Hunter Biden Investigation - An Unholy Mess

[LPTiger 5,167]

CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honing has said that David Weiss' investigation into Hunter Biden is an unholy mess.   This follows the New York Times reporting that Weiss had decided not to bring any charges until the 2 FBI whistleblowers came forward.   The Times reports that Weiss changed his mind following the whistleblower testimony and decided to bring two misdemeanor charges.   Then that effort blew up as a result of a hearing before an Article III judge.   Honing says Merrick Garland and David Weiss are going to have to answer for all that has occurred because "they have been all over the place."   He says he can't make sense as to why suddenly after 5 years Weiss decided he needed a new title.  If the Times reporting is true, it lends even more credibility to the whistleblowers testimony that some on here, and nationally, immediately discounted because it offered very inconvenient truths.   The fact that CNN is now sounding off about Weiss speaks volumes and signals CNN believes more bad news is coming.   It this were a "done deal," CNN would not be reporting on it this way.   

[icanthearyou 4,463]

You need to reference the source.

[LPTiger 5,167]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

You need to reference the source.

Google "Elie Honig unholy mess"

[DKW 86 7,429]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/david-weiss-doj-accused-of-making-unholy-mess-with-hunter-biden-case-all-over-the-map/vi-AA1fzwLI

Honig, no love for trump at all, gives a clearly defined statement on how Weiss is being absolutely forced to do anything about HB. "If it wasn't for the whistleblowers..."

He says straightforwardly that Weiss is dragging his feet and trying to make this sweetheart deal make everything go away for the Bidens. Most of the US agrees with him.

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by DKW 86

[AU9377 4,976]

On 8/22/2023 at 6:17 AM, DKW 86 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/david-weiss-doj-accused-of-making-unholy-mess-with-hunter-biden-case-all-over-the-map/vi-AA1fzwLI

Honig, no love for trump at all, gives a clearly defined statement on how Weiss is being absolutely forced to do anything about HB. "If it wasn't for the whistleblowers..."

He says straightforwardly that Weiss is dragging his feet and trying to make this sweetheart deal make everything go away for the Bidens. Most of the US agrees with him.

 

You still haven't considered the very likely possibility that there is no connection to be proven between Joe Biden and Hunter's activities.  It doesn't matter who investigates or what they charge, if you don't have adequate evidence of criminal wrongdoing, this all ends the same way.

[Mikey 16,630]

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

You still haven't considered the very likely possibility that there is no connection to be proven between Joe Biden and Hunter's activities.

You can't be serious! You think Hunter got paid millions because the several foreign entities wanted a meth-head with zero experience on their boards? To think that Joe had no part in this is preposterous.

[LPTiger 5,167]

On 8/27/2023 at 10:35 AM, AU9377 said:

You still haven't considered the very likely possibility that there is no connection to be proven between Joe Biden and Hunter's activities.  

To quote Joel:  "you may be wrong for all I know but you may be right."  If the whistleblowers are telling the truth, there were actions taken to protect Hunter and the president.  If that was happening, if could be because of who they were or it could be because others were afraid of the truth.  Recently, another FBI whistleblower reported he was told not to investigate Rudy G.   The fact is that those of us on this board will be the last to KNOW whether anybody broke any law.  But, I think that most of us would agree that the DOJ/FBI's reputation right now is at an all time low with a broad swath of the American public.  If these whistleblowers are telling the truth we had an FBI, or at least people in important positions in the FBI, that didn't want to investigate any president.   The HB diversion agreement, that the Assistant US Attorney said was unique and something he had never seen before and one the judge said she had never seen before and could not find one like it, threw fuel on the bad reputation fire.    At a minimum, it is HIGHLY unusual, for an investigation to take 5 years, reach a conclusion, have that conclusion blown up by a judge and then the investigator, suddenly after 5 years, decide he needed a special counsel designation.   Don't take my word it, take CNN's senior legal analyst's word for it.   Something just isn't right here.   Maybe it is simply efforts to protect them because of who they are and not because of what they have done.  It will all come out in due time.  I'm sure many on here were completely convinced that Hill had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.   I know we have some historians here.   Has any other vice-president's son accompanied his dad to up to 15 foreign countries before?   If so, have any of them then secured lucrative compensation from entities or people closely connected to those governments?  I know the Trump kids traveled domestically on AF1, but I don't recall them going on foreign trips...  Maybe they did.   In any event, just as in Watergate, the ultimate truth will come out once witnesses are called and they give sworn testimony.   I suspect more of that is in our future.

