4 Short months

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

10 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

They testified as to what their impression was of statements made by the Special Counsel.  How is that truth?  That is opinion.  The special counsel refuted their claims of interference.  The man that allegedly, in a meeting of people that were subordinate to him, makes a comment that is later repeated by one person and in an email mentioned by another and is later asked if he made that comment or intended to give that impression states emphatically that he did not, yet the statements from those two is taken as fact?  That is more than a stretch of logic.

I guess my logic is a little off if you are in the Biden cult.  My logic is that the Biden DOJ has a sweet heart deal involving Hunter that coupled a gun charge with immunity of all other investigations if Hunter pleaded guilty.  Days before the immunity deal the two whistleblowers testified that the Biden DOJ blocked any investigation into the possible involvement of Joe Biden and, without admission, when the judge questioned the unusual and creative plea deal the Biden DOJ had no answer.  Then, when Hunter’s defense team asked if the Biden DOJ would honor the unusual and creative plea deal was still on the table, the Biden DOJ said *NO*.

My logic says that the Biden DOJ took into account the whistleblower’s testimony and if they went ahead and agreed with the Hunter’s defense team they could be countered by these whistleblowers.  Just days before the testimony in front of Congress there was a deal.  In fact, it could be said that if the judge didn’t question the unusual and creative deal, the deal would have been approved.  However, since the brave judge questioned the unusual and creative plea deal, the Biden DOJ got cold feet and folded.

As it turns out a gun charge and now a tax evasion charge (9) have been filed.  If those two whislteblowers were lying and the Biden DOJ could prove it why would they bring charges?  What happened between agreeing with an unusual and creative plea deal and the indictments?  What does your logic say?

Would the Biden DOJ really indict Hunter if they believed a supbordinate misunderstood what was stated?  Those supbordinates must have had some receipts that were air tight.

JMO of course.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

31 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I have no desire for Hunter to avoid consequences, but those who can’t see, if anything, his name and family relationships are likely increasing the charges he’s facing are extremely partisan or grossly misinformed.

Are you serious?  He almost got off Scott free because of his name.  If you are caught trying to skate because of your name, then you deserve to be piled on if they can.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

33 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Who supports an open border?  I have never heard a member of the current administration suggest that an open border was in any way desirable.  When someone presents themself at the border and requests asylum, there is a process laid out in federal law that proscribes the rights they have to a hearing and representation in that hearing prior to deportation.  We need to change our immigration laws, but instead, it just gets made into a political talking point and NOTHING gets done.

Isn’t it the same immagration laws that has been in place for a while now?  Isn’t the interpretation of the laws the only thing that is different?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Isn’t it the same immagration laws that has been in place for a while now?  Isn’t the interpretation of the laws the only thing that is different?

worsening conditions in Central & South America are a major factor.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

worsening conditions in Central & South America are a major factor.

Where is our border czar when you need her?

[homersapien 11,453]

Just curious:  How do all you "Hunter hawks" feel about Jared Kushner getting $2 Billion from the Saudis?  Where's the indictment there?

The other irony in this saga is the folks who can't understand why the IRS isn't throwing Hunter in prison are the same ones who want to "defund" the IRS.

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,463]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The other irony in this saga is the same folks who can't understand why the IRS isn't throwing Hunter in prison are the same ones who want to "defund" the IRS.

Nailed it.

I hope Hunter Biden is fairly, but severely, punished.  His tax evasion was egregious.  Simply paying fines is not enough.  The rich and privileged need to subjected to prison just like the commoners.

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Just curious:  How do all you "Hunter hawks" feel about Jared Kushner getting $2 Billion from the Saudis?  Where's the indictment there?

The other irony in this saga is the same folks who can't understand why the IRS isn't throwing Hunter in prison are the same ones who want to "defund" the IRS.

 

Whataboutism but do seem to be some improprieties with Jared. Congressman Garcia did call for a “tit for tat” investigation with Jared.

[homersapien 11,453]

29 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Whataboutism but do seem to be some improprieties with Jared. Congressman Garcia did call for a “tit for tat” investigation with Jared.

Well, I am not one to dismiss a "whataboutism" simply on principal when it's relevant and topical. The obsession and outrage over Hunter Biden makes it so.

The question then becomes, was the behavior of either technically illegal?  Probably not.

Republicans are obviously desperate to make Hunter's actions illegal, simply in order to link it to Biden.  So turnabout is fair play.  Let's investigate Jarred before the 2024 election.

The state of our politics is deplorable.  But it is what it is.

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Republicans are obviously desperate to make Hunter's actions illegal, simply in order to link it to Biden.  So turnabout is fair play.  Let's investigate Jarred before the 2024 election.

