On record press statement by person who claims to be recipient of Hunter email--Joe involved

[SimplyMe]

It sounds to me like Tony Bobulinski was involved in this company the same as the other partners. It also sounds like he's trying to publically separate himself as much as he can.

The FBI didn't take possession of the computer with a regular court-issued subpoena. That subpoena was obtained through a grand jury. That says to me that sometime before Dec. 2019 that there was already an investigation underway. A grand jury is called to determine if a crime has been committed and by whom.

In the case of federal offenses that are colloquially known as white-collar crimes (e.g., violations of the federal securities laws), agents often will need to obtain documents from suspects and innocent parties as part of the investigation. To do so, the agents can apply for a search warrant from a magistrate (or judge) to search a particular site for relevant evidence. Alternatively, the agents can request a subpoena from a grand jury.

A grand jury is an impartial body of citizens drawn from the community that has the responsibility to investigate whether a crime has been committed and by whom. In order to make that determination, a grand jury may issue subpoenas to whoever may have evidence relevant to the grand jury’s investigation. As part of its investigation, the grand jury also has power to compel testimony, including the testimony of a crime victim. If the grand jury concludes that there is probable cause to believe that a particular individual committed a crime, the grand jury will issue a charging document known as an indictment. Whenever a grand jury is involved in an investigation, the agents will work closely with an attorney from the U.S. government, either from the local U.S. Attorney’s Office or the U.S. Department of Justice, before making an arrest in order to determine whether a crime was committed and, if so, who is responsible.

A Brief Description of the Federal Criminal Justice Process — FBI

But that is another of the red flags -- why, if all of this is true -- did the grand jury not indict either of the Bidens?

 

[SimplyMe]

I am guessing that is just their judgment of the unusual nature of it (no names, no reports, etc.). It doesn't appear to add information.

Or, it is possible it was set up simply to try and provide legitimacy, by claiming it was some corporation set up by the Bidens -- or even more likely, they found a business that was applied for but that nothing ever happened with and the filing was cancelled. Many, if not most, US Corporations are incorporated in Delaware, regardless of where the company HQ is, because of Delaware's corporate friendly laws.

 

[tall73]

Joe also said Hunter had received therapy and was no longer using drugs. When?

My point was that those are not under dispute in this, as to whether Hunter used them. I don't care about the drugs. Joe isn't responsible for that by any allegation.

Biden's issues are his own. But the involvement of Joe is what is in dispute.

 

[tall73]

Or, it is possible it was set up simply to try and provide legitimacy, by claiming it was some corporation set up by the Bidens -- or even more likely, they found a business that was applied for but that nothing ever happened with and the filing was cancelled. Many, if not most, US Corporations are incorporated in Delaware, regardless of where the company HQ is, because of Delaware's corporate friendly laws.

I agree, without a name it is difficult to know if was theirs. But the reality of it being possible to set up a company in that matter still answers Tanj's question of why we have not heard of them being connected in business together. There is no reason we would hear of every business partner. This is especially true if the nature of the dealings anticipated were not above board.

 

[Hank77]

I agree, he is trying to distance himself, and indicate he was not initially aware of the under the table payments, or that Hunter would take money from the company.

What payments are you referring to as 'under the table'? Under the table as in not claimed on income taxes or something else?
Or does it mean that he received money for something that wasn't included as money due to the partnership?

ex: The plumber works for a plumbing company but on the side he does plumbing jobs on his own.

 

[tall73]

But that is another of the red flags -- why, if all of this is true -- did the grand jury not indict either of the Bidens?

We have no way to know if there is an ongoing investigation because of FBI policy.

And while we know the FBI had involved the laptop, likely in a money laundering scheme, we don't know who that involved.

The justice system was not set up to make election decisions. And it can take quite a while.

The issue to me is that now two people claiming to be business partners indicate problematic dealing, involving Joe Biden, or at least his name.

Joe's team has been reluctant to say they are not Hunter's emails.

The documents turned over to the committee may shed more light. But I am not sure it will matter much in the long run to the election. With a good amount of early voting most minds are already made up.

What it may, unfortunately mean, is ongoing investigations under a Biden or Trump administration.

 

[tall73]

What payments are you referring to as 'under the table'? Under the table as in not claimed on income taxes or something else?
Or does it mean that he received money for something that wasn't included as money due to the partnership?

ex: The plumber works for a plumbing company but on the side he does plumbing jobs on his own.

This is the portion I was referencing:

I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.

The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me — it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.


The question I have is what dots it connected, and what evidence he found after the fact, based on the Johnson report.

 

[Kentonio]

Ah fun times..

Exclusive: Alleged Hunter Biden Emails Circulated in Ukraine as Rudy Giuliani Dug for Dirt There Last Year

Funny how they originated a year ago in Ukraine yet suddenly appeared on a laptop in a Delaware shop..

 

[tall73]

The drip, drip of this is obviously intentional.

Put out a report with little evidence, then get news coverage by it being downplayed due to little evidence. Then slowly drip out more evidence over time. You get multiple narratives in one, the media is bad, people disregard crimes by one party, etc. and then catch them in misrepresentations based on the initial flimsy data.

That may also be partly why the Biden campaign is not responding.

 

[tall73]

Ah fun times..

