Hunter Biden's Laptop

[cmcartman]

So why was he willing to testify in a closed hearing in the House but not to the Senate? If his interest was to expose wrongdoing you would think he would want to testify to anyone and everyone who would listen.

Makes you wonder about his honesty and motivations, doesn't it?

I know what the democrats motivations would be. They would allow brief limited testimony and then spend the rest of the time collecting soundbites. They chose not to have an open hearing in the house either. Don't discount the way they have acted by doing that and then at the same time infer they must be lying because of it.
I do agree that after they've had a chance like they have now they should go to the Senate as well. Considering that one of the whistleblowers was removed I can see how they might find going to the Democratic Senate for help as in the bad idea category.

I'm not ignoring things, I'm disagreeing with you.

It was the extent of Hunter Biden's wrongdoing according to the US attorney nominated by the current president's political opponent who explicitly stated to Congress that he was allowed to pursue cases where, when, and how he chose. Again, if you're claiming he lied to Congress then you will need to provide evidence for that from people who would actually know, not IRS people who don't work in his office.

Yes you were, you ignored the part of that article that mentioned "assuming these are the only charges" and then made it a blanket statement about the entire case. Especially after I mentioned there were charges that were stonewalled by the DoJ. It's the whole point of them coming out and you're acting like that article meant something when it means jack shit in light of the entire case precisely because there were other charges that should have been filed.

The only way the argument is going to get proved is if congress attempts to do so. No one else has the authority to. I sure don't. That's why they came there in the first place. You're argument seems to be they should have brought proof when likely the only proof is going to be at the DoJ and the only body that would able to do anything to verify those claims would be congress. That being said there are likely going to be emails trails on the IRS side that show that Weiss wasn't solely in charge of the decision making process like he claims he was.

You really should read some of the transcripts before discounting the entire thing though. It's an intricate set of lies if the two whistleblowers are the one's lying.

 

[brycejones]

I know what the democrats motivations would be. They would allow brief limited testimony and then spend the rest of the time collecting soundbites.

LOL, I'm sure your concern is genuine.

 

[cmcartman]

Beats me!

Regardless, ‘Hunter Biden got a light sentence for a crime that goes unpunished for almost everyone else’ is still evidence of a two tier system where he was treated more harshly than the average citizen.

Similarly, the tax crimes he pled to go unpunished for nearly everyone who cheats on their taxes too. It’s unlikely he would have even been investigated if he were Hunter Smith. (This is why more funding for the IRS is good, so we can go after more rich tax cheats)

Hunter Smith might not have actually....


Statement from one of the whistleblowers.

"The investigation into Hunter Biden, code name Sportsman, was first opened in November 2018 as an offshoot of an investigation the IRS was conducting into a foreign-based amateur online pornography platform. Special Agent developed the investigative lead and was assigned to be the original case agent."

And the other.

"I started this investigation in November of 2018 after reviewing bank reports related to another case I was working on a social media company. Those bank reports identified Hunter Biden as paying prostitutes related to a potential prostitution ring. Also included in those bank reports was evidence that Hunter Biden was living lavishly through his corporate bank account. This is a typical thing that we look for in tax cases -- criminal tax cases, I should say. "

"...So I began talking with colleagues in my group, and they were asking me why would I want to open up a case like this. Big cases, big problems was the thing I was constantly hearing. I responded to say it shouldn't matter the name of the person on whether we work a tax case or not. It should be the merit of the evidence, the allegation, and the clear understanding of why we are opening that investigation. So doing the right thing for the right reason."

"...I wanted to provide an example of something that my SSA [at that time] told me which caused me pause and concern. This is from what I recall. But he said a political family like this, you have to have more than just an allegation and evidence related to that allegation. In order for this case to move forward, you basically have to show a significant amount of evidence and similar wrongdoing that would basically illustrate a prosecution report. So he's basically telling me that I have to show more than just non-[filed] tax returns and the information from the ex-wife in the divorce proceedings. I did not agree with him at this time -- and I told him that we have to treat each tax payer the same, it shouldn't matter on their name. But he was my manager and I had to do what he said."


I couldn't tell you which, but one claims to be mostly non political and the other is actually a gay democrat.


Read the 300+ pages of the transcripts if you want to stop putting your foot in your mouth. You can only lead a horse to water...

 

[cmcartman]

LOL, I'm sure your concern is genuine.

They do the same thing Republicans do when attempting to cover their parties ass. Don't act like your side is any better. For the record I don't really care for either. Once upon a time I would have called myself a democrat. Today I'm just lost in the middle of both sides.

 

[cytg111]

And the 2 tier justice system is ok because today it's working for your interests?

I don't want a 2 tier justice system period. It's at the root of many of the disagreements from both sides of the Political spectrum. How can you trust the justice system if a prosecutor can decide he doesn't want to bother with charges. Or charge maliciously for example, I've seen it the at the city level before plenty of times. Perhaps head of the DoJ should be chosen in a different fashion.

Law should be equal for all men. Even the places on earth with the least corruption(like Scandinavia) has a 2 tier justice system, money buys lawyers, lawyers buy justice. It is what it is.
I think you're issuing a lot of projection here.
Where were *your* outrage when Barr was running his clown show?

 

[IronWing]

Today I'm just lost in the middle of both sides.

Then you have no moral compass.

 

[cmcartman]

Then you have no moral compass.

That's what both sides seem say the other side lacks. They both have good points and at the same time are oblivious to their own. Neither side adequately represents the things I value though. But It's nice to know that I've already been judged even though it's not a suprise at all.

 

[brycejones]

They do the same thing Republicans do when attempting to cover their parties ass. Don't act like your side is any better. For the record I don't really care for either. Once upon a time I would have called myself a democrat. Today I'm just lost in the middle of both sides.

I think you are just lost in right wing propaganda on this case.

 

[cytg111]

Hunter Smith might not have actually....


Statement from one of the whistleblowers.

"The investigation into Hunter Biden, code name Sportsman, was first opened in November 2018 as an offshoot of an investigation the IRS was conducting into a foreign-based amateur online pornography platform. Special Agent developed the investigative lead and was assigned to be the original case agent."

And the other.

"I started this investigation in November of 2018 after reviewing bank reports related to another case I was working on a social media company. Those bank reports identified Hunter Biden as paying prostitutes related to a potential prostitution ring. Also included in those bank reports was evidence that Hunter Biden was living lavishly through his corporate bank account. This is a typical thing that we look for in tax cases -- criminal tax cases, I should say. "

"...So I began talking with colleagues in my group, and they were asking me why would I want to open up a case like this. Big cases, big problems was the thing I was constantly hearing. I responded to say it shouldn't matter the name of the person on whether we work a tax case or not. It should be the merit of the evidence, the allegation, and the clear understanding of why we are opening that investigation. So doing the right thing for the right reason."

"...I wanted to provide an example of something that my SSA [at that time] told me which caused me pause and concern. This is from what I recall. But he said a political family like this, you have to have more than just an allegation and evidence related to that allegation. In order for this case to move forward, you basically have to show a significant amount of evidence and similar wrongdoing that would basically illustrate a prosecution report. So he's basically telling me that I have to show more than just non-[filed] tax returns and the information from the ex-wife in the divorce proceedings. I did not agree with him at this time -- and I told him that we have to treat each tax payer the same, it shouldn't matter on their name. But he was my manager and I had to do what he said."


I couldn't tell you which, but one claims to be mostly non political and the other is actually a gay democrat.


Read the 300+ pages of the transcripts if you want to stop putting your foot in your mouth. You can only lead a horse to water...

So you have an employee how disagrees with his boss and blows the whistle to congress ... over tax returns and foreign amateur porn sites plus some hookers? (cam girls??).
Yep, it sounds like the case of the century.
Edit : Does it not make perfect sense that you'd need more evidence and a more solid case if you *KNOW* the people you're going up against is gonna step up to the plate with 10 lawyers on a 10m retainer each? It makes sense you just dont just fap into the general direction the wind and goes soft.
But what tf I know.

