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.

 

[FullMonte]

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.

While that is a fair an analysis, I don’t think it’s warranted here. This individual has repeatedly said things, and when questioned or challenged on them, claimed he did not say those things or that we are parsing his words incorrectly.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What makes you say that?

Nothing.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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.

Post in thread 'Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source?' https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...scheme-endanger-the-source.259136/post-389516

 

[DaveXA]

Post in thread 'Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source?' https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...scheme-endanger-the-source.259136/post-389516

He's not going to see your posts, so I'm quoting you here so he's aware. Not sure he cares enough to respond to it. I don't blame him.

 

[Snarky Sack]

He's not going to see your posts, so I'm quoting you here so he's aware. Not sure he cares enough to respond to it. I don't blame him.

I would prefer that you didn't do that. He has every right to put me on ignore and then no longer see my post. It seems not only rude, but a bit childish to force him to see my post. I respect his wishes.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I would prefer that you didn't do that. He has every right to put me on ignore and then no longer see my post. It seems not only rude, but a bit childish to force him to see my post. I respect his wishes.

Besides, he said that he has come back with a different username. How do you know that different username has me on ignore also?

 

[DaveXA]

I would prefer that you didn't do that. He has every right to put me on ignore and then no longer see my post. It seems not only rude, but a bit childish to force him to see my post. I respect his wishes.

I didn't force him to do anything. He can read or skip over it. We're all adults here.

 

[DaveXA]

Besides, he said that he has come back with a different username. How do you know that different username has me on ignore also?

Where did he say that? Maybe he meant changed his user name. No one here is allowed to have multiple accounts. That's already been explained.

 

[Snarky Sack]

While that is a fair an analysis, I don’t think it’s warranted here. This individual has repeatedly said things, and when questioned or challenged on them, claimed he did not say those things or that we are parsing his words incorrectly.

Maybe instead of parsing my words in the first place it would be a better idea to either respond to my words as written or ask for clarification.

But you do you.

 

[brandon]

While that is a fair an analysis, I don’t think it’s warranted here. This individual has repeatedly said things, and when questioned or challenged on them, claimed he did not say those things or that we are parsing his words incorrectly.

I am only arguing for the distinction between evidence and proof. This should not be viewed as an endorsement of any of his other posts.

 

[DaveXA]

Maybe instead of parsing my words in the first place it would be a better idea to either respond to my words as written or ask for clarification.

But you do you.

He actually did ask for clarification, and instead of clarifying, you're giving him the disingenuous run around rather than answering directly.

 

[J-DONK]

Where did he say that? Maybe he meant changed his user name. No one here is allowed to have multiple accounts. That's already been explained.

Oh yeah I think he is a specific user who used to never answers direct questions. I put him on ignore directly after that. It cleans up the board for me. No offense to anyone, but I'm not missing anything worth reading.

I think it's extremely funny that we had two conservatives posters started posting immediately after Trump got indicted by the FBI. I consider ever post a soft admission of your eternal love for Donnie. =) Keep it up boys.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I am only arguing for the distinction between evidence and proof. This should not be viewed as an endorsement of any of his other posts.

As with Donald Trump himself, the idea is for everyone to unite in always thinking the worst.

 

[DaveXA]

As with Donald Trump himself, the idea is for everyone to unite in always thinking the worst.

Well, he's earned for sure.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Besides, he said that he has come back with a different username. How do you know that different username has me on ignore also?

Where did he say that? Maybe he meant changed his user name. No one here is allowed to have multiple accounts. That's already been explained.

Maybe he did mean "changed his user name." What he was this:

You are STILL deflecting.

I've come back with a different username to troll you once more with feeling.

Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source?

Even if the name of source is redacted?This is from the FBI itself, not wild speculation. Providing evidence against the Biden family means risking death. Anyone care to connect the dots, there?By saying that, do you think the FBI makes it less likely or more likely that people with...

madaboutpolitics.com

If he says that he meant changed his user name, I'll accept that. I accept it also if he has come back with a different user name, or if he has multiple accounts. I don't care what he does, he's his own poster or posters.

I didn't force him to do anything. He can read or skip over it. We're all adults here.

Sure, he *can* read it or skip over it.

But if he put me on ignore, he obviously prefers not to see my posts. Does he want to not see my posts directly, but be kept abreast of what I say? I wanted it to be on record that I'm not encouraging anyone to try to induce a poster see my words when that poster has clearly expressed not wanting to see them.

 

[bird]

Well, he's earned for sure.

That is for damn sure.

 

[DaveXA]

Maybe he did mean "changed his user name." What he was this:

You are STILL deflecting.

I've come back with a different username to troll you once more with feeling.

Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source?

Even if the name of source is redacted?This is from the FBI itself, not wild speculation. Providing evidence against the Biden family means risking death. Anyone care to connect the dots, there?By saying that, do you think the FBI makes it less likely or more likely that people with...

madaboutpolitics.com

If he says that he meant changed his user name, I'll accept that. I accept it also if he has come back with a different user name, or if he has multiple accounts. I don't care what he does, he's his own poster or posters.

He hasn't stated whether he was serious or not, but I suspect he'd had enough and was messing with you. I can safely assure you, he doesn't have multiple accounts. That's a good way to get banned from the site.

Sure, he *can* read it or skip over it.

But if he put me on ignore, he obviously prefers not to see my posts. Does he want to not see my posts directly, but be kept abreast of what I say? I wanted it to be on record that I'm not encouraging anyone to try to induce a poster see my words when that poster has clearly expressed not wanting to see them.

That's all well and good. I don't think he's worried about it regardless.

 

[Snarky Sack]

He hasn't stated whether he was serious or not, but I suspect he'd had enough and was messing with you.

I'm not one to ask a poster who says something outrageous, "wait, are you serious?" I think I did say something like "you have?" because I was so surprised by such an open admission of multiple screen names and of trolling.

Now that I read some of his other comments, I think maybe he just stated it badly. Just a theory, but maybe he was trying to say that I - Snarky Sack - am a former poster he had arguments with, now back with a different screen name to troll him and others. It was a weird way to make that claim, if he was.

I can safely assure you, he doesn't have multiple accounts. That's a good way to get banned from the site.

That's all well and good. I don't think he's worried about it regardless.

I hope not. I see far too much worrying over a political message board.