Supreme Court Immunity Decision

[Ana the Ist]

You have an investigation, you get a report. It's the Congressional way.

Beyond that, GOP blowhards can get in front of cameras during the DNC convention and utter dissimulatory impressions of what the report allegedly (but doesn't) contain.

What part of that do you think the Republicans don't have evidence for?

The shell companies?

That Joe Biden knew about the money and where it came from?

That Hunter wasn't promising help to foreign entities through connections with his father?

We keep getting more and more evidence of it as Hunter's tax evasion case continues. Even left wing sources that claimed there was nothing to see here (like the NYT) are now saying it looks like the Biden family is deeply corrupt. This only happening because they pushed Joe out....don't need him anymore....and therefore, guys like Wray and Garland want to protect their jobs. Defending Joe is pointless if he doesn't have a second term.

Face it....this president certainly is not the first corrupt president but he is corrupt. The Democratic Party and executive branch covered for him.

Should everyone just dismiss any investigation into a president or former president despite the massive amount of evidence we have of corruption? This administration has more whistleblowers than a referee party. The left should never again demand that anyone charged with law enforcement tell on their peers.....because we can all see what happens when they do. The half the public ignores it....the other half only cares about it if it's convenient....and the whistleblowers are run out of a job.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Its my opinion He's going to have Joe and Hunter Biden investigated and prosecuted to show the world the truth, as the democrats say "Nobody Is Above The Law"

If he were going after anyone... he'd go after Joe. There's plenty of evidence that the State Department had no plans to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor until Hunter and Burisma lobbied the State Department to do so.

The same exact move was tried for some corrupt Romanian oligarch. The State Department appears to have held back....but it's a pattern.

Just show that the money is going from these shell companies to Joe and put half the family behind bars.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Clear" to you but not to most Americans who see petty, childish vindictiveness.

Ok...

When IRS agents who specialize in international money laundering, bribery, and international tax evasion came across this little text on Hunter's phone....

And determined that...
1. It was genuinely sent from his phone, by him, and not some Russian hacker.
2. It was sent to a corrupt Chinese banker.

Is there any reason why we wouldn't follow that evidence even if it leads to Joe Biden? Would we not expect them to check bank records, the shell corporations, and anything else to see if Hunter and Joe received a bribe?

Because the DOJ did prevent them from investigating it. That's why they leaked it....that's why they became whistleblowers....amongst other examples.

But hey....if you can think of any reason why the DOJ would squash that legitimately....I'd love to hear it.

Edit- nothing, right? You have Joe Biden's son apparently soliciting a bribe for himself and his father...and the DOJ never explained it, they never denied it, they never say they looked into it and found that there was a completely reasonable non-criminal answer that explains it.

At best, you have left wing mainstream media saying "well that doesn't prove Joe was actually there" as if that is a reason to not investigate. We can find out if Joe was there....we can find out what the money is for....we can investigate if money changed hands.

That's what I mean when I say it's obvious that the DOJ and FBI were covering for Biden....because it's obvious.

 

[Pommer]

Its my opinion He's going to have Joe and Hunter Biden investigated and prosecuted to show the world the truth, as the democrats say "Nobody Is Above The Law"

I would support the Bidens being investigated/prosecuted, if there’s probable cause.

 

[Fantine]

Post 217.

Ok...

When IRS agents who specialize in international money laundering, bribery, and international tax evasion came across this little text on Hunter's phone....

View attachment 353655

And determined that...
1. It was genuinely sent from his phone, by him, and not some Russian hacker.
2. It was sent to a corrupt Chinese banker.

Is there any reason why we wouldn't follow that evidence even if it leads to Joe Biden? Would we not expect them to check bank records, the shell corporations, and anything else to see if Hunter and Joe received a bribe?

Because the DOJ did prevent them from investigating it. That's why they leaked it....that's why they became whistleblowers....amongst other examples.

But hey....if you can think of any reason why the DOJ would squash that legitimately....I'd love to hear it.

Edit- nothing, right? You have Joe Biden's son apparently soliciting a bribe for himself and his father...and the DOJ never explained it, they never denied it, they never say they looked into it and found that there was a completely reasonable non-criminal answer that explains it.

At best, you have left wing mainstream media saying "well that doesn't prove Joe was actually there" as if that is a reason to not investigate. We can find out if Joe was there....we can find out what the money is for....we can investigate if money changed hands.

