Hunter's laptop

[homersapien 11,372]

20 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

As my latest post suggested, the special counsel was requested my the Democrats after the Comey dismissal.  The special counsel may not have happened if the Democrats didn’t request one.

I believe something similar will happen with Hunter’s laptop.  In other words; if the Republicans take over the house there will be a call for a special counsel to look into impropriates from information that is on Hunter’s laptop.

The difference being, the impropriates will focus on Joe Biden’s involvement in possible inappropriate dealings with foreign governments.  Serious stuff.  

That's fine with me.

In fact, I would really welcome any attempt by Republicans to indict Hunter or Joe for any impropriates" (sic) involving a foreign government.  Especially considering we know Trump asked for a political favor from Ukraine in exchange for their announcing an investigation into Hunter Biden. 

It would certainly reveal the Republicans as the cynical traitors I think they are.

But regardless, since I am a patriot for our system and am deeply concerned about rule of law and cynical politics,  I would welcome such an investigation if merited. And I trust the ongoing DOJ investigation will uncover anything that might merit such a special counsel. If not, let the Repubs expose themselves.

Edited March 28, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,818]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

They may call for it. They can conduct congressional hearings to see if they uncover any reason for one for Joe. But Biden left Trump’s  US Attorney investigating Hunter in place— there’s no reason to question his independence. If he finds something implicating Joe, he can turn that over. Right now it’s just rank speculation that Joe did anything illegal.

To the bolded part; you’re absolutely correct on this.  It was known the Steele Dossier was not verified, so it was rank speculation to think Trump did anything wrong.  It’s amazing that the Democrats were so triggered by Comey’s firing that they took the firing (2) + the Steele Dossier (2) and got to the conclusion they tried to push (5).

Do you think if the laptop was allowed to go public when the story dropped the information would have been vetted in a more expeditious manner under Trump’s DOJ?  I’m not sure Bill Barr would have acted any differently, but we will never know.

[TexasTiger 12,858]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

To the bolded part; you’re absolutely correct on this.  It was known the Steele Dossier was not verified, so it was rank speculation to think Trump did anything wrong.  It’s amazing that the Democrats were so triggered by Comey’s firing that they took the firing (2) + the Steele Dossier (2) and got to the conclusion they tried to push (5).

Do you think if the laptop was allowed to go public when the story dropped the information would have been vetted in a more expeditious manner under Trump’s DOJ?  I’m not sure Bill Barr would have acted any differently, but we will never know.

You obsess over the Steele dossier and ignore the actual findings of Mueller showing obstruction and the related convictions.

[homersapien 11,372]

On 3/27/2022 at 1:36 PM, bigbird said:

 

Read my 2nd sentence. The one that cleverly answers the question, "Why not".

For the rest, yes, I surely can speculate, as I clearly stated in my initial response. However, you apparently stopped reading the remainder.

 

Intelligence

As far as the other, the only partisanship around here would be yours trying your best to distract from any improprieties associated with Hunter, his laptop, or Joe. Just stop.

I have stated before that the Hunter Biden story repulses me.  I would like to think Joe Biden would have prevented Hunter from benefiting from his "name".  That's the exact reason I didn't vote for Biden in the Democratic nomination process.  IMO, it was a stupid unforced error on Joe (and not his first). 

What is happening now regarding Hunter Biden is exactly what I felt would happen. 

Having said that, it also happened with Trump's family. So if we are going to permit it for the Trump's, it's only fair to permit it for the Biden's.  It's just another measure of the destructive hypocrisy that is our political system. 

And I am not trying to "distract" from any improprieties associated with Hunter, his laptop, or Joe.  If criminal behavior exists - which apparently does not extend to simply profiting on your name and your POTUS father - we  should nail Hunter to the cross for them and Joe to the extent he was involved.

Again, I don't care if you think Hunter will be indicted.  I am just pointing out that such an opinion ought to be based on facts/evidence. 

That's why I asked the question.  You said you think Hunter will be indicted.  But you have no idea for what.  That sounds like you are basing your prediction on nothing but partisan hopes and wishes. 

Again, you certainly have a right to do that, as do others.  But let's at least be honest about what's going on here in this thread:  No facts.  Only partisan wishes.

