Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (7 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.

 

[SystemShock]

But I think the people in our country that follow the republican way aren't as likely to be brainwashed by the media and politicians on the left.

"Now, I don't care who you are, that's funny right there".

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

"Now, I don't care who you are, that's funny right there".

I don't know, this is fracking hilarious as well:

Rep. Jim Jordan: Voters not knowing about Hunter Biden probe before election 'is just wrong'

The media and the American people should have known about the federal investigation into President-elect Joe Biden's son Hunter prior to last month's presidential election, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said on Friday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

UncleTrvlingJim
I really don't know why you have to ask this question. Our country has been run by big money for many years and it's only getting worse. We see the corruption in the politicians all the time.Not only in our country but all over the world. For a very long time maybe always Presidents have made campaign promises that they never plan to keep. They take bribes to get into the white house and call it campaign funds.The media and the rich people want to keep getting richer so they spin tales that are untrue to keep on the good side of other money people. It will only get worse. It's called Greed.

I voted for Trump even though he is corrupt. They all are.I'm feel I'm just choosing the less of two evil's. He is corrupt but doesn't have China and all the big power behind him. Biden is corrupt but he has all the power people behind him. I think The Biden dealings with China alone would say me from voting for him.

So, there are a couple of things that I want to dissect with this, and it's going to be a bit jumbled, because I don't want to completely take away from the point of Hunter Biden, since that is the main topic of this thread. But basically, whenever I hear someone voted for Trump because of concerns of corruption, or defends Trump but also goes hard after Biden/Clinton over corruption, my initial thought is I don't really believe they actually care about corruption.

To me it defies belief that someone would look at Trump and Biden in terms of corruption/vulnerability to corruption and figure that Trump comes out on top in that comparison. And I'll provide my reasoning.

We've built up a set of best practices over the years to help make sure a politician avoids a conflict of interest and to help us believe that they are pursuing policies that benefit the country first and themselves second. Those practices include, releasing your tax information, putting your money in a blind trust, avoiding nepotism. Trump does not adhere to any of those practices. He has not released his taxes, he still owns all his business that are subject to international influence, he puts his children and their spouses in positions of public trust. So, while those norms and traditions are not perfect and won't guarantee that there is never any corruption, it's a good place to start, and Trump would not even adhere to those - and Biden has in the past and says he will continue to do so.

I think we should agree, that priority to rooting out corruption should be given to those currently in power. Ie, we should be more worried about those who might be abusing power right now than those we fear might abuse power in the future. Yet during the Trump years, we heard nothing from those who supposedly cared about corruption from Clinton or Biden. We heard nothing when the Kushner's were negotiating a loan from Qatar at the same time the Trump administration was supporting a Saudi blockade of Qatar - which coincidentally eased after the Kushner's received a loan from a Qatari backed company. We heard nothing when Ivanka got trademarks from China while her father was negotiating trade agreements with China. We heard nothing about Trump's property and financial interests when Trump pulls out of Syria to Turkey's benefit. We've heard nothing about Trump's financial obligations to foreign lenders. Nothing.

So forgive me if I don't believe you actually care about corruption.

And it sucks, because the nominal issue is actually worth discussing. Having a son who has financial interests tied up with foreign investors is a vulnerability. But it's also not illegal. So, it's hard to have a discussion with people who turned a blind eye to Trump's norm breaking on financial entanglements, because I don't believe they really care about the issue. Their chance to show their commitment to the issue was WHILE TRUMP IS PRESIDENT. Not after. During. They had a chance to say "We support his policies, but this is an important issue, and corruption is more important to deal with than a tax cut or whatever, so we're going to put pressure on our own guy - to get him to commit to the norms and standards we have - or even to strengthen them." But they didn't.

So, now it's the Democrats turn to show if they care about the issue. What rules are they going to put in place. We're pretty sure that Hunter won't be joining the administration. So that's one benefit. Hunter himself has said that he would not have any foreign business dealings while his dad is president - so we can watch to see if that holds true (the Trump sons said the same thing, but did not stick to it). We know what debts Joe Biden has (none right now). He doesn't own any businesses and he has promised to put his assets into a blind trust - and we can watch to verify if he keeps that promise.

The Democrats are certainly not paragons of virtue on this issue - but whenever something comes to light that we don't like, they've shown that they can be shamed into conforming to more traditional norms of avoid conflict of interest. Is that as good as avoiding it in the first place - of course. But I'll take that all day over someone who basically says "fork off" when criticized on the same issue.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I've forgot to point out - that whenever the Burisma/Ukraine/Hunter thing was brought up by a Republican. I would say that I understand the concern, and would right now support a policy that forbid's high level political leaders and their immediate family from having financial dealings with foreign governments and businesses.

