Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (3 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.

 

[samiam5211]

@UncleTrvlingJim did a great job showing that the media was in fact not covering the Steele Dossier at all at this point in that story. It was months later before they started covering it (after the Buzzfeed story) despite the fact that it was circulating 6 months earlier.

The premise itself has been proven faulty but UTJ's great work on that has been completely ignored.

I know, but that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.

He's basically complaining because the media won’t do the same thing he’s spent the past few years complaining about them doing.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The issue is that the media extensively covered the Steele Dossier with many stories despite it being unverified or not confirmed while they refuse to cover this story because it's not confirmed or unverified. Can you explain that? What's the difference besides one story involved Trump and one involved Biden?

Again, you are ignoring what I wrote. I am saying the media did NOT write extensively about the Steele dossier. I posted a timeline with articles I found, I did searches through the archives on all major media timelines, and they did NOT write about the Steele dossier. I then asked you to show me what you mean - like a link to an article written by the media you are complaining about between July 2016 and February 2017. Heck you can go longer if you want, but you are then really stretching it.

Again, the media did NOT, I repeat did NOT write about the Steele dossier. The first article was written by Mother Jones on October 31st (about 2 months after it was already an open secret among journalists). And the Mother Jones did not list the specific allegations, only that it existed. Then nothing until January, when CNN reported it's existence but that they would not repeat the allegations b/c they weren't verified. And then Buzzfeed posted the allegations. And then the Washington Post condemned Buzzfeed for doing so.

So, if you have other information, please post it, otherwise stop making that claim.

 

[SaintForLife]

It would also be easier to take it seriously if they had just one genuine news outlet verify any of it. But, we have in fact the opposite. Fox News and WSJ said there isn’t any smoking gun pointing to Joe Biden’s involvement in anything illegal or even unethical. Hunter isn’t running, it’s just that simple.

Oh, and didn’t Fox lawyers recently defend Tucker in court by saying he shouldn’t be taken seriously? He’s not a serious person. And we shouldn’t take him seriously.

Rachel Maddow made that same argument when she was sued for saying an OAN story was "literally paid Russian propaganda."

Rachel Maddow: “Russian Propaganda” Just Opinion; Defamation Suit Fails

The MSNBC host is being sued by One America News over what she said on her show on July 22.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And right now, I can find articles on CNN, Washington Post and so on mentioning Hunter Biden's laptop and Bobulinski. So in fact, there is MORE information about Hunter Biden's laptop on "mainstream media" websites at this point in the cycle than there were about the Steele dossier at the same point.

Again, if you have evidence that says otherwise please post it.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Rachel Maddow made that same argument when she was sued for saying an OAN story was "literally paid Russian propaganda."

Rachel Maddow: “Russian Propaganda” Just Opinion; Defamation Suit Fails

The MSNBC host is being sued by One America News over what she said on her show on July 22.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Yep, and you can point that out anytime someone uses Rachel Maddow as a source of information.

 

[SaintForLife]

Again, you are ignoring what I wrote. I am saying the media did NOT write extensively about the Steele dossier. I posted a timeline with articles I found, I did searches through the archives on all major media timelines, and they did NOT write about the Steele dossier. I then asked you to show me what you mean - like a link to an article written by the media you are complaining about between July 2016 and February 2017. Heck you can go longer if you want, but you are then really stretching it.

Again, the media did NOT, I repeat did NOT write about the Steele dossier. The first article was written by Mother Jones on October 31st (about 2 months after it was already an open secret among journalists). And the Mother Jones did not list the specific allegations, only that it existed. Then nothing until January, when CNN reported it's existence but that they would not repeat the allegations b/c they weren't verified. And then Buzzfeed posted the allegations. And then the Washington Post condemned Buzzfeed for doing so.

So, if you have other information, please post it, otherwise stop making that claim.

I didn't ignore what you said. Why are you talking about a timeline? Are you saying they didn't write articles on the Steele Dossier until Buzzfeed published it? I'm seriously confused on what your point is.

Jake Tapper was upset that Buzzfeed published the Steele Dossier as well:

I think your move makes the story less serious and credible[.] I think you damaged its impact,” Tapper wrote in an email to Smith on Jan. 10, 2017.

Emails Reveal Jake Tapper Ripping BuzzFeed Editor Ben Smith as ‘Irresponsible’ For Publishing Trump Dossier

CNN's Jake Tapper sent BuzzFeed News editor in chief Ben Smith a furious email after the outlet made the controversial decision to publish the Steele dossier on President Donald Trump. According to emails -- released Friday as part of a lawsuit against BuzzFeed and obtained by the Daily Caller...

www-mediaite-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[SaintForLife]

And right now, I can find articles on CNN, Washington Post and so on mentioning Hunter Biden's laptop and Bobulinski. So in fact, there is MORE information about Hunter Biden's laptop on "mainstream media" websites at this point in the cycle than there were about the Steele dossier at the same point.

