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]

If I'm confused, explain to me which investigation Barr's DOJ dismissed that you claimed earlier.

We know why the Republicans wanted to hear from those IRS agents. The IRS agents found multiple felonies and misdemeanors committed by Hunter Biden.

As far as the 1023 talking about the Biden bribery scheme and the IRS agents:

I need someone to help me make sure I've got this right.

---Joe Biden went to Ukraine and told the Ukranian government that if they did not fire Shokin, they would not get the aid that the US was offering. The rationale was that Shokin was not following up on the investigation of Zlochevsky, and was not abiding by the terms of the mutual aid treaty that Ukraine had with the UK, as the UK was investigating Zlochevsky for money laundering and Shokin was not providing them with documents they requested.

--The FD-1023 says (on page 3) "...these recordings evidence Zlochevsky was somehow coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Ukranian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was fired."

Why would Zlochevsky feel the need to pay the Bidens to get the guy who was NOT investigating him fired?

Also of note...according to the GOP, the Bidens have been laundering money by having $3 million paid to a company that is owned by a friend of Joe Biden, and then that money is paid in very small amounts to various family members of Joe Biden through various shell companies. Yet, the 1023 says that there are wire transfers that prove the Bidens were paid. How? Why did those payments go directly to the Bidens?

 

[MT15]

None of it makes any sense at all. Shokin was in very deep trouble in Ukraine long before Biden had anything to say about it.

Read this thread, it explain’s the idiocy being proposed, the time frame is all wrong and Biden cannot use mind control on the Ukrainian citizens:

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

None of it makes any sense at all. Shokin was in very deep trouble in Ukraine long before Biden had anything to say about it.

Read this thread, it explain’s the idiocy being proposed, the time frame is all wrong and Biden cannot use mind control on the Ukrainian citizens:

His closing remarks are spot-on.

Language

I bet the FBI agents looking into this confidential informant's claim reached the same conclusion.

 

[MT15]

The Dems on the Oversight Committee released a transcript showing why the Trump FBI paid zero attention to the crazy talk on the 1023

 

[MT15]

Lol:

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Oh, please just do it!

The speaker referred to an allegation reported by the New York Post from Devon Archer, a business associate of Hunter Biden, the president's son, who claims then-Vice President Biden was on multiple phone calls organized by his son about deals involving foreign companies. Archer is scheduled to sit down for a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee on Monday.

"We have a president who told the American public in October that he's never spoken to his family about any of this. He said no one in the family had ever gotten money from China," McCarthy said, without offering any evidence to corroborate the latest allegations.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1190048336/biden-impeachment-mccarthy-hunter

I can just see their Impeachment Managers going on and on about all these fabricated allegations and offering ZERO EVIDENCE to support their claims.

 

[MT15]

Why a closed door? Are they afraid his testimony will blow up in their faces? Lol.

 

[MT15]

So Ziegler testified to a reason the DOJ couldn’t charge Hunter with the more serious crimes that he wanted them to charge.

“It’s true that the so-called whisleblowers complained about things they weren’t able to do — most of which occurred while Bill Barr was Attorney General.

But that’s not the only thing the so-called whistleblowers testified to.

Joseph Ziegler testified that when he asked why Hunter wasn’t being charged, he was told that prosecutors had found emails that led them to worry they couldn’t charge the case at all.

So we found out through talking with our SAC that the attorneys had found — we were always asking for updates on charging. When are we going to charge? When are we going to charge? We were told that the prosecutors had found some emails that concerned them if they could actually charge the case. That’s what they said to us.

He even explained what some of those emails might be: documentation of Sixth Amendment problems with the case and evidence of Trump’s improper influence on it.

Around the same time in 2019, I had emails being sent to me and the Hunter — and the prosecutors on the case, the Hunter Biden prosecutors, from my IRS supervisor. So this was Matt Kutz still.
From what I was told by various people in my agency, my IRS supervisor, Matt Kutz, created memos which he put in the investigative files regarding the investigation potentially violating the subject’s Sixth Amendment rights. He also referred to Donald Trump’s tweets at the time.
I recall that at one point I had to go around my supervisor and ask his boss, ASAC George Murphy, to tell him to stop sending me and the Hunter Biden prosecution team these emails and that I was searching media articles on a weekly basis and was aware of everything being written in the media regarding the case.

There’s documentation in the case file that some part of the investigation — potentially something Ziegler himself did! — created what are probably Confrontation Clause problems for the case generally.”