That's what I mean when I say it's obvious that the DOJ and FBI were covering for Biden....because it's obvious.

It doesn't sound "real." Looks and sounds like a plant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Post 217.

It doesn't sound "real." Looks and sounds like a plant.

I'm sorry...I don't know what you're suggesting.

A plant? Who is possibly planting evidence of corruption onto Hunter Biden's phone? He's an idiot. I'd suggest it's the same person who planted those pictures of him smoking crack and partying with prostitutes on his laptop....namely, Hunter Biden.

Hearing Wrap Up: IRS Whistleblowers Expose How Bidens Were Treated Differently - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

oversight.house.gov

You'll see from the testimony of the IRS agents that they got a warrant to search his phone, found the text, and were told not to pursue it by the DOJ.

The irony of you literally inventing a conspiracy theory to deny reality while defending an administration that calls people conspiracy theorists is palpable.

 

[Fantine]

Here's what ranking member Jamie Raskin says about Comer's Oversight Committee's latest misadventure:

Ranking Member Raskin’s Statement on Republicans’ Exonerating Impeachment Inquiry

Washington, D.C. (August 19, 2024)—Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, issued the following statement after the Republican Chairs of the Committees on Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means released a report making clear that their...

oversightdemocrats.house.gov

I believe and trust Rep. Raskin. I distrust Comer and his cohorts, including the most disrespected members of Congress: MTG, Paul Gosar (whose entire family said not to vote for him), Boebert, Byron Donalds, Jim Jordan. Election deniers all, and with more than a passing acquaintance to conspiracy theories (like this report.)

 

[Truth7t7]

I would support the Bidens being investigated/prosecuted, if there’s probable cause.

There's beyond probable cause as Ana the 1st has shown a very small sample of the facts

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's what ranking member Jamie Raskin says about Comer's Oversight Committee's latest misadventure:

Who cares?

See this is the difference someone who can look at the evidence objectively and someone who needs people whom they can have faith in.

If Raskin isn't explaining why the DOJ didn't investigate when Hunter is implicating his own father....Raskin isn't saying anything.

I believe and trust Rep. Raskin.

Well that's a shame. He's clearly lying to you.

 

[Pommer]

There's beyond probable cause as Ana the 1st has shown a very small sample of the facts

But there are real, actual, legitimate (and yea, legal) reasons why people use shell-companies to do their business.

Unless there’s probable cause that a crime (or crimes) have been committed, investigations can only look into whether there was a legitimate reason; if so, then the target of such an investigation is presumed not to have committed a crime(s).

 

[Bradskii]

But there are real, actual, legitimate (and yea, legal) reasons why people use shell-companies to do their business.

Unless there’s probable cause that a crime (or crimes) have been committed, investigations can only look into whether there was a legitimate reason; if so, then the target of such an investigation is presumed not to have committed a crime(s).

I've got this mental picture of a huge crowd all intently watching the election campaigns. And waaay back there's a guy trying to get their attention.

'Hey, over here. Hey. Hey! You guys! Look! Hunter Biden. Yeah, Hunter BIDEN! Look. I found a shell company. No, a shell company! Oh, for the love of...Look!'

And someone at the back of the crowd asks his friend:

'Who's that guy back there? He's shouting something. Can't quite make it out. Did he say 'lap' something? Laptop'?
'I dunno. He's been there for some time. Beats me. Ignore him. You're missing the speeches'.

 

[A2SG]

I've got this mental picture of a huge crowd all intently watching the election campaigns. And waaay back there's a guy trying to get their attention.

'Hey, over here. Hey. Hey! You guys! Look! Hunter Biden. Yeah, Hunter BIDEN! Look. I found a shell company. No, a shell company! Oh, for the love of...Look!'

And someone at the back of the crowd asks his friend:

'Who's that guy back there? He's shouting something. Can't quite make it out. Did he say 'lap' something? Laptop'?
'I dunno. He's been there for some time. Beats me. Ignore him. You're missing the speeches'.

I'm very much reminded of the sermon on the mount part of Monty Python's Life of Brian.

-- A2SG, blessed are the cheesemakers....

 

[Bradskii]

I'm very much reminded of the sermon on the mount part of Monty Python's Life of Brian.

-- A2SG, blessed are the cheesemakers....

It reminds me of this:

So funny.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But there are real, actual, legitimate (and yea, legal) reasons why people use shell-companies to do their business.

Sure. If he has some business to do that's legal...feel free to point it out.

