Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    SaintForLife

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    7,313
    Reaction score
    3,404
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    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.
    nypost.com

    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 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.
     
    MT15 said:
    They touched it before the election too - they just didn’t do the salacious stuff that the far right was pushing. Because it wasn’t verified and still isn’t.

    I posted a story from NYT from October 2020, I think it was in this thread. If not this one, it’s in the Media thread. It’s just not true that it wasn’t covered.
    Click to expand...
    I've never said Nobody covered it all, but there was censorship with Facebook & Twitter, the rest of the media was calling it disinformation along with the 50 intelligence officials. It was a coordinated effort between the media, big tech, democrats and the intelligence agencies to make sure Biden won. Oh you found one article that covered it.

    The Steele Dossier was never verified. Did that stop anyone from reporting on it?
     
    SaintForLife said:
    I've never said Nobody covered it all, but there was censorship with Facebook & Twitter, the rest of the media was calling it disinformation along with the 50 intelligence officials. It was a coordinated effort between the media, big tech, democrats and the intelligence agencies to make sure Biden won. Oh you found one article that covered it.

    The Steele Dossier was never verified. Did that stop anyone from reporting on it?
    Click to expand...

    So weird how nobody reported on it but everybody knew about it.

    I guess you just want us all to care as much as you do about it. I don't think that's going to happen.
     
    Facebook and Twitter are not the news media. That this has to be pointed out is very telling on what is considered a news source.

    Twitter and Facebook are a platform that is privately owned and not obliged to serve anyone they do not choose to. All legal.

    Oh you worried about stuff being covered fairly? Your Benghazi is showing.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    I've never said Nobody covered it all, but there was censorship with Facebook & Twitter, the rest of the media was calling it disinformation along with the 50 intelligence officials. It was a coordinated effort between the media, big tech, democrats and the intelligence agencies to make sure Biden won. Oh you found one article that covered it.

    The Steele Dossier was never verified. Did that stop anyone from reporting on it?
    Click to expand...
    Hunter’s laptop was covered in far more than one article. It was covered as much as it deserved, considering that:

    1. Nobody actually had the laptop except the FBI and they weren’t releasing any information.
    2. Rudy and/or other unsavory characters were the ones claiming they had a copy.

    BTW: Remember when Tucker had some documents that would prove all this and mailed them himself or something and then they just disappeared? That was bizarre.

    As for FB and Twitter, they can do whatever they want with their websites. It’s called free speech and freedom of association. They’re protected in that by our Bill of Rights.

    Since Rudy was at that time running around Ukraine collecting Russian disinformation and trying to pass it off, I’m not surprised people thought the story about the laptop was just more of the same. Especially because the guy with the computer shop was a bit shady and his story changed a couple of times.

    Another obsession of yours: the Steele dossier. It was covered for what it was. I never, ever read any article about it that didn’t have a prominent statement that it was unverified. 🤷‍♀️
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Were you around for the election? Nobody is talking about current censorship.
    Click to expand...
    There was no censorship by the news media. Half of the news media covered it extensively and somewhat dishonestly. Half of the news media covered it for what it was - an unverified story from some very dishonest people.
     
    MT15 said:
    Hunter’s laptop was covered in far more than one article. It was covered as much as it deserved, considering that:

    1. Nobody actually had the laptop except the FBI and they weren’t releasing any information.
    2. Rudy and/or other unsavory characters were the ones claiming they had a copy.

    BTW: Remember when Tucker had some documents that would prove all this and mailed them himself or something and then they just disappeared? That was bizarre.

    As for FB and Twitter, they can do whatever they want with their websites. It’s called free speech and freedom of association. They’re protected in that by our Bill of Rights.

    Since Rudy was at that time running around Ukraine collecting Russian disinformation and trying to pass it off, I’m not surprised people thought the story about the laptop was just more of the same. Especially because the guy with the computer shop was a bit shady and his story changed a couple of times.

    Another obsession of yours: the Steele dossier. It was covered for what it was. I never, ever read any article about it that didn’t have a prominent statement that it was unverified. 🤷‍♀️
    Click to expand...
    Forgive me for being obsessed with disproving the Steele Dossier. You know they thing that was used to spy on a Presidential campaign and push a BS narrative for 5 years. Don't act like the Steele Dossier wasn't a big deal 5 years ago.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Forgive me for being obsessed with disproving the Steele Dossier. You know they thing that was used to spy on a Presidential campaign and push a BS narrative for 5 years. Don't act like the Steele Dossier wasn't a big deal 5 years ago.
    Click to expand...
    It wasn’t. Nobody with any knowledge or credibility thinks it was the reason for the investigation and nobody used it to spy on the Trump campaign. Good lord.

    The narrative wasn’t BS, as much as you and the media people you read want to push that. You have your mind made up. That’s fine. You also think there was a giant media conspiracy about it and the Bidens. Never mind that the media are all competitive and would love to break a big story if they could.
     
    DaveXA said:
    It's definitely a form of censorship. Just because it's not a traditional medium for free speech doesn't mean it's not censorship.
    Click to expand...
    I’m struggling with that. Twitter has the right to decide what it wants to have on its site. If it doesn’t that violates the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to promote something they do not wish to promote.
     
    Click to expand...

    Tech giants banned Trump. But did they censor him?​

    Click to expand...
    ...................................................snip........................................
    Under U.S. law, social media companies generally have been understood to enjoy the same broad leeway as traditional media in deciding whose views to air — and whose they’d rather not. Initially more laissez-faire, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others have taken on increasing responsibility over the years for monitoring their networks for misinformation, harassment, hate speech and propaganda campaigns, a function they call “content moderation.” They’ve done so largely in response to pressure from the public, the media and their own workers — not the U.S. government.
    So when Florida in May passed a law that restricted how social media companies could “censor” users’ posts, a federal judge quickly struck it down. It was the state’s attempt to interfere, not the social media companies’ content decisions, that was likely to violate the First Amendment, the judge wrote. (Florida has appealed.)
    Click to expand...
     
    MT15 said:
    I’m struggling with that. Twitter has the right to decide what it wants to have on its site. If it doesn’t that violates the First Amendment. You cannot force someone to promote something they do not wish to promote.
    Click to expand...
    That can be true for pretty much any medium other than the public square. Banning someone from the virtual public square is censorship. That's pretty obvious imo. Now that doesn't mean Twitter is wrong. They have a right to ban someone for violating their rules. Same in the public square. Your rights to free speech aren't unlimited. But when someone is prevented from being able to speak through a public medium, it's censorship.
     
    J-DONK said:
    This board is so clownish sometimes.

    Yes, you can, and here is the conservative rag WAPO discussing this very topic.

    Click to expand...
    My position isn’t clownish at all. What’s clownish is your response actually.

    Are you proposing that Twitter should be forced to allow anyone to say anything on their website? That they have zero say in what they choose to promote?
     
    DaveXA said:
    That can be true for pretty much any medium other than the public square. Banning someone from the virtual public square is censorship. That's pretty obvious imo. Now that doesn't mean Twitter is wrong. They have a right to ban someone for violating their rules. Same in the public square. Your rights to free speech aren't unlimited. But when someone is prevented from being able to speak through a public medium, it's censorship.
    Click to expand...
    I don’t think Twitter is considered a public medium.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom