Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (6 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.

 

[DaveXA]

Nope.

The link I posted was in answer to this:

Post 1099:



I never said it was proof. Evidence is different from proof, as of course you know.

Third time telling me that I said something that I didn't say in this one thread.

Evidence and proof are synonymous. You're not parsing language, you're just being disingenuous.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Nope.

The link I posted was in answer to this:

Post 1099:



I never said it was proof. Evidence is different from proof, as of course you know.

Third time telling me that I said something that I didn't say in this one thread.

Which definition of evidence are you using?

Definition of EVIDENCE

an outward sign : indication; something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

1 a : an outward sign: indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony
specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2 : one who bears witness
especially: one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices

 

[Snarky Sack]

Evidence and proof are synonymous. You're not parsing language, you're just being disingenuous.

Evidence and proof are not the same.

Coded language to avoid naming names while discussing large transfers of foreign money to a Senior U.S. politician is indeed evidence of bribery. But not proof of bribery.

If he takes my advice in my last post to him, FullMonte will need a sock. Maybe you can help him with that.

 

[MT15]

Why is Sack so obsessed with socks? Whose sock is he? Lol

 

[DaveXA]

Evidence and proof are not the same.

Coded language to avoid naming names while discussing large transfers of foreign money to Senior U.S. politicians is indeed evidence of bribery. But not proof of bribery.

If he takes my advice in my last post to him, FullMonte will need a sock. Maybe you can help him with that.

Maybe you need to go back to school and learn English then.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Maybe you need to go back to school and learn English then.

Oooh!

Good one!

 

[J-DONK]

Trump actually leased a building in DC, turned it into a hotel and used it to extract money from all sorts of foreign governments and other groups hoping to curry favor with his Administration. Some groups rented out multiple rooms they didn’t need.

He wasn’t even subtle about it. The hotel closed right after he left office. I’m sure that was just an unlucky coincidence though.

We don’t know if any favors were given but we do know that hotel was packed with foreign delegations and others looking to get Trump‘s attention. Smells like 3 day old fish.

Edit: so using Sack’s corollary, this would be considered evidence of bribery, correct?

Better then that:

1. Trump PERSONALLY approves Jared's clearance.
2. Jared read the intelligence breifings religiously.
3. Jared flies to KSA, and has an all night meeting with the Saudi prince in charge.
4. Days later the Ritz beat down happen
5. MBS brags about having Kushner in his pocket
6. Kushner receives a 2 billion "investment" from the Saudi's for a hedge fund he has no idea how to run.

This doesn't even touch on the fact Jared comes from a family of FELONS. Also, he had already had some squirrely business dealings.

Can imagine how much the dumb evangelicals would chimp out if Hunter owned a building with 666 as the address?

 

[Lapaz]

Sure. Let me pull up the receipts.
1097 -- you said: "I'll be impressed when they charge him for the bribes for the big Guy."
1099 -- I asked: "What evidence is there of these "bribes for the big guy"
1102 -- you mentioned a May 2017 email referencing "10 held by H for the big guy"
1104 -- I pointed out that in May 2017 Joe Biden was a private citizen, and asked what law would be violated by private citizen Joe Biden receiving equity in a chinese company.
1105 -- you said "I don't believe I that I said that private citizen Joe Biden receiving equity in a Chinese energy company violated a law."

So, if the "bribes for the big guy" referred to an email from 2017, and in 2017 Joe Biden was a private citizen, and you didn't say that Joe Biden, as a private citizen receiving equity in a chinese company was illegal...then you clearly said that the "bribes for the big guy" you referred to were not illegal.



For someone who seems to absolutely lose his mind when someone asks you a clarifying question because they are putting words in your mouth, you seem to have no trouble doing it to others. I never once said that Hunter didn't get his job at Burisma because of his name. But, someone hiring Hunter Biden because his father is the Vice President does not equal influence peddling. That would require them getting something in the way of US policy that benefits them as a result of hiring Hunter Biden. And what, exactly, did Burisma get in the way of US policy? They got Hunter Biden's father, in their country, demanding that the Ukranian government fire their head prosecutor because he was protecting the CEO of the company that Hunter Biden worked for. Not really much of a benefit for them was it?



I mean...anything. Can you point to any policy decisions that Joe Biden made that correspond to money or benefits paid to him or his family members?

The spy balloon, huh? You honestly think that Joe Biden's family got millions of dollars and all they got for it was the ability to fly a spy balloon over the country? By the way, if that's an example, can you point to the payment or benefit that occurred for that?



That's fair. I guess I should have said something like those were "actual examples of what appears (on the surface, at least) to actually be influence peddling" instead of saying that they were definitely influence peddling. I'll try to word it better in the future.


Yes, he did, and he was about to lose a property he paid millions for. He tried to get Qatar to invest in that property, and they refused. He then began advising Trump to enact a blockade on Qatar. Trump did so. When Qatar finally invested in Jared's property, Trump suddenly thought the blockade was a bad idea. There's no reason at all to question the timing on that.



True. And, again, I'm sure the timing of her being granted those patents, and Trump lobbying to help a Chinese company that had been selling US technology to Iran shortly after the patents were granted is just a coincidence.



I don't doubt for one second that Burisma hired Hunter Biden because they thought that having the son of the US vice president on the board would help them out. As I pointed out earlier, it didn't seem to help much, as Hunter's father was involved in getting the prosecutor who was refusing to investigate Burisma's CEO (for crimes that occurred long before Hunter joined the board). It's no coincidence that the CEO fled Ukraine to Russia right after that prosecutor was fired.