Edited March 29, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,818]

40 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You obsess over the Steele dossier and ignore the actual findings of Mueller showing obstruction and the related convictions.

The reason to obsess over the Steele Dossier is the mere fact that without that dossier there would be no Mueller investigation.  A little remembered part of the puzzle.  The firing of Comey was just the catalyst for the special counsel.

[TexasTiger 12,858]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The reason to obsess over the Steele Dossier is the mere fact that without that dossier there would be no Mueller investigation.  A little remembered part of the puzzle.  The firing of Comey was just the catalyst for the special counsel.

I know you believe that because you’ve ingested a steady stream of misinformation indicating that, but it’s not true:

“

Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?

No. Mr. Trump and his allies have insinuated that the F.B.I. based the Russia investigation on the dossier. But when counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established that Mr. Steele’s reports reached that counterintelligence team on Sept. 19, 2016.

The basis for the investigation was instead that WikiLeaks had disrupted the Democratic National Convention by releasing Democratic emails believed to have been stolen by Russian hackers, and that an Australian diplomat said a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser had bragged to him about apparent outreach from Russia involving an offer to help the campaign by anonymously releasing information damaging to Mrs. Clinton.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/trump-russia-investigation-dossier.html?smid=url-share

[auburn41 492]

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

It'd be like asking to prove that the REC bought bama players cars.

I can't believe you would even mention the REC or Bama recruiting......especially without evidence of wrongdoing!  Everyone knows they've always operated within the rules!  More of the "Big Lie" from you 😇

Edited March 27, 2022 by auburn41

[AU9377 4,930]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Her having classified material on her unprotected insecure server is prosecutable because she knew there was classified on it and she knew the server was not secure protected and cleared for classified materials.  Thank you for finally admitting she is a criminal regardless of Comey's fear of prosecuting her to protect what he thought would be his job.

She had intent to protect herself from any future investigations and had NO regard for whether that action would harm the country.

Yes, she is a danger to society, an evil force, and has only one motive... the destruction of Amurica....  Does that make you feel good?  It is nonsense, but clearly nonsense helps build strong allegiance.

You cannot show one example of someone being prosecuted with the same facts as existed in that case.  You know why I know that?  Because multiple AGs have stated that.... 

I pointed out that in every prosecuted case using the Espionage Act, the person charged had transmitted material in some way to someone that they knew was unauthorized to view the classified material.  That didn't happen in this case and therefore there was no prosecution. 
 

What you want is for her to be treated differently than others.  Interestingly, you don't want Trump treated the same way.

[AU9377 4,930]

This is what gets to me. Some want to make it sound like Hunter Biden has committed some incredibly obscene crime.  The truth is that if you indicted and went to trial to get a conviction, Hunter would likely be sentenced to probation and certainly not more than 1 year.

Here are some charges that others connected with Presidents have committed and been pardoned of recently.

Stephen K. Bannon: Trump's former chief strategist in the White House was in charge of the final months of his 2016 presidential campaign and was indicted in August along with three others on wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy charges. Prosecutors alleged that Bannon’s crowdfunding “We Build the Wall” campaign raised more than $25 million from Trump supporters and used hundreds of thousands for personal expenses. He was taken into custody by U.S. Postal Inspection Service agents while on board the yacht of Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui. Bannon received a full pardon and now will not have to face a trial.

Elliott Broidy: Broidy, a former Republican National Committee finance chair and one of Trump's top fundraisers, was pardoned. Broidy pleaded guilty in October to conspiring to violate foreign lobbying laws.

Albert J. Pirro, Jr.: With less than an hour to go before Biden is sworn in, Trump granted a full pardon to Albert J. Pirro, Jr. Pirro, Jr., the ex-husband of Fox News host and Trump ally Jeanine Pirro, was convicted on conspiracy and tax evasion charges in 2000.

I could go on and on, but why? That would be as silly as going on and on about a damn laptop or Hillary's emails.

[I_M4_AU 7,818]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I know you believe that because you’ve ingested a steady stream of misinformation indicating that, but it’s not true:

“

Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?