And I was met with crickets. Because Trump and his family have direct financial commitments and businesses with foreign governments. That told me all I need to know - they don't actually care about the issue.

 

[Saintamaniac]

And I was met with crickets. Because Trump and his family have direct financial commitments and businesses with foreign governments. That told me all I need to know - they don't actually care about the issue.

Oh they care about the issue. They just only care about the issue as it applies to Democrats. Republicans actually believe that they can do no wrong. When was the last time that a Republican held a Republican accountable for ANYTHING without the other side having to demonstrate the rank hypocrisy being demonstrated by Republicans?

"The rules are for thee and not for me" is the overarching political belief system of the Republicans. It is what enables one to come here with a straight face and admit Trump's corruption and ignore the mountain of REAL evidence of said corruption and then proceed to completely make up allegations of corruption by Joe Biden and democrats.

 

[FullMonte]

I don't know, this is fracking hilarious as well:

Rep. Jim Jordan: Voters not knowing about Hunter Biden probe before election 'is just wrong'

The media and the American people should have known about the federal investigation into President-elect Joe Biden's son Hunter prior to last month's presidential election, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said on Friday.

www.foxnews.com

I am 100% certain he felt exactly the same way about Loretta Lynch keeping the investigation into Trump's campaign for coordinating with a hostile government secret as he does about Barr keeping the investigation into Joe Biden's son for financial crimes secret.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[bdb13]

Sure I've posted something like this before but even though I clearly hate Trump, the immediate unanimity from 'left leaning media' in calling the Hunter Biden allegations "Russian disinformation" struck me at the time as a pretty transparent and rather sweeping dismissal and that, for obvious political reasons, the story was not of interest to be further investigated at that particular time. Not saying I wasn't skeptical of the veracity myself considering Rudy's involvement, but the general lack of curiosity to find out what, if anything, happened was pretty apparent.

 

[RobF]

Man, I knew Greenwald had been losing the plot for a while, but I hadn't quite appreciated he'd become that much of a bitter hack.

As he quotes above, the media did report that 'dozens of former intelligence officials' had signed a letter 'warning Hunter Biden story could be Russian disinformation' - because that's what happened. But the letter explicitly said they didn't know it was Russian disinformation or whether the emails were genuine or not, noting also that releasing accurate information is a possibility, which was also reported. So even on the face of it, he's misrepresenting what was actually said by deliberately conflating, "Caution, this could be Russian disinformation and may or may not be genuine" with "This is Russian disinformation and is entirely false", which are absolutely not the same thing.

He's falsely asserting they lied: they did not. You could argue they deliberately tried to frame the story as dubious, but considering the source of it was a laptop abandoned and then reaching the NYPost via Rudy Giuliani, there's no framing involved there, it looked incredibly dodgy right off the bat.

And that said, the implication is also that they did nothing but report that. And that is false. First, Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence at the time, also stated that there was no intelligence to support that Russian disinformation efforts were connected to the emails. The media reported that too. Secondly, Greenwald cites multiple outlets, for example, he cites NBC News. OK, well, this is from NBC News in October 2020:

Here's why the media isn't reporting on the Hunter Biden emails

Analysis: Trump complains the media isn't reporting on Hunter Biden's emails. But NBC News met obstacles, including Rudy Giuliani, when it tried.

www.nbcnews.com

It pretty comprehensively covers the story, notes that NBC News themselves were refused copies of the laptop hard drive or the full set of emails, so were unable to confirm the authenticity themselves limiting their reporting but also covers what the WSJ and Fox News who did have access reported, which, well, wasn't much (e.g. from Fox at the time). Because even taking the emails as genuine, they weren't particularly interesting. That is, the reality was the media covering what was being said, and reporting what they were able to confirm and what was newsworthy. It was not the media stating it was definitively Russian disinformation, which, no, not so much, and nothing else.

So he's demonstrably misrepresenting what happened at the time.

And how about not covering this book out now?

And from what he's shared, he's really overselling it. Because the excerpts he has there are two anonymous people confirming the authenticity of some of the emails, a FOI request with the National Property Board of Sweden confirming emails involving them are real, and that a 'third person who had independent access' confirming that that the emails published by the NYPost related to Burisma matched the substance of emails, but even then it has to note that "this person was not in a position to compare the published emails word-for-word to the originals".

So he's just wildly setting up a false premise - that the emails were ignored entirely by the media at the time, which they were not, on the grounds that they were definitively Russian disinformation, which was never a position the media took - and then trying to argue that a book which shows that some of the emails were genuine, and that the reported ones are broadly accurate in substance according to a 'third person', is somehow a game changer... which it isn't, because his premise is false from the start.