This is a great post, but Snarky just responds with lies about what he said. The only value in responding to Snarky is that it results in re-visiting all of the crimes and sleazy actions by the Trumps. I enjoy being reminded about them.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is a great post, but Snarky just responds with lies about what he said. The only value in responding to Snarky is that it results in re-visiting all of the crimes and sleazy actions by the Trumps. I enjoy being reminded about them.

@J-DONK you know dis guy?

 

[MT15]

@J-DONK you know dis guy?

This is getting ridiculous. There are no multiple accounts on this board. Most of us have been here for years, and the Admin boots anyone who tries to register a multiple account. We’ve had an outsider or two try it, but they always eventually get found out.

You‘re out of bounds and as I said before, if you think anyone is breaking the TOS, you need to use the report feature and quit making “snarky” comments about it.

Also, if someone who hasn’t been blocked by Sack could quote this so he will see it, I would appreciate it.

 

[J-DONK]

This is getting ridiculous. There are no multiple accounts on this board. Most of us have been here for years, and the Admin boots anyone who tries to register a multiple account. We’ve had an outsider or two try it, but they always eventually get found out.

You‘re out of bounds and as I said before, if you think anyone is breaking the TOS, you need to use the report feature and quit making “snarky” comments about it.

Also, if someone who hasn’t been blocked by Sack could quote this so he will see it, I would appreciate it.

I have an amazing amount of grammatical errors in every post. I would easily be found out.

Edit: I have him on ignore. I've made 5 post in a week, including this one. I haven't made enough post since he joined for him to have an inclination as to my comment style, or content.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The spy balloon, huh? You honestly think that Joe Biden's family got millions of dollars and all they got for it was the ability to fly a spy balloon over the country? By the way, if that's an example, can you point to the payment or benefit that occurred for that?

The same spy balloons of which China sent three during Trump's administration? That's where he's going with it? lol

 

[LA - L.A.]

This is getting ridiculous. There are no multiple accounts on this board. Most of us have been here for years, and the Admin boots anyone who tries to register a multiple account. We’ve had an outsider or two try it, but they always eventually get found out.

You‘re out of bounds and as I said before, if you think anyone is breaking the TOS, you need to use the report feature and quit making “snarky” comments about it.

Also, if someone who hasn’t been blocked by Sack could quote this so he will see it, I would appreciate it.

I'm pretty sure she didn't actually block anyone and sees all of our posts.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is getting ridiculous. There are no multiple accounts on this board. Most of us have been here for years, and the Admin boots anyone who tries to register a multiple account. We’ve had an outsider or two try it, but they always eventually get found out.

You‘re out of bounds and as I said before, if you think anyone is breaking the TOS, you need to use the report feature and quit making “snarky” comments about it.

Also, if someone who hasn’t been blocked by Sack could quote this so he will see it, I would appreciate it.

I see you MT. Asking that someone tell me you said something is pretty junior high.

Some of your post are too funny not to see. Mainly, I just skip over them. Not responding to nonsense is not the same as blocking a poster.

If you think that I am violating the TOS by talking about socks, then you are welcome to use the report feature. I only suggested that another poster get a sock, I did not accuse him of having a sock. J-Donk explicitly threatened to send a sock after me, so maybe it is he who you should report.

Or you can be "snarky" about it to him or to me. I don't care, it's not that important to me.

Are new posters really "outsiders?" I didn't see that in the terms of service.

 

[brandon]

Evidence and proof are not the same.

Maybe you need to go back to school and learn English then.

Can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm gonna stick up for @Snarky Sack here. And I do have a degree in English.

In the context of a criminal investigation, individual pieces of evidence may or may not rise to the level of proof. We are all familiar with the phrase "circumstantial evidence," which we all understand as each individual piece of evidence not necessarily rising to the level of proof of a crime, but with enough circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof can be met.

DNA evidence at a crime scene would be highly likely to indicate a crime, but even then, if DNA evidence of another possible perpetrator is found at the scene, then the original DNA evidence may not be considered proof of the crime.

So yea, enough evidence equals proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but individual pieces of evidence do not necessarily equal proof.

 

[DaveXA]

Can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm gonna stick up for @Snarky Sack here. And I do have a degree in English.

In the context of a criminal investigation, individual pieces of evidence may or may not rise to the level of proof. We are all familiar with the phrase "circumstantial evidence," which we all understand as each individual piece of evidence not necessarily rising to the level of proof of a crime, but with enough circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof can be met.

DNA evidence at a crime scene would be highly likely to indicate a crime, but even then, if DNA evidence of another possible perpetrator is found at the scene, then the original DNA evidence may not be considered proof of the crime.

So yea, enough evidence equals proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but individual pieces of evidence do not necessarily equal proof.

That makes sense. Fair enough.

 

[MT15]

I see you MT. Asking that someone tell me you said something is pretty junior high.

Some of your post are too funny not to see. Mainly, I just skip over them. Not responding to nonsense is not the same as blocking a poster.

If you think that I am violating the TOS by talking about socks, then you are welcome to use the report feature. I only suggested that another poster get a sock, I did not accuse him of having a sock. J-Donk explicitly threatened to send a sock after me, so maybe it is he who you should report.

Or you can be "snarky" about it to him or to me. I don't care, it's not that important to me.

Are new posters really "outsiders?" I didn't see that in the terms of service.

I don’t recall JDonk saying anything about a sock puppet, I do remember you bringing it up multiple times and to more than one poster here. These types of accusations just make you look foolish, IMO, but you do you.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm pretty sure she didn't actually block anyone and sees all of our posts.

What makes you say that?