons was enough to put ding-dong in the White House.

The point is that the butter e-mails investigation and controversy was a seriously bad look for Clinton and revealed a carelessness that someone who is the Sec'y of State should not have. It had some teeth, but of course the right wingers wanted her burned at the stake for something that was pretty bad, but not deserving of the moniker "crooked Hillary" At worse, it revealed incompetence.

This stuff on Hunter Biden, and by association, Joe Biden seems to be based on a lot of speculation with no evidence and completely political with no merit and little or no evidence, whereas the e-mail controversy had some legitimacy to looking into further and a case for investigating wrong-doing. It was a "clean" narrative because what Clinton did wasn't proper procedure, and possibly dangerous to national security.

The problem with the whole Clinton email server thing is that similar deviations in security protocol in the Trump administration have gotten no response. Trump regularly uses a non-secure cell phone for official communications. Jared and Ivanka have conducted official business by personal email and What’sApp.

The vast majority of the “lock her up!” crowd never really cared about federal information security lapses - that issue only gave them narrative on which to focus their strong anti-Hillary sentiment. They weren’t screaming “lock her up” because they thought she committed information security crimes, they screamed it because they wanted her to go to jail for being her.

 

[wardorican]

I think this summary is a great, concise way to describe the difference.

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Clinton's use of private servers to send sensitive state-dept. e-mails was a prosecutable offense, but since no real criminal "intent" was provable (or evidence revealed that it was sheer incompetence) there was an argument made that such oversight and negligence was enough to merit not touching the White House with a 10 ft. pole; The e-mail controversy, combined with the other shadiness in general that has come from the Clintons was enough to put ding-dong in the White House.

The point is that the butter e-mails investigation and controversy was a seriously bad look for Clinton and revealed a carelessness that someone who is the Sec'y of State should not have. It had some teeth, but of course the right wingers wanted her burned at the stake for something that was pretty bad, but not deserving of the moniker "crooked Hillary" At worse, it revealed incompetence.

This stuff on Hunter Biden, and by association, Joe Biden seems to be based on a lot of speculation with no evidence and completely political with no merit and little or no evidence, whereas the e-mail controversy had some legitimacy to looking into further and a case for investigating wrong-doing. It was a "clean" narrative because what Clinton did wasn't proper procedure, and possibly dangerous to national security.

And to be fair, it was Sec Clinton's staffer, who was sending her the e-mails at home for phone call scheduling that included the partially classified snips. If anyone should have gotten into trouble, it was her, but she got immunity because people wanted to harpoon Clinton.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Thank you for this!!! He has repeatedly stated that he is talking about corruption but it's not illegal. I'm pretty sure by definition "corruption" is a criminal act and that is more true for elected officials because there are laws and regulations they are legally bound to uphold. It seems to me that he doesn't understand the difference between corruption and unethical.

Corruption is not by definition illegal. A dishonest, but legal abuse of legal power is also corrupt.

Definition of CORRUPTION

dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity; inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery); a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Corruption is not by definition illegal. A dishonest, but legal abuse of legal power is also corrupt.

Definition of CORRUPTION

dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity; inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery); a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Yeah, I didn't look it up, but after reading that definition I find it hard to find an instance where one would find an action corrupt but legal, especially when dealing with elected officials or law enforcement because of additional statutes that they must adhere to.