No. Mr. Trump and his allies have insinuated that the F.B.I. based the Russia investigation on the dossier. But when counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established that Mr. Steele’s reports reached that counterintelligence team on Sept. 19, 2016.

The basis for the investigation was instead that WikiLeaks had disrupted the Democratic National Convention by releasing Democratic emails believed to have been stolen by Russian hackers, and that an Australian diplomat said a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser had bragged to him about apparent outreach from Russia involving an offer to help the campaign by anonymously releasing information damaging to Mrs. Clinton.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/trump-russia-investigation-dossier.html?smid=url-share

This article from “The Hill” seems to refute what the NYTimes article says.  Pick you poison.  I’ll go with The Hill.

The then-senior Department of Justice (DOJ) official briefed both senior FBI and DOJ officials in summer 2016 about Christopher Steele’s Russia dossier, explicitly cautioning that the British intelligence operative’s work was opposition research connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and might be biased.

Ohr’s briefings, in July and August 2016, included the deputy director of the FBI, a top lawyer for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a Justice official who later would become the top deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller.

At the time, Ohr was the associate deputy attorney general. Yet his warnings about political bias were pointedly omitted weeks later from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant that the FBI obtained from a federal court, granting it permission to spy on whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the 2016 presidential election.

Ohr’s activities, chronicled in handwritten notes and congressional testimony I gleaned from sources, provide the most damning evidence to date that FBI and DOJ officials may have misled federal judges in October 2016 in their zeal to obtain the warrant targeting Trump adviser Carter Page just weeks before Election Day.

 

[jj3jordan 2,052]

42 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Yes, she is a danger to society, an evil force, and has only one motive... the destruction of Amurica....  Does that make you feel good?  It is nonsense, but clearly nonsense helps build strong allegiance.

You cannot show one example of someone being prosecuted with the same facts as existed in that case.  You know why I know that?  Because multiple AGs have stated that.... 

I pointed out that in every prosecuted case using the Espionage Act, the person charged had transmitted material in some way to someone that they knew was unauthorized to view the classified material.  That didn't happen in this case and therefore there was no prosecution. 
 

What you want is for her to be treated differently than others.  Interestingly, you don't want Trump treated the same way.

Typical liberal twisting my words. Her motive was only for herself nothing else. If it caused harm to America, and it did, she does not care.  There are hundreds of cases of military members going to prison over mishandling of classified material. Not selling it to any body or any country, just careless, the same words used by Comey about her.  We had two missions fail in all likelihood because somebody read her unprotected emails and knew what was coming. You don't need the espionage act. No intent is required. If this was you, or me, or even homer, we would be in jail. She should not be held to a different standard than us or any other regular military member.  Some things are just crimes. This is one. It is not debatable, doesn't need a grand jury, or probable cause, or a money trail. It is literally undisputed facts in evidence that many others have been jailed for.

[TexasTiger 12,858]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This article from “The Hill” seems to refute what the NYTimes article says.  Pick you poison.  I’ll go with The Hill.

The then-senior Department of Justice (DOJ) official briefed both senior FBI and DOJ officials in summer 2016 about Christopher Steele’s Russia dossier, explicitly cautioning that the British intelligence operative’s work was opposition research connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and might be biased.

Ohr’s briefings, in July and August 2016, included the deputy director of the FBI, a top lawyer for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a Justice official who later would become the top deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller.

At the time, Ohr was the associate deputy attorney general. Yet his warnings about political bias were pointedly omitted weeks later from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant that the FBI obtained from a federal court, granting it permission to spy on whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the 2016 presidential election.

Ohr’s activities, chronicled in handwritten notes and congressional testimony I gleaned from sources, provide the most damning evidence to date that FBI and DOJ officials may have misled federal judges in October 2016 in their zeal to obtain the warrant targeting Trump adviser Carter Page just weeks before Election Day.

 

You cite an opinion piece. The article I provided cited the actual report’s finding of when the counterterrorism team conducting the investigation was briefed and only references Steele, but doesn’t say they had the dossier.