 

[brycejones]

That's what both sides seem say the other side lacks. They both have good points and at the same time are oblivious to their own. Neither side adequately represents the things I value though. But It's nice to know that I've already been judged even though it's not a suprise at all.

What do you value?

 

[cmcartman]

Law should be equal for all men. Even the places on earth with the least corruption(like Scandinavia) has a 2 tier justice system, money buys lawyers, lawyers buy justice. It is what it is.
I think you're issuing a lot of projection here.
Where were *your* outrage when Barr was running his clown show?

I did need to have outrage here. There was plenty of it when one side was doing it. I don't honestly frequent this forum since it turned into a Democratic echo chamber a long time ago. If you have dissenting views you're not going to fit in very long. Kind of funny how tolerant the tolerant are.

 

[IronWing]

That's what both sides seem say the other side lacks. They both have good points and at the same time are oblivious to their own. Neither side adequately represents the things I value though. But It's nice to know that I've already been judged even though it's not a suprise at all.

Why yes, yes, you have been judged. You're spreading unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and then profess that you can't discern a difference between a run of the mill milquetoast political party and a party of fascist insurrectionists who sought to destroy our republic. As I said, you have no moral compass.

 

[fskimospy]

That's what both sides seem say the other side lacks. They both have good points and at the same time are oblivious to their own. Neither side adequately represents the things I value though. But It's nice to know that I've already been judged even though it's not a suprise at all.

I mean one side recently attempted a coup.

Regardless of how you feel about their other policies attempting to end democracy in the US should be disqualifying.

 

[cmcartman]

Why yes, yes, you have been judged. You're spreading unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and then profess that you can't discern a difference between a run of the mill milquetoast political party and a party of fascist insurrectionists who sought to destroy our republic. As I said, you have no moral compass.

I was spreading the transcripts of their testimony and stating an opinion on them. I think one of the first disclaimers I said was "assuming this is true" or something close to that. One side spent months lying about the laptop claiming it was all a Russian hoax. Probably 95% of the posts here are the same thing. It's a fact that they testified and what they testified is basically all I've decided is true for sure. I do think that they very likely are telling the truth but there's no way to be certain of it at this time obviously. You've not read them at all but already made your decision... My side says they're full of shit so they're full of shit.

I didn't know the entire Republican party are fascist insurrectionists but I'll take your word for it. Does that mean that the left is entirely socialist Antifa members too? Maybe that's why I don't associate with them either. Your attitude is exactly the problem. There's a very large percentage of the county that lives in the middle and thinks the fringes of both sides are certifiable in most cases but deal with the absolute that if they don't agree with you they must be idiots.



Nice change of what you meant by judged though. Your opinion of me means about as much to me as my opinion makes to you. There are very few actual debates here. It's echo chamber or shit throwing. Kind of sad because I personally think there should a little more honest debate going on and less of the if you don't agree with me your a Fascist.

 

[fskimospy]

I know what the democrats motivations would be. They would allow brief limited testimony and then spend the rest of the time collecting soundbites. They chose not to have an open hearing in the house either. Don't discount the way they have acted by doing that and then at the same time infer they must be lying because of it.
I do agree that after they've had a chance like they have now they should go to the Senate as well. Considering that one of the whistleblowers was removed I can see how they might find going to the Democratic Senate for help as in the bad idea category.

To put it as charitably as possible only providing testimony in friendly forums implies you have something to hide. This isn't complicated.

Yes you were, you ignored the part of that article that mentioned "assuming these are the only charges" and then made it a blanket statement about the entire case. Especially after I mentioned there were charges that were stonewalled by the DoJ. It's the whole point of them coming out and you're acting like that article meant something when it means jack shit in light of the entire case precisely because there were other charges that should have been filed.