Exclusive: Alleged Hunter Biden Emails Circulated in Ukraine as Rudy Giuliani Dug for Dirt There Last Year

Funny how they originated a year ago in Ukraine yet suddenly appeared on a laptop in a Delaware shop..

Yes, the two unnamed sources note they were offered material, but the story indicates it is unknown if it is the same set of material.

That is why to me the laptop is not the key element. The question is whether the emails are legitimate, whether they were hacked, obtained from a computer ,etc.

 

[SimplyMe]

We have no way to know if there is an ongoing investigation because of FBI policy.

And while we know the FBI had involved the laptop, likely in a money laundering scheme, we don't know who that involved.

The justice system was not set up to make election decisions. And it can take quite a while.

The issue to me is that now two people claiming to be business partners indicate problematic dealing, involving Joe Biden, or at least his name.

Joe's team has been reluctant to say they are not Hunter's emails.

The documents turned over to the committee may shed more light. But I am not sure it will matter much in the long run to the election. With a good amount of early voting most minds are already made up.

What it may, unfortunately mean, is ongoing investigations under a Biden or Trump administration.

Again, the laptop was subpoenaed by a grand jury, not by an "FBI investigation." Since there was an active grand jury investigating whatever they believed would be found on the laptop, you would expect the grand jury investigation to have indicted individuals based on the laptop.

 

[tall73]

Again, the laptop was subpoenaed by a grand jury, not by an "FBI investigation." Since there was an active grand jury investigating whatever they believed would be found on the laptop, you would expect the grand jury investigation to have indicted individuals based on the laptop.

Yes, though an FBI agent was involved and signed documents requesting it, as reported by multiple sources.

Who the potential indictments were for is unknown. But let's take for a moment the emails as described. If they were evidence people would not know who some of the initials represented without the statement of those involved.

We don't even know for sure if the laptop was Biden's or not, though some evidence indicates it, because they can't discuss details of the investigation.

But it is possible some were indicted, and if later info ties it to the Bidens they could consider further indictments.

Again, the problem is we don't know much. But with multiple people saying the emails are authentic, it does warrant looking into.

 

[Hank77]

But that is another of the red flags -- why, if all of this is true -- did the grand jury not indict either of the Bidens?

It doesn't look like they have indicted anyone. What I think we can know is that the grand jury agreed that the FBI could look at that computer to see if there was any evidence relative to their case. The prosecutor would have been involved in that as well.

 

[Hank77]

Joe's team has been reluctant to say they are not Hunter's emails.

They shouldn't get pulled down that rabbit hole because it will just eat up anything else he has to say. Trump is going to try to do exactly that tonight at the debate. It was all timed perfectly to run right up to the debate.

 

[tall73]

They shouldn't get pulled down that rabbit hole because it will just eat up anything else he has to say. Trump is going to try to do exactly that tonight at the debate. It was all timed perfectly to run right up to the debate.

If they were not real emails I would just say that. It looks better than delaying an answer for a long time then just saying generically that it is a smear.

If the emails are legitimate, then that is the story, not the laptop, or the underage allegations, or any of the rest.

If no one is saying the emails are not legitimate, and we have people saying they are, that starts to look like they are.

 

[Hank77]

If no one is saying the emails are not legitimate, and we have people saying they are, that starts to look like they are.

I don't agree, any decent attorney would tell you to keep your shut if you are being accused of something whether you are guilty or not.

 

[tall73]

I don't agree, any decent attorney would tell you to keep your shut if you are being accused of something whether you are guilty or not.

Let me clarify. Legally, that is correct that lawyers tell you not to answer questions of investigators, or in the news. But when running for election, that is not the standard.

If he knows they are not legitimate emails he should state so in an election context. And if they are not legitimate I don't see how that would hurt any legal case either. He could always run that brief statement past any lawyers involved.

For instance, if Joe Biden were accused of killing someone I don't think the lawyer would object to him denying that if he did not in fact kill someone.

Now answering questions about whereabouts, statements made, etc. is a different issue.

 

[Pommer]

We have no way to know if there is an ongoing investigation because of FBI policy.

Right.
If one asks the FBI if they’ve got an investigation running on something/someone, they’ll send you a letter saying that they don’t disclose that sort of information (if you’re “important enough”), like the good congresspersons of the other day.

So, conspiracy-theorists are free to wrangle all sorts of “goings-on” out of whole cloth...and here we are.

Rationalwiki has a nice article on “Just Asking Questions”

 

[tall73]

Right.
If one asks the FBI if they’ve got an investigation running on something/someone, they’ll send you a letter saying that they don’t disclose that sort of information (if you’re “important enough”), like the good congresspersons of the other day.

So, conspiracy-theorists are free to wrangle all sorts of “goings-on” out of whole cloth...and here we are.

Rationalwiki has a nice article on “Just Asking Questions”

Emails, people saying they are valid, matching up dates to know records etc. is presenting evidence that people have to make a decision about.

It might help if Joe said that the emails were not legitimate.

 

[Pommer]

Emails, people saying they are valid, matching up dates to know records etc. is presenting evidence that people have to make a decision about.

It might help if Joe said that the emails were not legitimate.

This is, at best, a side-issue.
Clutch your pearls all you want.
This doesn’t rise to the level that the elder Biden need do anything.