Hunter Biden (2 Viewers)

[FullMonte]

Lost in all the news coverage about what's going on in the US right now is this bit of information.

The Ukrainian government has completed an audit of thousands of case files related to Burisma. Ruslan Ryaboshapka (the prosecutor general), described by Zelenskiy as "100 percent my person" in the July phone call with president Trump said "I specifically asked prosecutors to check especially carefully those facts about Biden's alleged involvement. They answered that there was nothing of the kind."

Not that anyone SHOULD be surprised to find out that Hunter Biden was not implicated in something that was done by the CEO of Burisma in his role as a government employee, that happened two years before Biden joined the board.

Ukrainian prosecutors find no evidence against Hunter Biden

Audit probed energy company Burisma, of which Biden was a board member from 2014-2019

www.theguardian.com

 

[Incumbent]

Let's go straight to the Mueller report:

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

That's not how it works in the US Justice system. If they can't prove something it's meaningless if after the fact they claim that there was evidence of "those facts."

That's sounds like weaselly lawyer talk to try to continue to Trump Collusion narrative when it didn't show what CNN & MSNBC had been telling yall for years.


More from that article, Why didn't Mueller charge Trump with obstruction and why didn't the Democrats mention obstruction in the articles of impeachment?

The president of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from many lawsuits while in office; it is legally untested whether they also enjoy criminal immunity from arrest or prosecution. Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute.

Presidential immunity in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Clinton Intelligence Plan from the Durham report:

I try to be specific when I reply and not use vague responses that don't address the issue like others here do often.

It is ironic that you would post an article from 2 MSNBC legal analysts when MSNBC was the biggest purveyors of the Trump Russia collusion narrative.

Given the amount of time you spend denigrating "media", there isn't a source I could provide that you're going to like unless it says exactly what you want it to.

It's simply a lie that there was nothing to the connections between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, that determines the allegations were complete fabrications. Mueller is explicit in his findings and there were dozens of indictments to come out of his investigation. It wasn't an exoneration and it isn't evidence that Clinton (or anybody else) concocted a story.

You can lie to yourself as much as you like.

 

[rajncajn]

I know it simply won't matter at this point, but this kind of revisionist history will always bother me.

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.


While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

Anyway, I expect any of the three, at least

-you don't like the source
-you respond back with numerous false narratives that must be true because they aren't from "corporate media"
-Mueller is a RINO, Democratic shill, Deep State actor, blah, blah, blah...

Mueller specifically said in the report, probably because it was so widely being used, that they were not investigating "collusion," to which there is no actual federal legal basis for. Rather they were investigating "conspiracy," to which Mueller said that he could find no basis for prosecution. He did find links between the campaign and Russia, but none that would indicate that there was any sort of actual effort between the campaign and Russia. That said, since "collusion" wasn't even something that was being investigated, it's easy for Time magazine to be misleading and say that it's a myth that collusion wasn't found and that his report found "links" without spelling out what those links entailed or if they are even relevant. Obviously Mueller did not find them relevant enough to prosecute. That's really no different than somebody saying Joe Biden is linked to Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine because he ate dinner with people on the board of Burisma or chatted on the phone with them or his son worked for them or pressured the Ukraine govt to fire the prosecutor that was supposedly investigating them. Those are all links, but you have to prove relevancy in order for it to matter and Mueller was unable to do that. Furthermore, Russia has been accused/suspected in meddling in more than just that presidential election. Just because they favored Trump does not mean they were actually conspiring with him, again, something that Mueller found no evidence of.

I'm not sure where the whole "collusion" thing came from but, and I may be completely wrong about this because I'm not a lawyer, I suspect it was language derived to avoid litigation for defamation. Now Trump is just using it as a talking point to frenzy his base.

 

[Incumbent]

Meanwhile, Republicans are spinning tires on anything substantial on Hunter, and nothing against Joe.

Tells you everything you need to know when people will ignore the mountain of evidence and allegations against Trump, and cling to absolutely any thin, veiled suggestion of wrongdoing against the Bidens.

It's too stupid to take seriously.