Even if one assumes the they knew when the leadership knew, the investigation was supposedly launched a day before the article you cite claims the FBI leadership was briefed:

“Yet, in testimony last summer to congressional investigators, Ohr revealed the FBI and Justice lawyers had no need to speculate: He explicitly warned them in a series of contacts, beginning July 31, 2016, that Steele expressed biased against Trump and was working on a project connected to the Clinton campaign.”

 

[I_M4_AU 7,818]

49 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You cite an opinion piece. The article I provided cited the actual report’s finding of when the counterterrorism team conducting the investigation was briefed and only references Steele, but doesn’t say they had the dossier.

Even if one assumes the they knew when the leadership knew, the investigation was supposedly launched a day before the article you cite claims the FBI leadership was briefed

Steele has been a FBI CHS (Confidential Human Source) on an annual basis since 2013.  He was known to the FBI.  This is from the NYT source material about Steele.  As you can see he contacted the FBI on July 1st and met with them on July 5th concerning Trump.

The first election report that Steele provided to the FBI, which, as described in Chapters Five and Seven, was one of four of Steele's reports that the FBI relied upon to support probable cause in the Carter Page FISA applications, is captioned "Company Intelligence Report 2016/080-U.S. Presidential Election: Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin," and is dated June 20, 2016 (Report 80). It was provided to Handling Agent 1 on July 5, 2016, and contains numerous allegations about the presidential candidates, including that: (1) the "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting, and assisting [Trump] for at least 5 years;" (2) "[Trump] and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals;" (3) Trump's activities in Moscow, including "perverted sexual acts," make him vulnerable to blackmail; (4) Russian Intelligence Services have collected "compromising material" on Hillary Clinton; and (5) the Kremlin has been "feeding" information to Trump's campaign for an extended period of time. Steele said that he debated with his business colleague whether to include the sexual material in Report 80 but refused to omit it because he felt that as a matter of professional practice, when reporting information from a source, "we have to be faithful to all of the information the source provided" and not avoid material because it is controversial. Then Director James Comey later described this aspect of Steele's reporting as "salacious and unverified."218
Steele explained that shortly after drafting Report 80 he had discussions with his business partner and Simpson about what to do with the information. He said that he and his partner considered the contents of the report to have national security implications and that the report therefore needed to be shared with the FBI. He said that Simpson agreed to Steele's proposal, and thereafter, Steele contacted the FBI.219

Steele Informs Handling Agent 1 in July 2016 about his Election Reporting Work

Shortly before the Fourth of July 2016, Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that he received a call from Steele requesting an in-person meeting as soon as possible. Handling Agent 1 said he departed his duty station in Europe on July 5 and met with Steele in Steele's office that day. During their meeting, Steele provided Handling Agent 1 with a copy of Report 80 and explained that he had been hired by Fusion GPS to collect information on the relationship between candidate Trump's businesses and Russia. Handling Agent1 said Steele had become concerned about the possibility of the Russians compromising Trump in the event Trump became President.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

This is on page 131/2

These reports, although not classified as the Steele Dossier, certainly influenced the FBI into starting an investigation.  Again from the same source:

Steele told us that the reports he generated were not designed to be "finished products" and instead were "to be briefed off of orally versus consumed as a written product." He said that the reports were "mostly single source reporting" and were uncorroborated intelligence "up to a point," but were informed by background research and his judgment as an intelligence professional.

And:

Approximately 1 week after his July 5 meeting with Steele, Handling Agent 1 contacted an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC 1) in NYFO, whom Handling Agent 1 had known for many years and described as having experience with "sensitive matters." Handling Agent 1 said that he described the "gist" of the situation to ASAC 1, who responded that he would assess what to do and contact Handling Agent 1 later. ASAC 1 told us that the information that Handling Agent 1 explained to him "[c]learly [was] something that needs to be handled immediately" and "definitely of interest to the Counterintelligence folks." ASAC 1 said that after hearing from Handling Agent 1, he spoke with his Special Agent in Charge (SAC 1) the same day. ASAC 1's notes from his July 13 call with Handling Agent 1 closely track the contents of Report 80, identify Simpson as a client of a law firm, and include the following: "law firm works for the Republican party or Hillary and will use [the information described in Report 80] at some point."223 ASAC 1 told us that he would not have made this notation if Handling Agent 1 had not stated it to him.