Again, if you have evidence that says otherwise please post it.

Are you talking about the reporting on the Steele Dossier before the 2016 election in relation to the Hunter Biden story and the 2020 election?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I didn't ignore what you said. Why are you talking about a timeline? Are you saying they didn't write articles on the Steele Dossier until Buzzfeed published it? I'm seriously confused on what your point is.

Jake Tapper was upset that Buzzfeed published the Steele Dossier as well:

I think your move makes the story less serious and credible[.] I think you damaged its impact,” Tapper wrote in an email to Smith on Jan. 10, 2017.

Emails Reveal Jake Tapper Ripping BuzzFeed Editor Ben Smith as ‘Irresponsible’ For Publishing Trump Dossier

CNN's Jake Tapper sent BuzzFeed News editor in chief Ben Smith a furious email after the outlet made the controversial decision to publish the Steele dossier on President Donald Trump. According to emails -- released Friday as part of a lawsuit against BuzzFeed and obtained by the Daily Caller...

www-mediaite-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Right, I'm saying I posted a timeline of when the media started posting articles about the Steele Dossier. The media was aware that the dossier existed around August and September of 2016. The first article didn't appear until October 31, 2016 and that was by Mother Jones (not exactly a major player). And it didn't even mention any details, only that it existed.

And then nothing for 3 more months, and that was by buzzfeed, and the media complained about it and said they were wrong for doing so.

So, where is the hypocrisy?

Show me an article written by "the media" between July 2016 and February 2017 about the Steele dossier.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Are you talking about the reporting on the Steele Dossier before the 2016 election in relation to the Hunter Biden story and the 2020 election?

I'm saying from the time the Dossier was known to exist which was August/September 2016 and when the media reported on it and on how they reported it.

They didn't report on it for months, and when they did they did not report on the details, only that it existed and that it was handed to the FBI.

 

[superchuck500]

Lol. Media Matters. You know if I posted things from the Media Research Center you would be complaining about their bias. I'm not surprised that she didn't tweet that UPS found the package considering how MMFA operates. He said he had backups, but was still concerned that the package was missing.

UPS says it found the lost cache of documents that Tucker Carlson claimed would damage Joe Biden's campaign

UPS said it found a set of documents that Carlson talked about on his show. He said they had gotten lost in transit and were damaging to Biden.

www.businessinsider.com

I have questions about the Tucker UPS thing. Why didn't he postulate a theory? Was the shipment tampered with by some agent of the Biden family? Was the Deep State (e.g. FBI) involved in this crime? If so, what tipped them off about the shipment (Tucker said they regularly send material by UPS that presumably isn't tampered with) - was it a wiretap or some kind of surveillance? Or was it someone on the inside at UPS? But again, what distinguished this package from the typical packages that Fox News producers send in the ordinary course of their business?

I think it's easy to say that he doesn't know so he shouldn't say - and he certainly shouldn't allege any crime if he doesn't know enough to believe one happened. But the insinuation is rather thick - he wants his viewers be suspicious that something happened. But what exactly?

I have observed this to be a theme in the world of right-wing conspiracy (either the purely political kind like Seth Rich to Deep State, or the more sinister kind, such as what QAnon peddles). Far more often than not, these ideas are floated via vague conjecture that something nefarious happened. But what that might actually be is left to the imagination (the predictable, even seeded imagination) of that target audience.

And to be real, it's probably in part due to the fact that regularly articulating what these insinuations actually are would sound ridiculous to the more rational audience . . . so there's more currency in the insinuation, a subtext of sorts that the believers will follow in an instant, but that doesn't necessarily turn off the rest of the audience.

 

[SaintForLife]

Right, I'm saying I posted a timeline of when the media started posting articles about the Steele Dossier. The media was aware that the dossier existed around August and September of 2016. The first article didn't appear until October 31, 2016 and that was by Mother Jones (not exactly a major player). And it didn't even mention any details, only that it existed.

And then nothing for 3 more months, and that was by buzzfeed, and the media complained about it and said they were wrong for doing so.

So, where is the hypocrisy?

Show me an article written by "the media" between July 2016 and February 2017 about the Steele dossier.

The media published a bunch of stories on the Steele Dossier after it was published by Buzzfeed. It was still unverified even after Buzzfeed published it. Why does it matter that they didn't publish articles on it until Buzzfeed published it?

When the Hunter Biden story was published by the New York Post it included emails, text messages and pictures. Why wouldn't the media be free to investigate it's credibility after the emails and text messages were made public? Is there a specific time frame that the media must wait until they decide to investigate the story?

We also have one of the people in the email who has been interviewed by the FBI, turned over the text messages and emails to the FBI, and did a lengthy interview on national TV where he goes into specific details about the story. Joe or Hunter still haven't claimed the emails or texts are inaccurate. Isn't all that enough for the media to look into it?