They are the only charges as when prosecutors secure a plea they will secure a plea for the most serious charge. If Weiss had more serious charges to bring he would have done it. He clearly did not think any other charges were merited by the evidence and as he clearly stated to Congress. So again, unless you think he was lying to Congress that's it.

The only way the argument is going to get proved is if congress attempts to do so. No one else has the authority to. I sure don't. That's why they came there in the first place. You're argument seems to be they should have brought proof when likely the only proof is going to be at the DoJ and the only body that would able to do anything to verify those claims would be congress. That being said there are likely going to be emails trails on the IRS side that show that Weiss wasn't solely in charge of the decision making process like he claims he was.

You really should read some of the transcripts before discounting the entire thing though. It's an intricate set of lies if the two whistleblowers are the one's lying.

That's not even remotely true. The DOJ IG could verify those claims, for example. That's the whole job! The IRS people were simply not in a position to make statements as to what was going on internal to the US attorney's office and so far no one has been able to even remotely adequately explain why a Trump appointee would lie to Congress and risk prison or disbarment in order to protect Hunter Biden.

 

[cmcartman]

I mean one side recently attempted a coup.

Regardless of how you feel about their other policies attempting to end democracy in the US should be disqualifying.

Yes, all Republicans should be responsible for January 6th. Seems like a policy that's going to work out well.

Don't take that as me supporting the actions on the 6th in any fashion.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, all Republicans should be responsible for January 6th. Seems like a policy that's going to work out well.

Don't take that as me supporting the actions on the 6th in any fashion.

It's not a policy, I'm simply stating a fact.

Republican elected officials overwhelmingly support a person who attempted a coup about 18 months ago and seek to return him to power. To any rational person who believes in democracy this should be disqualifying. If you do not consider it disqualifying that is an indictment of your character.

 

[IronWing]

I was spreading the transcripts of their testimony and stating an opinion on them. I think one of the first disclaimers I said was "assuming this is true" or something close to that. One side spent months lying about the laptop claiming it was all a Russian hoax. Probably 95% of the posts here are the same thing. It's a fact that they testified and what they testified is basically all I've decided is true for sure. I do think that they very likely are telling the truth but there's no way to be certain of it at this time obviously. You've not read them at all but already made your decision... My side says they're full of shit so they're full of shit.

I didn't know the entire Republican party are fascist insurrectionists but I'll take your word for it. Does that mean that the left is entirely socialist Antifa members too? Maybe that's why I don't associate with them either. Your attitude is exactly the problem. There's a very large percentage of the county that lives in the middle and thinks the fringes of both sides are certifiable in most cases but deal with the absolute that if they don't agree with you they must be idiots.



Nice change of what you meant by judged though. Your opinion of me means about as much to me as my opinion makes to you. There are very few actual debates here. It's echo chamber or shit throwing. Kind of sad because I personally think there should a little more honest debate going on and less of the if you don't agree with me your a Fascist.

No evidence has been provided that the laptop is anything but a hoax. Trump's own lawyer had possession of "Hunter's" laptop and claimed it was loaded with incriminating evidence that he then released… nothing. Eventually someone found Hunter dick pics. The story is rubbish.

Your current theory that Hunter was dealt with with kid gloves is likewise based on testimony of a person who was not in a position to provide reliable testimony concerning the inner workings of the DoJ. In other words, there is no reason to assign any weight to the testimony.

If you have voted for a single Republican candidate since January 2021, then yes, you supported fascists. "I only voted for the fascists because of _____" still means you supported fascists. Fascist Republicans outside the capitol engaged in violent insurrection while fascist Republicans in Congress voted to disenfranchise the voters of entire states in attempt to overturn the election.

 

[fskimospy]

I was spreading the transcripts of their testimony and stating an opinion on them. I think one of the first disclaimers I said was "assuming this is true" or something close to that. One side spent months lying about the laptop claiming it was all a Russian hoax. Probably 95% of the posts here are the same thing. It's a fact that they testified and what they testified is basically all I've decided is true for sure. I do think that they very likely are telling the truth but there's no way to be certain of it at this time obviously. You've not read them at all but already made your decision... My side says they're full of shit so they're full of shit.