My comments:  I can see how the NYTimes split hairs here to say the Steele Dossier was not the reason for the investigation started on July 31st as there was no Steele Dossier at that point, just reports from Steele.  I can also see how the Cross Fire Hurricane Team did not officially receive the Steele Dossier until September 19th as the Dossier may not have been completed until close to that date.  However, it seems the FBI was heavily influenced by Steele whether it was the dossier or just reports.

There is some disingenuous reporting going on all around.

[AU9377 4,930]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Typical liberal twisting my words. Her motive was only for herself nothing else. If it caused harm to America, and it did, she does not care.  There are hundreds of cases of military members going to prison over mishandling of classified material. Not selling it to any body or any country, just careless, the same words used by Comey about her.  We had two missions fail in all likelihood because somebody read her unprotected emails and knew what was coming. You don't need the espionage act. No intent is required. If this was you, or me, or even homer, we would be in jail. She should not be held to a different standard than us or any other regular military member.  Some things are just crimes. This is one. It is not debatable, doesn't need a grand jury, or probable cause, or a money trail. It is literally undisputed facts in evidence that many others have been jailed for.

"We had two missions fail in all likelihood because somebody read her unprotected emails and knew what was coming."

"In all likelihood" doesn't cut it and you know that.  The fact is that the FBI could not find ONE case with similar facts that had been prosecuted by the Justice Department.  Not one. 

If you don't show intent, you have to show gross negligence and that that certainly hasn't been shown.  Should the FBI go back and charge Condi Rice?  It is too late to charge Colin Powell.

[jj3jordan 2,052]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

"We had two missions fail in all likelihood because somebody read her unprotected emails and knew what was coming."

"In all likelihood" doesn't cut it and you know that.  The fact is that the FBI could not find ONE case with similar facts that had been prosecuted by the Justice Department.  Not one. 

If you don't show intent, you have to show gross negligence and that that certainly hasn't been shown.  Should the FBI go back and charge Condi Rice?  It is too late to charge Colin Powell.

Why would you charge Condi Rice?

I say in all likelihood because it plausibly explains an outcome for which there has not been forwarded another explanation. I don’t care if you believe it. It exists and makes sense, just not what you want to hear. Comey called it negligence. And it was gross and premeditated.

[AU9377 4,930]

4 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Why would you charge Condi Rice?

I say in all likelihood because it plausibly explains an outcome for which there has not been forwarded another explanation. I don’t care if you believe it. It exists and makes sense, just not what you want to hear. Comey called it negligence. And it was gross and premeditated.

I wouldn't, but it is a known fact that she mixed work and private email accounts.  She maintained both.  She has admitted that she sometimes forwarded work from one to the other and that items marked "classified" at a later date (which was 95% of the classified material on Hillary's server) was likely on her personal email account at one time.

[jj3jordan 2,052]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I wouldn't, but it is a known fact that she mixed work and private email accounts.  She maintained both.  She has admitted that she sometimes forwarded work from one to the other and that items marked "classified" at a later date (which was 95% of the classified material on Hillary's server) was likely on her personal email account at one time.

A little different than refusing to use the state.gov classified server.

Condi did use the secure server and secure email. She may have admitted to accidentally sending some to the other email. I’m trusting you on that because I don’t have knowledge. Hillary purposely used her own server not secured or protected (intent regardless of whether Comey says it or not) for all her work email. Then deleted 30k (intent) emails, bleachbited the server(intent) and bashed all her mobile devices with hammers(intent).

[AU9377 4,930]

4 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

A little different than refusing to use the state.gov classified server.

Condi did use the secure server and secure email. She may have admitted to accidentally sending some to the other email. I’m trusting you on that because I don’t have knowledge. Hillary purposely used her own server not secured or protected (intent regardless of whether Comey says it or not) for all her work email. Then deleted 30k (intent) emails, bleachbited the server(intent) and bashed all her mobile devices with hammers(intent).

With the nut house that has been after her for years, does it surprise you that she didn't want any of her personal emails being sifted thru?  That is a much more reasonable explanation of why she bleached the server.  In either event, she won't be prosecuted over the nonsense and she is now retired with Secret Service protection for life by way of Bill.  She accomplished more than any other woman in the history of American politics.  Now she can be a grandmother.