 

[Incumbent]

Mueller specifically said in the report, probably because it was so widely being used, that they were not investigating "collusion," to which there is no actual federal legal basis for. Rather they were investigating "conspiracy," to which Mueller said that he could find no basis for prosecution. He did find links between the campaign and Russia, but none that would indicate that there was any sort of actual effort between the campaign and Russia. That said, since "collusion" wasn't even something that was being investigated, it's easy for Time magazine to be misleading and say that it's a myth that collusion wasn't found and that his report found "links" without spelling out what those links entailed or if they are even relevant. Obviously Mueller did not find them relevant enough to prosecute. That's really no different than somebody saying Joe Biden is linked to Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine because he ate dinner with people on the board of Burisma or chatted on the phone with them or his son worked for them or pressured the Ukraine govt to fire the prosecutor that was supposedly investigating them. Those are all links, but you have to prove relevancy in order for it to matter and Mueller was unable to do that. Furthermore, Russia has been accused/suspected in meddling in more than just that presidential election. Just because they favored Trump does not mean they were actually conspiring with him, again, something that Mueller found no evidence of.

I'm not sure where the whole "collusion" thing came from but, and I may be completely wrong about this because I'm not a lawyer, I suspect it was language derived to avoid litigation for defamation. Now Trump is just using it as a talking point to frenzy his base.

As I said, the Mueller investigation returned dozens of indictments. I'm arguing against the idea that Clinton made baseless allegations against Trump with regards to Russia. That isn't what Mueller found and it isn't how anybody should characterize it now.

 

[FullMonte]

Anybody care to guess when THIS IRS whistleblower will be testifying to the House?

In short, he says that he was investigating Giuliani, and was told, directly, to stop investigating him. He also, apparently, said that he spoke to Jim Jordan about being a whistleblower with information on being told to stop his investigation, but as soon as Jordan found it was an investigation into Giuliani, Jordan was not interested at all.

FBI Whistleblower Claims Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani Investigations Were Suppressed by Superiors

FBI whistleblower issued shocking allegation against his bosses.

radaronline.com

 

[bird]

This ridiculous talking point is repeated so often like it someone shows that Weiss couldn't be biased against a Republican.

What you and others leave out is a US Attorney is selected based on the recommendation of the state's Senators. Delaware's Senators are both Democrats.

They are both officially whistleblowers and followed all the proper whistleblower requirements.

Who made that speculation and can you post a link? I'm sorry that sounds like partisan deflections without anymore information about who said it and what they said specifically.

More anonymous speculation? Post who said that and what they said specifically. Otherwise, it's safe to ignore what you said.

No, not all whistleblower procedures were followed.

 

[rajncajn]

As I said, the Mueller investigation returned dozens of indictments. I'm arguing against the idea that Clinton made baseless allegations against Trump with regards to Russia. That isn't what Mueller found and it isn't how anybody should characterize it now.

Clinton funded the fabricated report that was used to gain the FISA warrants to open the investigation. The guy that created the report said that none of it was verified, the FBI knew that and still used it anyway. Of the indictments you're referring to, none were actuallly related to a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.

In another article from Time magazine:

But Mueller did not charge or suggest charges for anyone on one of the biggest questions he faced: whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election.

Mueller’s report, which he submitted to Attorney General William Barr on Friday, did not conclude that Trump or anyone involved in his campaign colluded with Russia, according to a summary Barr delivered to Congress on Sunday. (Mueller’s report left open the question of whether Trump obstructed justice in the course of the investigation, according to Barr’s summary.)

 

[bird]

Investigate Hunter Biden, I really don’t give a flying flock at a rolling doughnut. Republicans have literally done nothing since 2020. They are useless. Biden has accomplished a lot of things. Kevin McCarthy is a spineless weasel who performed various contortions to become one of the worst speakers in history.

And what do we get here? Pages of bullschlitz over a guy not in government whose father did NOTHING criminal despite RW blathering to the contrary. Cripes, Rethuglicans first claim Biden is senile then they claim he is a criminal genius. Do the country a favor and don’t vote any more.

 

[rajncajn]

Anybody care to guess when THIS IRS whistleblower will be testifying to the House?

In short, he says that he was investigating Giuliani, and was told, directly, to stop investigating him. He also, apparently, said that he spoke to Jim Jordan about being a whistleblower with information on being told to stop his investigation, but as soon as Jordan found it was an investigation into Giuliani, Jordan was not interested at all.