People did not claim the laptop was a Russian hoax, simply that its contents couldn't be trusted, which is absolutely true to anyone looking at this objectively and rationally.

After all the laptop was:
1) Abandoned at the shop of a blind repairman by someone he could not identify.
2) He then gave copies of the contents to Rudy Giuliani, one of the least credible people on the planet.
3) Giuliani then attempted to shop it to news organizations
4) When news organizations requested access to the materials so they could verify they were genuine Giuliani refused.

This is standard news practice anywhere - when someone refuses to permit you to verify their story that's almost always because their story is bullshit. The correct response in that situation is to assume something is amiss and everyone knows it.

 

[eelw]

That's what both sides seem say the other side lacks. They both have good points and at the same time are oblivious to their own. Neither side adequately represents the things I value though. But It's nice to know that I've already been judged even though it's not a suprise at all.

Okay, are the Hunter and Trump documents cases similar?

 

[HomerJS]

People did not claim the laptop was a Russian hoax, simply that its contents couldn't be trusted, which is absolutely true to anyone looking at this objectively and rationally.

After all the laptop was:
1) Abandoned at the shop of a blind repairman by someone he could not identify.
2) He then gave copies of the contents to Rudy Giuliani, one of the least credible people on the planet.
3) Giuliani then attempted to shop it to news organizations
4) When news organizations requested access to the materials so they could verify they were genuine Giuliani refused.

This is standard news practice anywhere - when someone refuses to permit you to verify their story that's almost always because their story is bullshit. The correct response in that situation is to assume something is amiss and everyone knows it.

Nothing suspicious there

 

[cmcartman]

To put it as charitably as possible only providing testimony in friendly forums implies you have something to hide. This isn't complicated.

While I agree that's one potential reason. In a case like this it's not the only potential reason. You don't seem to believe that so we'll have to agree to disagree. I did mention that I thought now after they have gone to the House that they should go to the Senate. You're unwillingly to believe there might be other reasons. What I've come used it in debates with you unfortunately.

They are the only charges as when prosecutors secure a plea they will secure a plea for the most serious charge. If Weiss had more serious charges to bring he would have done it. He clearly did not think any other charges were merited by the evidence and as he clearly stated to Congress. So again, unless you think he was lying to Congress that's it.

The other possibility is they weren't allowed to by higher powers that they had to go through... The whole reason the whistleblowers came forward. They mentioned that he seemed to think the bigger ones were slam dunk cases until he came back and basically said DoJ doesn't didn't want them to pursue them.(paraphrased)

That's not even remotely true. The DOJ IG could verify those claims, for example. That's the whole job! The IRS people were simply not in a position to make statements as to what was going on internal to the US attorney's office and so far no one has been able to even remotely adequately explain why a Trump appointee would lie to Congress and risk prison or disbarment in order to protect Hunter Biden.

What is one way to start an OIG investigation? A whistleblower complaint. The transcripts show the reasoning why they believed something normal wasn't going. They have dealt with other cases that didn't proceed anything like this one did for a start.

One reason could be to protect himself if he knew what was happening and had went along. Had the whistleblowers not come forward no one would be the wiser. Honestly I'm suprised they did. You seem to think there are no potential repercussions to them either. Which would be easier? To shut your mouth and continue on with your job or to do this. I think they're at least worth hearing out and going from there.

There seems to be a lot of complaints here about Barr and his time leading the DoJ. That he could single handedly make decisions like this. Is it such blasphemy that maybe Garland was pulling strings from the top in the same way and covering his as in hindsight? What do you think him and Weiss would have said had that been the case. "Oh no we purposely didn't prosecute him because of who he was." Weiss sought special counsel status and was blocked. Don't tell me that DoJ attorneys are immune from realizing that prosecuting the wrong person might be a bad idea for your job prospects. They're political positions and as such they are quite aware of what a "misstep" might bring to their career.