So maybe SFL should get off his high horse about this case. Narrator: he will not. Lol.

Cover-Up: Joseph Ziegler Provided a Different Explanation Why Hunter Biden Wasn't Charged - emptywheel

In its supine effort to magnify Republican scandal, the press is covering up the details from Joseph Ziegler's testimony that revealed there were legal problems with the case, including Trump's own attempts to influence it.

www.emptywheel.net

 

[MT15]

There’s more: Shapley was possibly suspected of burying exculpatory info on the case. And he refused to comply with requests for his emails from the case.

Gary Shapley testified that he was distanced and then removed from the case after prosecutors had to ask him to turn over his own emails for discovery review a second time, after he had blown off a request seven months earlier.

Shapley was first asked to turn over his emails about the case in March 2022. But even though he was the one who had prepped to interview Hunter Biden himself, he did not comply.

It is common practice for DOJ to ask for the case agents’ communications in discovery, as they might have to testify in court. However, it’s much more unusual to ask for management communications, because it is simply not discoverable.
In March of 2022, DOJ requested of the IRS and FBI all management-level emails and documents on this case. I didn’t produce my emails, but I provided them with my sensitive case reports and memorandums that included contemporaneous documentation of DOJ’s continued unethical conduct. [my emphasis]

 

[MT15]

After he finally produced his emails:

“A month or so later, Shapley made the extraordinary request for the FBI agent reviewing emails to share anything he found in advance. As I’ve noted, Shapley asked for the kind of special treatment he claims Hunter Biden got.

This is what the NYT won’t tell you: That the testimony of both Ziegler and Shapley provides an entirely different explanation for why Hunter Biden wasn’t charged with felonies. And that explanation may have to do with their own conduct, not Hunter Biden’s.”

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

And the Republican's weaponization of the Judicial System continues:

WILMINGTON, Del. — Hunter Biden, the troubled second son of the president, has not pleaded guilty Wednesday to two federal misdemeanor counts for failing to pay taxes in 2017 and 2018 — as was expected as part of a deal reached with prosecutors — after a disagreement arose about a separate gun charge.

It wasn't clear if a deal could still be reached on Wednesday, as lawyers huddled to see if a delay until early September would be needed.


U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, appointed by Donald Trump, pressed about the terms of the deal that was struck with U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware, another Trump appointee who was kept on by President Joe Biden to oversee the case.

There were questions about whether the gun charge was tied to the plea deal.

Noreika asked if there were more serious charges that could still be brought and the prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s lawyer both said there were not.

Noreika later asked if the investigation was ongoing, to which Weiss responded that it was, but said he could not share any further details.

In outlining the charges, Weiss’s office said in an earlier statement that “Hunter Biden received taxable income in excess of $1,500,000 annually in calendar years 2017 and 2018. Despite owing in excess of $100,000 in federal income taxes each year, he did not pay the income tax due for either year.”

The original deal included that prosecutors would recommend probation for the tax violations, while a separate felony gun charge would be dropped if Biden met certain conditions laid out in court. The terms of Hunter Biden’s sentencing will be decided at a later date.

Hunter Biden pleads not guilty after plea deal is derailed

The judge raised concerns over two separate agreements the president's son reached with prosecutors, but the agreement could ultimately be accepted.

www.nbcnews.com

This just guarantees that Republicans can keep bringing up more unsubstantiated crap from their 5 year mission to discredit Joe Biden.

Edit: Hunter pleads Not Guilty as he and his lawyers walks out on the deal. The Judge hearing the case raised a hypothetical question:

...asking if Hunter Biden could face charges for failing to register as a foreign agent and whether the agreement block his prosecution for such a charge. The defense said they believed the agreement would prohibit him from being charged and the prosecution then disagreed.

Hunter Biden's lawyer, Christopher Clark, said to the prosecutor "then we'll rip it up" while discussing the disagreement.

Good. I hope they do go to trial, I can see that trial ending with a lesser result of the previous plea deal.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

ZIEGLER: I would like to note that once the plea agreement is finally released, it may provide a greater understanding.

I'm looking forward to hearing from Ziegler again once he has read Exhibit 1 of the proposed plead deal.

Read the proposed Hunter Biden plea agreement

POLITICO has obtained the documents laying out the proposed plea deal that a federal judge blocked on Wednesday.

www.politico.com

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[SaintForLife]

from NYT's Glenn Thrush reporting from the courtroom: "From the start, the judge seemed highly skeptical of the unusual deal — which offered Hunter Biden broad immunity from prosecution in perpetuity, questioning why it had been filed under a provision that gave her no legal authority to reject it. When she asked Leo Wise, a prosecutor, if there was any precedent for the kind of deal being proposed, he replied, 'No, your honor.'”