[AU9377 4,976]

45 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

To quote Joel:  "you may be wrong for all I know but you may be right."  If the whistleblowers are telling the truth, there were actions taken to protect Hunter and the president.  If that was happening, if could be because of who they were or it could be because others were afraid of the truth.  Recently, another FBI whistleblower reported he was told not to investigate Rudy G.   The fact is that those of us on this board will be the last to KNOW whether anybody broke any law.  But, I think that most of us would agree that the DOJ/FBI's reputation right now is at an all time low with a broad swath of the American public.  If these whistleblowers are telling the truth we had an FBI, or at least people in important positions in the FBI, that didn't want to investigate any president.   The HB diversion agreement, that the Assistant US Attorney said was unique and something he had never seen before and one the judge said she had never seen before and could not find one like it, threw fuel on the bad reputation fire.    At a minimum, it is HIGHLY unusual, for an investigation to take 5 years, reach a conclusion, have that conclusion blown up by a judge and then the investigator, suddenly after 5 years, decide he needed a special counsel designation.   Don't take my word it, take CNN's senior legal analyst's word for it.   Something just isn't right here.   Maybe it is simply efforts to protect them because of who they are and not because of what they have done.  It will all come out in due time.  I'm sure many on here were completely convinced that Hill had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.   I know we have some historians here.   Has any other vice-president's son accompanied his dad to up to 15 foreign countries before?   If so, have any of them then secured lucrative compensation from entities or people closely connected to those governments?  I know the Trump kids traveled domestically on AF1, but I don't recall them going on foreign trips...  Maybe they did.   In any event, just as in Watergate, the ultimate truth will come out once witnesses are called and they give sworn testimony.   I suspect more of that is in our future.

The IRS agents testified as to what they had knowledge of.  We already know that Weiss has refuted the claim that he was not allowed to file charges in other jurisdictions.  He has made at least 3 written statements stating that he was not restrained in any way.  I seriously doubt that he will suddenly have a different story to tell. 

I agree that 5 years is a long time and I have no idea why he suddenly requested Special Counsel status.  Even so, beginning an impeachment inquiry, not because you have evidence of al alleged crime, but instead, in order to look for criminal conduct is just a reach.  Just consider how many people have been looking for a smoking gun and for how long.

1. Rudy Giuliani - spent months trying to drum up something real and failed.

2. House Republicans - Even with Hunter's laptop and multiple so called whistleblowers.. still nothing connecting Joe Biden to criminal activity.

3. David Weiss and his team - spent the past 5 years and discovered tax charges.

There are only so many people with knowledge and so many documents that could show some wrongdoing.  The horse is dead.  If you want to keep beating it, have at it.

[LPTiger 5,167]

37 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

 We already know that Weiss has refuted the claim that he was not allowed to file charges in other jurisdictions.  He has made at least 3 written statements stating that he was not restrained in any way.  

I have no idea why he suddenly requested Special Counsel status.  

1. Rudy Giuliani - spent months trying to drum up something real and failed.

2. House Republicans - Even with Hunter's laptop and multiple so called whistleblowers.. still nothing connecting Joe Biden to criminal activity.

3. David Weiss and his team - spent the past 5 years and discovered tax charges.

Look closely at what Weiss said.   He said I only have charging authority in my district (of course) and I have never asked to be appointed special attorney or broader special counsel because I have been told if I needed to file charges in other jurisdictions I would receive cooperation.  Two months later, what happens?   He is appointed special counsel.  It is obvious, as demonstrated by dropping the charges in Delaware,  that he intends to bring charges in California and DC.  Rudy had and has no subpoena power.   Republicans have had the majority for almost 8 months....   The whistleblowers came forward a few months ago.   This will take some time and some delay is intentional.   Just as the criminal charges against Trump were timed to the 2024 election so will the House's investigation.   If the Republicans  had a smoking gun it would be politically stupid to show it now and give the Dem's time to kick Joe to the curb and replace him with MO.   This will be a slow drip exercise.   

[AU9377 4,976]

5 hours ago, LPTiger said:

Look closely at what Weiss said.   He said I only have charging authority in my district (of course) and I have never asked to be appointed special attorney or broader special counsel because I have been told if I needed to file charges in other jurisdictions I would receive cooperation.  Two months later, what happens?   He is appointed special counsel.  It is obvious, as demonstrated by dropping the charges in Delaware,  that he intends to bring charges in California and DC.  Rudy had and has no subpoena power.   Republicans have had the majority for almost 8 months....   The whistleblowers came forward a few months ago.   This will take some time and some delay is intentional.   Just as the criminal charges against Trump were timed to the 2024 election so will the House's investigation.   If the Republicans  had a smoking gun it would be politically stupid to show it now and give the Dem's time to kick Joe to the curb and replace him with MO.   This will be a slow drip exercise.   