Read the transcripts or stop replying with BS replies that have multiple possibilities but you've accepted the ones you think it must be as the absolute truth.

 

[cmcartman]

So you have an employee how disagrees with his boss and blows the whistle to congress ... over tax returns and foreign amateur porn sites plus some hookers? (cam girls??).
Yep, it sounds like the case of the century.
Edit : Does it not make perfect sense that you'd need more evidence and a more solid case if you *KNOW* the people you're going up against is gonna step up to the plate with 10 lawyers on a 10m retainer each? It makes sense you just dont just fap into the general direction the wind and goes soft.
But what tf I know.

So I guess you shouldn't prosecute the rich because they might put up a fight. This was the inception of the case. They told him not to even bother with it because of who it was. They basically expected him to have more information before starting a case that he normally would otherwise. If you're talking about later on actually prosecuting it I agree. But it should be a reason not start one. You literally have to have the case drop into your hands before you decide to look into it in your mind.

 

[cmcartman]

Nothing suspicious there

The problem is the FBI verified it was his and then no one bothered to tell everyone else of that fact. In fact certain people decided to put out information that the entire thing was a Hoax when many of them knew that it wasn't. That doesn't sound suspicious either.

 

[fskimospy]

While I agree that's one potential reason. In a case like this it's not the only potential reason. You don't seem to believe that so we'll have to agree to disagree. I did mention that I thought now after they have gone to the House that they should go to the Senate. You're unwillingly to believe there might be other reasons. What I've come used it in debates with you unfortunately.

There COULD be other reasons, but by far the most likely one is to limit their exposure to an unfriendly audience.

The other possibility is they weren't allowed to by higher powers that they had to go through... The whole reason the whistleblowers came forward. They mentioned that he seemed to think the bigger ones were slam dunk cases until he came back and basically said DoJ doesn't didn't want them to pursue them.(paraphrased)

It's not the job of IRS investigators to decide what crimes to charge and what ones not to. They aren't qualified to make that decision.

What is one way to start an OIG investigation? A whistleblower complaint. The transcripts show the reasoning why they believed something normal wasn't going. They have dealt with other cases that didn't proceed anything like this one did for a start.

One reason could be to protect himself if he knew what was happening and had went along. Had the whistleblowers not come forward no one would be the wiser. Honestly I'm suprised they did. You seem to think there are no potential repercussions to them either. Which would be easier? To shut your mouth and continue on with your job or to do this. I think they're at least worth hearing out and going from there.

There seems to be a lot of complaints here about Barr and his time leading the DoJ. That he could single handedly make decisions like this. Is it such blasphemy that maybe Garland was pulling strings from the top in the same way and covering his as in hindsight? What do you think him and Weiss would have said had that been the case. "Oh no we purposely didn't prosecute him because of who he was." Weiss sought special counsel status and was blocked. Don't tell me that DoJ attorneys are immune from realizing that prosecuting the wrong person might be a bad idea for your job prospects. They're political positions and as such they are quite aware of what a "misstep" might bring to their career.


Read the transcripts or stop replying with BS replies that have multiple possibilities but you've accepted the ones you think it must be as the absolute truth.

Weiss's job was ending as soon as the Hunter Biden investigation was complete and he knew it. In fact, the only reason he still had his job at all was he was investigating Hunter Biden! If he wanted to keep his job the best thing for it would be for him to do as thorough an investigation as possible. There's no *misstep* for him to make here as it's not like he would be appointed by a Democratic administration and if he really wanted to be a US attorney again in a Republican administration the best thing he could do is nail Hunter Biden to the wall.

What you're saying makes no sense. Why would a political appointee of Donald Trump purposefully lie to Congress and expose himself to criminal penalties in order to protect Hunter Biden?

This is again common sense. By far the most likely answer is he wouldn't. Unfortunately when people get legal/political results they don't like they concoct fantasy conspiracies to avoid changing their minds.