[bigbird 60,523]

On 3/28/2022 at 9:30 PM, AU9377 said:

does it surprise you that she didn't want any of her personal emails being sifted thru? 

Oh come on!

You couldn't have typed that with a straight face, right?  You really believe that? 

[AU9377 4,930]

On 4/1/2022 at 7:56 PM, bigbird said:

Oh come on!

You couldn't have typed that with a straight face, right?  You really believe that? 

I believe that she is paranoid and hyper sensitive to anything some may use against her, valid or not.  What could she have been hiding? Nobody ever answers that question.  If she was part of some clandestine plot of some kind, does anyone believe that she would have laid it out in an email?

It just gets to be bizarre at some point.  She has been in the White House as First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator & Secretary of State.  She doesn't need to hide emails to have done whatever it is people are so full of faux rage over.

[bigbird 60,523]

43 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I believe that she is paranoid and hyper sensitive to anything some may use against her, valid or not.  What could she have been hiding? Nobody ever answers that question.  If she was part of some clandestine plot of some kind, does anyone believe that she would have laid it out in an email?

It just gets to be bizarre at some point.  She has been in the White House as First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator & Secretary of State.  She doesn't need to hide emails to have done whatever it is people are so full of faux rage over.

I think it's the appropriate level of outrage, it's just that the outrage is one-sided and therefore looks misguided. Very similar to the concern and outrage over how HB and his dad have been treated so far.

As far as savviness, the Biden's are not the Clinton's. That doesn't mean either are the innocents you are trying to pass them as.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I believe that she is paranoid and hyper sensitive to anything some may use against her, valid or not.  What could she have been hiding? Nobody ever answers that question.  If she was part of some clandestine plot of some kind, does anyone believe that she would have laid it out in an email?

It just gets to be bizarre at some point.  She has been in the White House as First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator & Secretary of State.  She doesn't need to hide emails to have done whatever it is people are so full of faux rage over.

[AU9377 4,930]

17 hours ago, bigbird said:

I think it's the appropriate level of outrage, it's just that the outrage is one-sided and therefore looks misguided. Very similar to the concern and outrage over how HB and his dad have been treated so far.

As far as savviness, the Biden's are not the Clinton's. That doesn't mean either are the innocents you are trying to pass them as.

I'm not framing anyone as being innocent.  I just haven't seen an actual prosecutable crime, other than Hunter Biden's tax evasion and failure to register under Foreign Agent Registration Act. 

Likewise, I haven't seen a prosecutable crime committed by Trump or his daughter concerning Jan 6th or all the goodies she acquired from China.  Trump's actions should be exposed, to help deter any future President from attempting to alter the results of a valid election in the future, but a prosecution for that would be difficult.

[homersapien 11,372]

26 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I'm not framing anyone as being innocent.  I just haven't seen an actual prosecutable crime, other than Hunter Biden's tax evasion and failure to register under Foreign Agent Registration Act. 

Likewise, I haven't seen a prosecutable crime committed by Trump or his daughter concerning Jan 6th or all the goodies she acquired from China.  Trump's actions should be exposed, to help deter any future President from attempting to alter the results of a valid election in the future, but a prosecution for that would be difficult.

Not sure exactly how you are defining "prosecutable crimes" but here's an accounting by one organization:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-staggering-record-of-uncharged-criminal-misconduct/#table

President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged criminal misconduct

[bigbird 60,523]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I'm not framing anyone as being innocent.  I just haven't seen an actual prosecutable crime, other than Hunter Biden's tax evasion and failure to register under Foreign Agent Registration Act. 

Likewise, I haven't seen a prosecutable crime committed by Trump or his daughter concerning Jan 6th or all the goodies she acquired from China.  Trump's actions should be exposed, to help deter any future President from attempting to alter the results of a valid election in the future, but a prosecution for that would be difficult.

Haven't seen anything prosecutable for Trump or his daughter but want it exposed to deter future Presidents.  Wouldn't the same be equally applicable with Hunter and Joe?