Honestly do not care if ever read or heard of another investigation or thing about either one. Both privileged and spoiled. Nothing to offer and just a big distraction. 

[homersapien 11,453]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Honestly do not care if ever read or heard of another investigation or thing about either one. Both privileged and spoiled. Nothing to offer and just a big distraction. 

I appreciate that, but surely you recognize there are many posters on this forum who constantly accuse the president of corruption based on the publicity being generated by the Republicans in congress.

They are obviously using it as a campaign tactic, just like they used Benghazi and Hillary's email server. 

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I appreciate that, but surely you recognize there are many posters on this forum who constantly accuse the president of corruption based on the publicity being generated by the Republicans in congress.

They are obviously using it as a campaign tactic, just like they used Benghazi and Hillary's email server. 

Of course they are accusing him of corruption. You would do the same. I don’t know that Dad is completely innocent and neither do you. 

[AU9377 5,043]

6 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Whataboutism but do seem to be some improprieties with Jared. Congressman Garcia did call for a “tit for tat” investigation with Jared.

The problem is that the average American doesn't understand the difference between what Hunter Biden is being prosecuted for and laws governing receiving money from foreign sources.  Provided that Jared Kushner pays his taxes, there is likely nothing to prosecute him for and no laws broken.  Hunter isn't accused of violating a criminal statute concerning the sources of the income.  His crime was not giving the federal govt. their share. 

[AU9377 5,043]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Of course they are accusing him of corruption. You would do the same. I don’t know that Dad is completely innocent and neither do you. 

And if we find out that there is no there there, half of America will still believe he is guilty of something.  For examples, one only has to look to Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation accusations.  Republican committees concluded that there was no wrongdoing in both of those instances, but the accusations without proof alone was enough to do the job they were intended to do.

[homersapien 11,453]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Of course they are accusing him of corruption. You would do the same. I don’t know that Dad is completely innocent and neither do you. 

I don't know if Trump is completely innocent in soliciting that money on behalf of Jarred (or his daughter) either, but I am not working like hell to create that perception like many Republicans are about Biden.

So no, I would not do the same.

[homersapien 11,453]

48 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

And if we find out that there is no there there, half of America will still believe he is guilty of something.  For examples, one only has to look to Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation accusations.  Republican committees concluded that there was no wrongdoing in both of those instances, but the accusations without proof alone was enough to do the job they were intended to do.

Exactly like they planned.

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423339/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi

Edited December 11, 2023 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The problem is that the average American doesn't understand the difference between what Hunter Biden is being prosecuted for and laws governing receiving money from foreign sources.  Provided that Jared Kushner pays his taxes, there is likely nothing to prosecute him for and no laws broken.  Hunter isn't accused of violating a criminal statute concerning the sources of the income.  His crime was not giving the federal govt. their share. 

Thanks counselor. Guess you consider us above average Americans 😉

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't know if Trump is completely innocent in soliciting that money on behalf of Jarred (or his daughter) either, but I am not working like hell to create that perception like many Republicans are about Biden.

So no, I would not do the same.

I stand corrected.

[AU9377 5,043]

On 12/9/2023 at 1:32 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I guess my logic is a little off if you are in the Biden cult.  My logic is that the Biden DOJ has a sweet heart deal involving Hunter that coupled a gun charge with immunity of all other investigations if Hunter pleaded guilty.  Days before the immunity deal the two whistleblowers testified that the Biden DOJ blocked any investigation into the possible involvement of Joe Biden and, without admission, when the judge questioned the unusual and creative plea deal the Biden DOJ had no answer.  Then, when Hunter’s defense team asked if the Biden DOJ would honor the unusual and creative plea deal was still on the table, the Biden DOJ said *NO*.

My logic says that the Biden DOJ took into account the whistleblower’s testimony and if they went ahead and agreed with the Hunter’s defense team they could be countered by these whistleblowers.  Just days before the testimony in front of Congress there was a deal.  In fact, it could be said that if the judge didn’t question the unusual and creative deal, the deal would have been approved.  However, since the brave judge questioned the unusual and creative plea deal, the Biden DOJ got cold feet and folded.

As it turns out a gun charge and now a tax evasion charge (9) have been filed.  If those two whislteblowers were lying and the Biden DOJ could prove it why would they bring charges?  What happened between agreeing with an unusual and creative plea deal and the indictments?  What does your logic say?

Would the Biden DOJ really indict Hunter if they believed a supbordinate misunderstood what was stated?  Those supbordinates must have had some receipts that were air tight.

JMO of course.

You have to admit that this is a narrative born of imagination and supposition. 