 

[bdb13]

Man, I knew Greenwald had been losing the plot for a while, but I hadn't quite appreciated he'd become that much of a bitter hack.

As he quotes above, the media did report that 'dozens of former intelligence officials' had signed a letter 'warning Hunter Biden story could be Russian disinformation' - because that's what happened. But the letter explicitly said they didn't know it was Russian disinformation or whether the emails were genuine or not, noting also that releasing accurate information is a possibility, which was also reported. So even on the face of it, he's misrepresenting what was actually said by deliberately conflating, "Caution, this could be Russian disinformation and may or may not be genuine" with "This is Russian disinformation and is entirely false", which are absolutely not the same thing.

He's falsely asserting they lied: they did not. You could argue they deliberately tried to frame the story as dubious, but considering the source of it was a laptop abandoned and then reaching the NYPost via Rudy Giuliani, there's no framing involved there, it looked incredibly dodgy right off the bat.

And that said, the implication is also that they did nothing but report that. And that is false. First, Ratcliffe, the Direction of National Intelligence at the time, also stated that there was no intelligence to support that Russian disinformation efforts were connected to the emails. The media reported that too. Secondly, Greenwald cites multiple outlets, for example, he cites NBC News. OK, well, this is from NBC News in October 2020:

Here's why the media isn't reporting on the Hunter Biden emails

Analysis: Trump complains the media isn't reporting on Hunter Biden's emails. But NBC News met obstacles, including Rudy Giuliani, when it tried.

www.nbcnews.com

It pretty comprehensively covers the story, notes that NBC News themselves were refused copies of the laptop hard drive or the full set of emails, so were unable to confirm the authenticity themselves limiting their reporting but also covers what the WSJ and Fox News who did have access reported, which, well, wasn't much (e.g. from Fox at the time). Because even taking the emails as genuine, they weren't particularly interesting. That is, the reality was the media covering what was being said, and reporting what they were able to confirm and what was newsworthy, It was not the media stating it was definitively Russian disinformation, which, no, not so much, and nothing else.

So he's demonstrably misrepresenting what happened at the time.

And how about not covering this book out now?

And from what he's shared, he's really overselling it. Because the excerpts he has there are two anonymous people confirming the authenticity of some of the emails, a FOI request with the National Property Board of Sweden confirming emails involving them are real, and that a 'third person who had independent access' confirming that that the emails published by the NYPost related to Burisma matched the substance of emails, but even then it has to note that "this person was not in a position to compare the published emails word-for-word to the originals".

So he's just wildly setting up a false premise - that the emails were ignored entirely by the media at the time, which they were not, on the grounds that they were definitively Russian disinformation, which was never a position the media took - and then trying to argue that a book which shows that some of the emails were genuine, and that the keys ones are broadly accurate in substance according to a 'third person', is somehow a game changer... which it isn't, because his premise is false from the start.

Greenwald isn't any better than anyone else that does this stuff. He has an axe that he can't help but to grind and as a result even when he has a point he's over the top and subject to hyperbole and parroting BS as much as the people he criticizes.

 

[MT15]

No, Greenwald is among the worst, Brandon. He’s way off the charts as a political hack. He should be roundly ignored, and he generally is by most folks. He’s not a journalist by trade, he has zero journalism ethics.

 

[J-DONK]

No, Greenwald is among the worst, Brandon. He’s way off the charts as a political hack. He should be roundly ignored, and he generally is by most folks. He’s not a journalist by trade, he has zero journalism ethics.

This board is nuts. Have you scholars of the internet stopped for one second to think Glenn Greenwald may have a unique perspective, and qualifications to discuss the smearing of leaks(leakers), and their distribution.

All those outlets did run with it being a Russian disinformation campaign, and tried hand wave the entire issue away. You can try to parse the letter now, but the headlines are there for everyone to see.

I can completely understand Glenn feeling some kind of twisted at Jim Clapper(who very obviously lied to Congress) once again making stuff up.

I mean lets try to have a deeper discussion into this instead of just trying to attack to the source.

Why do you think Jim Clapper, and those others released a letter trying to float the leak as Russian disinformation? The source was a laptop that to anyone's knowledge never left America, nor was in possession of a foreign government.

I feel like I must be taking crazy pills. I have a memory of twitter censoring this story when it broke. The argument that this was reportedly on fairly and accurately in mainstream media is laughable. There was a concerted effort to squash this story from the very beginning.