Unless there’s probable cause that a crime (or crimes) have been committed

There is probable cause.

You literally have the president's son implicating him in a bribe of some kind.

That's going to grant probable cause. Imagine if a cop pulled you over, asks to see your phone, you show it to him...and he sees you talking about acquiring illegal narcotics 5 minutes ago.

Does that cop now have probable cause to think you were involved in a crime? You betcha.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've got this mental picture of a huge crowd all intently watching the election campaigns. And waaay back there's a guy trying to get their attention.

Uh huh. That's typically how important information works in our news media. People are more interested in listening to Oprah complain about wealth inequality and racism than find out the crimes being committed.

'Hey, over here. Hey. Hey! You guys! Look! Hunter Biden. Yeah, Hunter BIDEN! Look. I found a shell company. No, a shell company! Oh, for the love of...Look!'

Yup. They did the same thing with Clarence Thomas...."hey...40 years ago some rich guy bought him dinner!"

And someone at the back of the crowd asks his friend:

'Who's that guy back there? He's shouting something. Can't quite make it out. Did he say 'lap' something? Laptop'?
'I dunno. He's been there for some time. Beats me. Ignore him. You're missing the speeches'.

The speeches.....those are important.

Sure, they don't tell you anything about the candidate or their policies. Nobody has any clue what Harris is offering...apart from not taxing tips.

But hey...speeches...exciting.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Skip to 1:20 for the fun part. Raskin wants to talk about Trump as if he hasn't constantly been under investigation. The fact that he can't even stick to the issue shows how crooked Raskin is. He accused Trump of selling the WH to China of all places....and can't even answer what business Biden's she'll company's were in.

Raskin is one of the many regular corrupt crooks in office. It's ridiculous anyone trusts him to fight corruption....he's fighting to stay corrupt.

Two prominent Democratic lawmakers violated a federal conflicts-of-interest law. Again.

Democratic Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland failed to disclose stock trades properly.

www.google.com

 

[Gene2memE]

Having read the executive summary and the first ~50 odd pages of the report, it really seems that despite the claims there's nothing that would come close to meriting impeachment. It's rather weak tea.

The idea seems to be that Joe Biden was responsible for actions of Hunter and James Biden enriching themselves through their business contacts and attempted influence peddling.

The report continually conflates "the Biden family" and Joe Biden, as if they are one and the same thing. It also constantly conflates legal business transactions (which didn't involve Joe Biden) with illegal and fraudulent activity. But, oooohhhhh, 'shell companies'. Scary.

The top, line alleged "impeachable conduct" by Biden is that he "participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family" under which the "Biden family and their business associates received tens of millions of dollars from foreign interests".

How did he do this? By "leading those interests to believe that such payments would provide them access to and influence with President Biden." What that looks like is "[among other things], attending dinners with his family’s foreign business partners and speaking to them by phone, often when being placed on speakerphone by Hunter Biden."

Yep - his son/brother talked to him on speakerphone, and Joe Biden went to dinner with them when they were entertaining business partners. Also, this happened when he was VP, not President.

The other major axis of impeachment seems to be that Joe Biden "used his official position to conceal his mishandling of classified information as a private citizen" and " obstructed the Committees’ impeachment inquiry by withholding key documents and witnesses." He did this by "refusing
to make relevant witnesses available for interviews and by erroneously asserting executive privilege over audio recordings from Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President Biden ... [and] preventing the National Archives from turning over documents that are material to the Committees’ inquiry."


It's not exactly a strong case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Having read the executive summary and the first ~50 odd pages of the report, it really seems that despite the claims there's nothing that would come close to meriting impeachment. It's rather weak tea.

The idea seems to be that Joe Biden was responsible for actions of Hunter and James Biden enriching themselves through their business contacts and attempted influence peddling.

Let's say that's the claim...

Did Joe receive any of that money?

 

[Truth7t7]

But there are real, actual, legitimate (and yea, legal) reasons why people use shell-companies to do their business.

Unless there’s probable cause that a crime (or crimes) have been committed, investigations can only look into whether there was a legitimate reason; if so, then the target of such an investigation is presumed not to have committed a crime(s).

The committees found crimes big enough for impeachment of Biden, the evidence and witness testimony is overwhelming

 

[Pommer]

The committees found crimes big enough for impeachment of Biden, the evidence and witness testimony is overwhelming

When did they file articles of impeachment? (Or are they shirking their Constitutional duties to protect their constituents from such outrageous conduct?)