Your first couple sentences are exactly what I have been pointing out about the IRS agents' testimony.  They testified as to their knowledge.  They don't know the scope or the additional information that may or may not have been discovered.  Investigating beyond Hunter Biden's tax liabilities has never been their job.  That part of the investigation is done by the FBI with DOJ oversight.

What you suggest is plausible.  However, it is also plausible that Weiss simply wants to remove any doubt as to whether or not the decisions he makes are his decisions alone.  If that is his motivation, it means that he is being reactive to what he perceives to be public opinion concerning how he has handled the case overall and it rebuts the allegations made by the IRS agents.  I would also expect him to add a FARA charge at this point due to the same reasoning.  As Special Counsel, he can issue a detailed report of his findings.  That ordinarily wouldn't be done in keeping with DOJ policy concerning releasing information obtained as the result of an investigation into a private citizen. 

[I_M4_AU 7,859]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

it is also plausible that Weiss simply wants to remove any doubt as to whether or not the decisions he makes are his decisions alone.

Do you think there is any connection between Weiss telling the judge that they are still investigating Hunter and the whistleblowers testified in Congress?  This resulted in the plea deal falling apart.  It appears to me that Weiss’ hands were tied as if he told the judge the investigation was over and agreed with the immunity clause, he would have been investigated and knew the whistleblowers were, potentially a stumbling block to the investigation he was heading.

[AU9377 4,976]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you think there is any connection between Weiss telling the judge that they are still investigating Hunter and the whistleblowers testified in Congress?  This resulted in the plea deal falling apart.  It appears to me that Weiss’ hands were tied as if he told the judge the investigation was over and agreed with the immunity clause, he would have been investigated and knew the whistleblowers were, potentially a stumbling block to the investigation he was heading.

I don't believe that the testimony from the two IRS investigators had anything at all to do with the judge not taking the plea as it was written.  That process started to unravel when the prosecution and defendant had different understandings of what the actual plea itself included.  Until David Weiss and other investigators give testimony, we don't know what the overall investigation has reviewed or whether that review found any illegal activity.  The IRS agents aren't privy to the entire investigation.  They investigate tax crimes.

[I_M4_AU 7,859]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I don't believe that the testimony from the two IRS investigators had anything at all to do with the judge not taking the plea as it was written. 

That was not the question.  Do you think Weiss told the judge that the investigation of Hunter was on-going because of the testimony of the two whistleblowers to congress just days before?

Edited August 29, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 7,859]

 

Is this a concern for Joe?

[I_M4_AU 7,859]

@AU9377you might not have heard of this revelation:

 

 

[AU9377 4,976]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

@AU9377you might not have heard of this revelation:

 

 

I read that last night.  Ask yourself a question.  Why use the term "admitted?"  They have never denied having any of the correspondence.  In fact, this is very very old news.  The National Archives informed the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which made the FOIA request over a year ago that the items existed.

In June of 2022, the archives informed the SLF that they had " identified approximately 5,138 email messages, 25 electronic files and 200 pages of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request"

There is no media blackout.  Not everyone is "Fox News" and not everyone works in concert with right wing talking heads in order to help them create as much smoke as possible. 

[I_M4_AU 7,859]

4 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Why use the term "admitted?"

I don’t know, you will have to ask them.  We all know the government is willing to hand over any information as long as you know what to ask for.

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The National Archives informed the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which made the FOIA request over a year ago that the items existed.

I would guess the SLF is the one that informed the GOP Oversight Committee that Robert L. Peters existed.  The oversight committee is now making it public.

So, do you think this is a problem for Joe?  I would guess a deep dive into those emails, files and responsive records are in order.

Can you give me a good reason a government official would have pseudonyms?

[LPTiger 5,167]

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I read that last night.  Ask yourself a question.  Why use the term "admitted?"  They have never denied having any of the correspondence.  In fact, this is very very old news.  The National Archives informed the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which made the FOIA request over a year ago that the items existed.

In June of 2022, the archives informed the SLF that they had " identified approximately 5,138 email messages, 25 electronic files and 200 pages of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request"

There is no media blackout.  Not everyone is "Fox News" and not everyone works in concert with right wing talking heads in order to help them create as much smoke as possible. 

I see the issue as it took NARA just 14 days to identify the records, but it has now been 14 months and not a single one has been produced.  IM4 the pseudonyms were discovered in the Russian Disinformation Laptop.  The letter from NARA became public yesterday because it was filed as an exhibit to the lawsuit that Southeastern Legal Foundation filed yesterday to force NARA to produce the documents.     5,138 emails over an 8 year term is almost 2 a day.    As IM4 asked, why is there a need for a pseudonym?   Why is there a need to use it almost twice a day for 8 years?   I suspect the word "admitted" was taken out of the complaint.   NARA admitted they have 5,000 plus responsive documents but have not produced a single one. 