Did Facebook and Twitter block Buzzfeed from posting their article about the Steele Dossier? Was Buzzfeeds profile locked on Twitter like the New York Post's account still is?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The media published a bunch of stories on the Steele Dossier after it was published by Buzzfeed. It was still unverified even after Buzzfeed published it. Why does it matter that they didn't publish articles on it until Buzzfeed published it?

When the Hunter Biden story was published by the New York Post it included emails, text messages and pictures. Why wouldn't the media be free to investigate it's credibility after the emails and text messages were made public? Is there a specific time frame that the media must wait until they decide to investigate the story?

We also have one of the people in the email who has been interviewed by the FBI, turned over the text messages and emails to the FBI, and did a lengthy interview on national TV where he goes into specific details about the story. Joe or Hunter still haven't claimed the emails or texts are inaccurate. Isn't all that enough for the media to look into it?

Did Facebook and Twitter block Buzzfeed from posting their article about the Steele Dossier? Was Buzzfeeds profile locked on Twitter like the New York Post's account still is?

One, the media knew about the Steele Dossier for months but did not report on it because they could not verify it.

Two, after Buzzfeed published the details, they still REFUSED to publish unverified details about it. They reported on its existences. Just like right now, I can go to CNN and WashingtonPost and so on and find articles about the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop. Again, right now, I can go to CNN and every other major outlet and find articles about the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop and the general tact about it. So your claim that they aren't reporting on it is false.

Three, why are you assuming they are not investigating it right now?

Again, show me an article from say January or February of 2017 about the Steele Dossier that shows the media reported on the two stories differently. And remember, right now I can go to CNN and pull up an article talking about the Hunter Biden laptop.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Oh, and forgot about Twitter - what policy of Twitter did Buzzfeed break? Twitter said that the NYPost's account would be unlocked as soon as the delete the original tweet, and they are allowed to tweet the same thing again right after. At this point, the NY Post is choosing to not have a Twitter account.

Twitter has already said they should have revised their policy and have now done so.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Oh, and forgot about Twitter - what policy of Twitter did Buzzfeed break? Twitter said that the NYPost's account would be unlocked as soon as the delete the original tweet, and they are allowed to tweet the same thing again right after. At this point, the NY Post is choosing to not have a Twitter account.

Twitter has already said they should have revised their policy and have now done so.

Also, the hacked materials policy was created in 2018. It wasn’t in place during the time of the Buzzfeed story.

 

[SaintForLife]

One, the media knew about the Steele Dossier for months but did not report on it because they could not verify it.

Two, after Buzzfeed published the details, they still REFUSED to publish unverified details about it. They reported on its existences. Just like right now, I can go to CNN and WashingtonPost and so on and find articles about the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop. Again, right now, I can go to CNN and every other major outlet and find articles about the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop and the general tact about it. So your claim that they aren't reporting on it is false.

Three, why are you assuming they are not investigating it right now?

Again, show me an article from say January or February of 2017 about the Steele Dossier that shows the media reported on the two stories differently. And remember, right now I can go to CNN and pull up an article talking about the Hunter Biden laptop.

The media has done some minimal reporting on it now, but the story was ignored until recently. The only media outlets that reported on it initially were the New York Post, Fox News and one other outlet which I think was the Washington Times.

The Steele Dossier has NEVER been verified. That didn't stop the media from breathlessly reporting on it.

 

[SaintForLife]

Oh, and forgot about Twitter - what policy of Twitter did Buzzfeed break? Twitter said that the NYPost's account would be unlocked as soon as the delete the original tweet, and they are allowed to tweet the same thing again right after. At this point, the NY Post is choosing to not have a Twitter account.

Twitter has already said they should have revised their policy and have now done so.

The idiotic Twitter policy that they changed after a lot of criticism wouldn't have allowed the Pentagon Papers, the Snowden news, etc to be posted.

Their claim that the New York Post can Tweet the exact same material now after deleting the original story is assine and makes zero sense.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The media has done some minimal reporting on it now, but the story was ignored until recently. The only media outlets that reported on it initially were the New York Post, Fox News and one other outlet which I think was the Washington Times.

The Steele Dossier has NEVER been verified. That didn't stop the media from breathlessly reporting on it.

Again, put up or shut up on claiming breathless reporting on the Steele Dossier. They sat on it for months, and then hardly posted anything for the next two months after Buzzfeed.

Show me that they posted more on the Steele Dossier than they are on the Biden laptop.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The idiotic Twitter policy that they changed after a lot of criticism wouldn't have allowed the Pentagon Papers, the Snowden news, etc to be posted.

Their claim that the New York Post can Tweet the exact same material now after deleting the original story is assine and makes zero sense.

Right, it was a policy they instituted in 2018 and then admitted it was wrong after being criticized for it.