 

[MT15]

I don’t care enough about this to have a deeper discussion, sorry. Glenn has sacrificed his integrity to carry the banner of his new found conservative audience. He won’t mention anything that would displease them. So no, I don’t care about him or what he has to say.

 

[samiam5211]

This board is nuts. Have you scholars of the internet stopped for one second to think Glenn Greenwald may have a unique perspective, and qualifications to discuss the smearing of leaks(leakers), and their distribution.

All those outlets did run with it being a Russian disinformation campaign, and tried hand wave the entire issue away. You can try to parse the letter now, but the headlines are there for everyone to see.

I can completely understand Glenn feeling some kind of twisted at Jim Clapper(who very obviously lied to Congress) once again making stuff up.

I mean lets try to have a deeper discussion into this instead of just trying to attack to the source.

Why do you think Jim Clapper, and those others released a letter trying to float the leak as Russian disinformation? The source was a laptop that to anyone's knowledge never left America, nor was in possession of a foreign government.

I feel like I must be taking crazy pills. I have a memory of twitter censoring this story when it broke. The argument that this was reportedly on fairly and accurately in mainstream media is laughable. There was a concerted effort to squash this story from the very beginning.

I think the problem here is that while much of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal was true, there was also stuff floating around during that time that wasn't true.

I saw posts on right wing forums about there being a video of Hunter Biden having sex with his niece. I'm sure that isn't true.

You could even say that the media learned their lesson from the Trump Russia stuff, that lies get sprinkled in with the truth and once all that stuff gets put into the public discourse, it becomes impossible to separate the true part from the disinformation.


Regardless, we're forked as a society. We are always going to be so overwhelmed with information that it will be impossible to separate the truth from lies.

 

[bdb13]

This board is nuts. Have you scholars of the internet stopped for one second to think Glenn Greenwald may have a unique perspective, and qualifications to discuss the smearing of leaks(leakers), and their distribution.

All those outlets did run with it being a Russian disinformation campaign, and tried hand wave the entire issue away. You can try to parse the letter now, but the headlines are there for everyone to see.

I can completely understand Glenn feeling some kind of twisted at Jim Clapper(who very obviously lied to Congress) once again making stuff up.

I mean lets try to have a deeper discussion into this instead of just trying to attack to the source.

Why do you think Jim Clapper, and those others released a letter trying to float the leak as Russian disinformation? The source was a laptop that to anyone's knowledge never left America, nor was in possession of a foreign government.

I feel like I must be taking crazy pills. I have a memory of twitter censoring this story when it broke. The argument that this was reportedly on fairly and accurately in mainstream media is laughable.

There's no question that there was an orchestrated effort to summarily dismiss the story in left leaning/mainstream media and social media as Russian disinformation that shouldn't be paid any attention. What they were doing was pretty transparent and the reasoning behind why it was done is obvious and yeah, it's all bad.

I don't follow Greenwald closely and I don't just dismiss what he says because it's him or anything.. but I wish he wouldn't cite people like Tucker Carlson who I know also just makes shirt up sometimes.

 

[MT15]

This board is nuts. Have you scholars of the internet stopped for one second to think Glenn Greenwald may have a unique perspective, and qualifications to discuss the smearing of leaks(leakers), and their distribution.

All those outlets did run with it being a Russian disinformation campaign, and tried hand wave the entire issue away. You can try to parse the letter now, but the headlines are there for everyone to see.

I can completely understand Glenn feeling some kind of twisted at Jim Clapper(who very obviously lied to Congress) once again making stuff up.

I mean lets try to have a deeper discussion into this instead of just trying to attack to the source.

Why do you think Jim Clapper, and those others released a letter trying to float the leak as Russian disinformation? The source was a laptop that to anyone's knowledge never left America, nor was in possession of a foreign government.

I feel like I must be taking crazy pills. I have a memory of twitter censoring this story when it broke. The argument that this was reportedly on fairly and accurately in mainstream media is laughable. There was a concerted effort to squash this story from the very beginning.

Did you miss Rob’s post on the context? You seem to have, since you are saying we need a deeper discussion yet you ignore the one substantive post to quote me, lol.

 

[coldseat]

All I'm sure of is that I'm still as uninterested in this story as I was during the election. Still don't know why this matters, what exactly it has to do with President Biden (not Hunter) or why this would have changed anybodies votes.

Sorry, but after 2016, nobody was going to be interested in a hyped up email "scandal" from a dubious source or let that effect their vote. One published book and Greenwald having a melt down on twitter isn't going to change that.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

These people who style themselves as 'outside the mainstream media' are just as big of grifters as those inside. They are merely panhandling to a different audience.