FBI Whistleblower Claims Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani Investigations Were Suppressed by Superiors

FBI whistleblower issued shocking allegation against his bosses.

radaronline.com

Giuliani, and Trump for that matter, are sleaze and Jim Jordan is a grand-standing, massive R, in the derogatory sense. This doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[bird]

Clinton funded the fabricated report that was used to gain the FISA warrants to open the investigation. The guy that created the report said that none of it was verified, the FBI knew that and still used it anyway. Of the indictments you're referring to, none were actuallly related to a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.

In another article from Time magazine:

2 words: Paul Manafort.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

As I said, the Mueller investigation returned dozens of indictments. I'm arguing against the idea that Clinton made baseless allegations against Trump with regards to Russia. That isn't what Mueller found and it isn't how anybody should characterize it now.

Lets not ignore the OBSTRUCTION that Mueller faced while conducting his investigation. Funny how that fact is so easily ignored.

 

[rajncajn]

Lets not ignore the OBSTRUCTION that Mueller faced while conducting his investigation. Funny how that fact is so easily ignored.

That's one I will agree with.

 

[Booker]

I think there were some 140 documented points of contact between Russian agents and people in the Trump campaign.

 

[rajncajn]

2 words: Paul Manafort.

Paul Manafort was evading taxes by hiding money he made overseas in foreign accounts. It was uncovered during the Mueller investigation, but was unrelated to Trump or any sort of conspiracy with Russia other than his own shady dealings.

Mr Manafort was not accused of conspiracy relating to any collusion with a foreign power.
And Mr Trump's name barely even cropped up during the trial.

The case against Mr Manafort - of embezzling money made from his political consulting for Ukrainian politicians - largely predated his work for the Trump presidential bid.

Funny enough, Hunter Biden was acting as a political consultant and lobbyist for a Ukrainian energy company.

 

[Incumbent]

I think there were some 140 documented points of contact between Russian agents and people in the Trump campaign.

And it’s never going to matter to some people because they can find enough to satisfy their biases to ignore the damning findings.

There was a time when evidence-backed cooperation and communication between a political campaign and Russia would have been overwhelmingly unifying in sparking outrage among Americans.

 

[RebSaint]

There was a time when evidence-backed cooperation and communication between a political campaign and Russia would have been overwherlmingly unifying in sparking outrage among Americans.

How about anytime during the 1980s? Although some of the fears of Communism historically have been false, not true, or counterproductive, if it came out that ANY well-known president invited any kind of assistance from Russians would be a political pariah, and it would be bipartisan, save for some genuine Socialists or Communists.

I can only imagine Reagan is turning over in his grave how much his party and "conservatism" has become authoritarian stooges for the Russians.

 

[MT15]

His entire team wasn't in on it. That's exactly why these two guys came forward.

They weren’t on his team, they were IRS. I meant the US Attorney’s office team of prosecutors. They would all have to be part of it - IF they corruptly didn’t charge him but could have.

My take, which is worth what you paid for it, lol, is that this is a combo of a couple issues. 1. Investigators (the IRS guys) almost always want to charge more than the prosecutors - because they don’t have to be able to prove it in a court of law, and the prosecutor does. Seems to be a consistent pattern. In this case, I think it’s exacerbated by the IRS guys being a bit partisan - which is only human.

I also think these guys did something to get themselves in a bit of hot water, even if it’s only inter-department squabbling between the IRS and the DOJ. I’ve seen it alluded to, even by these guys themselves. There may also be something to the report I saw where some evidence was mishandled, I don’t know.

I am curious about the lawsuit Hunter has filed against the computer repair shop owner. I would love to see the discovery on that little escapade.

 

[MT15]

@MT15 Why did you suggest the other Hunter Biden shouldn't be used anymore? There was 85 pages worth of discussions and posts and you thought it was a good idea to switch to a thread that had 3 posts from 2020?

Why is the other thread closed? What happened to make it necessary to close the other thread? It's not like yall even made a new thread for the special counsel.

I just made a suggestion-because this is a new development and the old thread was huge. It’s not like the old thread went away. I wouldn’t know why they agreed with me.