The DOJ doesn't have to prove anyone was lying.  Those giving testimony were never in the decision making structure.  I'm not impressed by David Weiss at all, but then again, I also am not shocked that the U.S. Attorney's office was stumbling around this for so long.  It is what they do.  They seldom try a case that every fact isn't on their side, which makes their job easy and results in their ability to file anything at anytime and have a court rubber stamp it.

The Biden DOJ didn't indict Hunter.  The Special Counsel has stated that he made that decision unilaterally. 

I don't blindly support Biden.  I simply don't buy the right wing media's crusades that have failed every time for lack of substance.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

35 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You have to admit that this is a narrative born of imagination and supposition. 

Yes, it’s similar to the years America spent believing the Russia Hoax.  Even today people believe Trump is a Russian asset.

Why do you dismiss the sweetheart deal Hunter was set up to get?  It was too creative for a reason.  Joe wanted his son out of the public eye, for what reason we can only speculate.  The best you can speculate is he is still enabling Hunter’s failed personality.

We’re less that a year into this, please be patient.

[AU9377 5,043]

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, it’s similar to the years America spent believing the Russia Hoax.  Even today people believe Trump is a Russian asset.

Why do you dismiss the sweetheart deal Hunter was set up to get?  It was too creative for a reason.  Joe wanted his son out of the public eye, for what reason we can only speculate.  The best you can speculate is he is still enabling Hunter’s failed personality.

We’re less that a year into this, please be patient.

I dismiss it because it did not preclude these tax charges being filed at a later date.  That is the reason the judge questioned both sides so intently when the hearing began.  The DOJ clearly stated that the agreement did not preclude additional charges and HB's team stated that it was there understanding that the plea was to be all inclusive.   That is where the deal fell apart initially.  That is very common at plea hearings.

A father continuing to do all he can to keep his son on the right path is not enabling him.  Cases dealing with this are routinely not prosecuted if taxes and penalties are paid in full.  There are some prosecutions, but more often than not, they aren't prosecuted criminally.  Hunter brought this upon himself and he is paying the price for that.  That said, even now, not one single charge has been made alleging that the sources of the funds themselves were evidence of criminal activity.  They aren't.  The non payment of taxes on that money earned is the crime.

I have no doubt that Joe wanted his son out of the spotlight, but that doesn't mean that David Weiss was ordered to do something. Doing that would be a Trump move.  Had Biden been determined that this would go away, he could have appointed an AG that he knew would do just that and not retained David Weiss.  That didn't happen.  As we see, regardless of how he handled it, the accusations were bound to be made anyway.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

5 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

A father continuing to do all he can to keep his son on the right path is not enabling him.

Hunter is 53 years old.  At some point a father has to know his son is worthless and get him some help.  Covering for his misdeeds is not helping; it is enabling.

Hunter spent years and millions of dollars on illegal drugs, sex and hot cars instead of paying his taxes, which is ironic since Joe want’s the rich to pay their fair share in taxes.  And when he did pay the taxes he found a rich daddy backer to pay them for him

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

That said, even now, not one single charge has been made alleging that the sources of the funds themselves were evidence of criminal activity.

There are several Suspicious Activity Reports indicating money laundering that, somehow, the FBI ignored.  The oversight committee should not be the ones to uncover this information, yet here we are.  They are digging deeper as well they should.

 

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I have no doubt that Joe wanted his son out of the spotlight, but that doesn't mean that David Weiss was ordered to do something.

Again, who agreed to that ridiculous sweetheart deal?  It was Weiss and Hunter’s defense team.  When the judge questioned it is when Weiss didn’t have the balls to say he agreed to what was presented and it fell through. I find it hard to believe a plea deal will fall through at the 11th hour like this one did when it is so high profile.

[auburnatl1 5,057]

1) Any one who believes this isn’t circular payback is naive.  2) Impeachments in the future need to be better thought through because there are massive divisive consequences.  Democracy kryptonite. 3) most politicians who have been in DC over 10 years are prone to corruption (do I know Biden did something wrong - no. Would I easily believe it after he’s been there in DC a 1000 years - you bet). 4) people that equate bidens flaws to trumps have no concept of … scale.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Hunter is 53 years old.  At some point a father has to know his son is worthless and get him some help.  Covering for his misdeeds is not helping; it is enabling.

How does this differ from what happened, other than not concluding that his son was “worthless,” which would suggest help would be wasted.

[auburnatl1 5,057]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How does this differ from what happened, other than not concluding that his son was “worthless,” which would suggest help would be wasted.

Losing Bo to cancer and having Hunter being a train wreck can’t be easy.  I’m not defending Joe or his role in anything - but as a parent with 2 sons, it’d be  close to my worst nightmare.