 

[MT15]

from NYT's Glenn Thrush reporting from the courtroom: "From the start, the judge seemed highly skeptical of the unusual deal — which offered Hunter Biden broad immunity from prosecution in perpetuity, questioning why it had been filed under a provision that gave her no legal authority to reject it. When she asked Leo Wise, a prosecutor, if there was any precedent for the kind of deal being proposed, he replied, 'No, your honor.'”

Okay, so? What we have here is most likely a poorly worded plea deal rather than a grand conspiracy. Do you know how I know that? Because I looked at the entire sequence of events, and applied context. The prosecutors didn’t think the deal offered Hunter that broad immunity, when questioned by the judge. At which point, Hunter’s attorney said when he read it he came to the same conclusion as the judge, at which point the judge instructed them to get a better understanding.

It is very typical of you to just run with a snippet. And you seem to imply this proves your grand conspiracy but when pressed on it, you will say “I never said that” or “show me where I said that”.

You do not operate in good faith very often on this board. It is what it is.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Okay, so? What we have here is most likely a poorly worded plea deal rather than a grand conspiracy. Do you know how I know that? Because I looked at the entire sequence of events, and applied context. The prosecutors didn’t think the deal offered Hunter that broad immunity, when questioned by the judge. At which point, Hunter’s attorney said when he read it he came to the same conclusion as the judge, at which point the judge instructed them to get a better understanding.

It is very typical of you to just run with a snippet. And you seem to imply this proves your grand conspiracy but when pressed on it, you will say “I never said that” or “show me where I said that”.

You do not operate in good faith very often on this board. It is what it is.

Case & point, here's Glenn Thrush's NYT article:

Christopher Clark, Mr. Biden’s lead lawyer, said it indemnified his client not merely for the tax and gun offenses uncovered during the inquiry, but for other possible offenses stemming from his lucrative consulting deals with companies in Ukraine, China and Romania.
Prosecutors had a far narrower definition. They saw Mr. Biden’s immunity as limited to offenses uncovered during their investigation of his tax returns dating back to 2014, and his illegal purchase of a firearm in 2018, when he was a heavy drug user, they said.
When the judge asked Leo Wise, a lead prosecutor in the case, if the investigation of Mr. Biden was continuing, he answered, “Yes.”

When she asked him, hypothetically, if the deal would preclude an investigation into possible violation of laws regulating foreign lobbying by Mr. Biden connected with his consulting and legal work, he replied, “No.”
Mr. Biden then told the judge he could not agree to any deal that did not offer him broad immunity, and Mr. Clark popped up angrily to declare the deal “null and void.”
The disagreement over such a central element of the deal was remarkable, given the months of negotiations that went into reaching it.

Judge Puts Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal on Hold, Questioning Its Details

Judge Maryellen Noreika sent the two sides back to try to work out modifications that would address her legal and constitutional concerns and salvage the basic contours of the agreement.

www.nytimes.com

 

[bdb13]

Okay, so? What we have here is most likely a poorly worded plea deal rather than a grand conspiracy. Do you know how I know that? Because I looked at the entire sequence of events, and applied context. The prosecutors didn’t think the deal offered Hunter that broad immunity, when questioned by the judge. At which point, Hunter’s attorney said when he read it he came to the same conclusion as the judge, at which point the judge instructed them to get a better understanding.

It is very typical of you to just run with a snippet. And you seem to imply this proves your grand conspiracy but when pressed on it, you will say “I never said that” or “show me where I said that”.

You do not operate in good faith very often on this board. It is what it is.

Certainly the prosecution and defense had had prior discussions over whether or not this deal provided Hunter broad immunity from further prosecution.. right? How would that not have been covered?

Just seems strange.

 

[MT15]

Certainly the prosecution and defense had had prior discussions over whether or not this deal provided Hunter broad immunity from further prosecution.. right? How would that not have been covered?

Just seems strange.

You would think, but it appears they did not. From what little I heard, this is embarrassingly poorly written from the US Attorney’s office. They were able to hash it out pretty quickly, in the court, but the judge decided to make them wait just to be sure they were both on the same page. I think that’s reasonable.

Oh, and I imagine Hunter’s attorney realized the plea deal was poorly written, but it seemed to benefit his client, so he didn’t say anything. Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake, kind of.