[AU9377 4,976]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t know, you will have to ask them.  We all know the government is willing to hand over any information as long as you know what to ask for.

I would guess the SLF is the one that informed the GOP Oversight Committee that Robert L. Peters existed.  The oversight committee is now making it public.

So, do you think this is a problem for Joe?  I would guess a deep dive into those emails, files and responsive records are in order.

Can you give me a good reason a government official would have pseudonyms?

Supposedly, many of them do.  Personally, I have no idea how common the practice is.  They were obviously not being hidden in any meaningful way.  Had they been, they wouldn't have been turned over to the archives.  I don't think any of it is a problem for Joe unless and until something beyond what might have happened is actually proven.  Most people that aren't tuned in to the right wing pep rally every day can see that, as of today, there is still no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Joe Biden. 

House Republicans claiming that Joe lied about one thing or the other, never coming close to citing a crime, isn't going to move the needle as long as  they continue to turn to the other camera and express their affection for the man that was willing to ignore the results of an election and maintain power by fraud and deceit.  Many see it for what it is at this point.....an effort to take attention from their candidate's historic level of self serving criminal activity by trying to tie the acts of the President's son to the current President.

I'm certain that part of the reason officials go to all sorts of lengths to hide their personal correspondence is that they know people like the House Republican circus and Jim Jordan will take absolutely anything out of context and allege wrongdoing regardless of whether or not there is any actual evidence of wrongdoing.

[LPTiger 5,167]

20 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

They were obviously not being hidden in any meaningful way.  

I'm certain that part of the reason officials go to all sorts of lengths to hide their personal correspondence 

As to the first point, they would have been hidden in a meaningful way but for the laptop.  No one at NARA or anywhere else was saying "hey you guys that are interested in Biden's correspondence with his criminal son, you know he has these pseudonym email addresses right"  You used the word hide, and it is the correct word.   Biden was trying to hide something and if there was nothing to see here I promise you NARA would have produced the documents within the last 14 months.  Remember Obama's words -- "don't underestimate Biden's ability to f__k up."

[AU9377 4,976]

2 hours ago, LPTiger said:

As to the first point, they would have been hidden in a meaningful way but for the laptop.  No one at NARA or anywhere else was saying "hey you guys that are interested in Biden's correspondence with his criminal son, you know he has these pseudonym email addresses right"  You used the word hide, and it is the correct word.   Biden was trying to hide something and if there was nothing to see here I promise you NARA would have produced the documents within the last 14 months.  Remember Obama's words -- "don't underestimate Biden's ability to f__k up."

Something being in those emails that embarrasses Biden is one thing, but there is a long road between that and evidence of some sort of criminal activity.  From reports, at least 6 people in the Obama administration used pseudonym email accounts to communicate with each other often.  They were official govt accounts and those using them knew that the emails would be preserved.  Therefore, the vast majority of them will eventually be made available.  There are exceptions for certain communications, but most of them will be available. 

Even I am tiring of this to the point that I am tuning it all out.  At the end of the day, Republicans will nominate a man with 100 times the character flaws of Joe Biden.  They will smile and say "I don't like the man but I like his policies."  If that was true, they would simply focus on the platform and elect a decent human being.

[LPTiger 5,167]

8 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

 At the end of the day, Republicans will nominate a man with 100 times the character flaws of Joe Biden.  

Both sides of the DC machine rely on us growing tired and giving up.  There is plenty of time before the nomination and to learn the extent of Biden's flaws.   Things will be different in the not so distant future.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

On 8/27/2023 at 10:35 AM, AU9377 said:

You still haven't considered the very likely possibility that there is no connection to be proven between Joe Biden and Hunter's activities.  It doesn't matter who investigates or what they charge, if you don't have adequate evidence of criminal wrongdoing, this all ends the same way.

True but the known evidence so far is pretty overwhelming.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

  At the end of the day, Republicans will nominate a man with 100 times the character flaws of Joe Biden

That's impossible.

[homersapien 11,390]

Most Americans understand Hunter Biden cashed in on his name and relationship to his father.  (They also understand the same thing happened in the prior administration.)

Republicans desperately want to demonstrate Joe played an integral part of this, but until that can be demonstrated (proven), it won't have an effect on the election.  (Especially since Biden's opponent will be TFG.)

AU9377 is correct.  And, IMO, most Americans - at least non-MAGA Americans, see it the way he does.

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by homersapien