FBI declines GOP subpoena on Biden ‘alleged criminal scheme’

[ThatRobGuy]

FBI declines GOP subpoena on Biden ‘alleged criminal scheme’

The FBI declined to immediately provide congressional Republicans with a document the lawmakers say outlines an “alleged criminal scheme” involving President Biden and a foreign nationa…

thehill.com

FBI declines to provide House chairman with document he claims will implicate Biden in 'criminal scheme'

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., had issued a subpoena for access to sensitive law enforcement materials.

www.nbcnews.com

The FBI declined to immediately provide congressional Republicans with a document the lawmakers say outlines an “alleged criminal scheme” involving President Biden and a foreign national, blowing through a Wednesday deadline to produce the unverified information that was subpoenaed by House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.).


Grassley, meanwhile, insisted that the FBI's "offer to provide an accommodation process in response to our legitimate request indicates the document is real."

Reached for comment, an FBI spokesperson said the report requested by Comer’s committee “is used by FBI agents to record unverified reporting by a confidential human source.”

“Documenting the information does not validate it, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information verified by the FBI,” the spokesperson said in a statement, cautioning that providing such information could harm investigations and judicial proceedings and “unfairly violate privacy or reputations.”


Seems like this is a bit of a bad look.

When reading the various articles on the subject...the underlying notion seems to be the rationale of withholding because "it's unverified".

While that's a good principle, in theory, I don't think it's applied consistently. Saying "this info isn't verified, so it shouldn't be disseminated to the public" would hold a lot more water if some folks in the press and in Washington weren't tripping over themselves to get the Steele Dossier into public view (and discourse) as quick as possible with no regard for "how it may impact a person's reputation"

...and I'm saying that as a person who's not a Trump fan, this one appears to be a clear double-standard.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Saying "this info isn't verified, so it shouldn't be disseminated to the public" would hold a lot more water if some folks in the press and in Washington weren't tripping over themselves to get the Steele Dossier into public view

The press didn't get the dossier from the FBI. One of John McCain's aides (it appears) let it slip to Buzzfeed, while McCain himself gave it to the FBI.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The press didn't get the dossier from the FBI. One of John McCain's aides (it appears) let it slip to Buzzfeed, while McCain himself gave it to the FBI.

It's not so much the source of the info, as it is the proclaimed principle of "we shouldn't be releasing unverified information as it could ruin someone's reputation"

A few different outlets did interviews with James Comey and talked about the Steele Dossier despite it being unverified.

In a nutshell, they had no problem running with stories about Trump having Russian prostitutes urinating on him...but when it comes to potentially damning info about the Biden family...now all the sudden "discretion is key"

It just seems superficial and phony.

I wanted to see Trump lose as much as the next guy, and I voted for Biden (based on the fact that he was presenting himself as a moderate and return to normalcy), but I think people need to get over the nostalgic "he's the guy who helped get rid of Trump" thing that seems to be getting extended to his family members as well.

At the end of the day, if there were even a remote chance of credibility to claims about Don Jr. doing the same things that Hunter has been accused of (or pics of him passed out with a pipe in his mouth or pics of him wearing a scarf and a jockstrap while clearly inebriated), it'd be on a infinite loop on MSNBC.

There's only so far the "he was the guy who was able to help beat Trump" should go.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's not so much the source of the info, as it is the proclaimed principle of "we shouldn't be releasing unverified information as it could ruin someone's reputation"

I don't think you can charge the situation as "a clear double-standard", when one standard is Buzzfeed's and the other is the FBI's.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think you can charge the situation as "a clear double-standard", when one standard is Buzzfeed's and the other is the FBI's.

It can view as a double standard with regards to how the mainstream media is handling it.

Like I said, regardless of the source of the "original" leak...how the media is treating it is clearly different.

To describe one as unfounded politically-motivated attacks...yet, give another "implied credence" by covering it regularly with language implying that it's "assumed to be true" is a double standard.

 

[Hank77]

It can view as a double standard with regards to how the mainstream media is handling it.

Like I said, regardless of the source of the "original" leak...how the media is treating it is clearly different.

To describe one as unfounded politically-motivated attacks...yet, give another "implied credence" by covering it regularly with language implying that it's "assumed to be true" is a double standard.

But this has nothing to do with the media. This is, should the FBI turn over an unverified accusation from "someone" to the GOP committee. Do we even know who this "someone is"?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

When reading the various articles on the subject...the underlying notion seems to be the rationale of withholding because "it's unverified".

While that's a good principle, in theory, I don't think it's applied consistently. Saying "this info isn't verified, so it shouldn't be disseminated to the public" would hold a lot more water if some folks in the press and in Washington weren't tripping over themselves to get the Steele Dossier into public view (and discourse) as quick as possible with no regard for "how it may impact a person's reputation"

...and I'm saying that as a person who's not a Trump fan, this one appears to be a clear double-standard.

Note that journalists - even from pretty liberal news outlets - were critical of Buzzfeed's decision to publish the Steele Dossier:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/11/the-problem-of-too-much-information/

BuzzFeed undermines all journalists with Trump 'dossier'

I’ve never had much respect for BuzzFeed.

web.archive.org

I have a strong suspicion that the person who leaked it first went to more mainstream outlets like WaPo, NYTimes, etc and was turned down because of the lack of verification. Normally, Buzzfeed would not be the first choice for a major bombshell leak. Similar trends are seen with regards to the letter about Hunter Biden's emails being Russian disinformation (Politico was actually the 3rd choice, after WaPo and the AP). WaPo was critical of the lack of sourcing for the letter's claims following the debate where Biden referenced it.

Of course, once information is "out there", so to speak, the realities of our news environment guaranteed that it will be talked about, but broadly speaking, major news outlets are reluctant to initially publish unverified information.

 

[Say it aint so]

I am quite sure if this report became public, the MSM (whatever that means) would be all over it, and you can bet Comer would be holding two pressers a day to make sure.

 

[Postvieww]

I haven't seen any actions to support your claim.

Comer scores win in FBI fight as Wray agrees to show top members Biden 'bribery' memo The document only known to congress by a whistleblower has been held back by Wrey in violation of a subpoena. It is said to be proof from an informant on criminal activity of Joe Biden while vice President. Wrey now says two congressmen can view the unclassified document in a classified setting with redactions. Smells of a cover up to me. Congress does actually have oversight over the FBI and subpoena power but have received no cooperation up to this point. And still could hold Wray in contempt. Not to mention the Hunter laptop the FBI has held since about 2019. Please don’t use the debunked Russian disinformation defense. The FBI is corrupt at the top and is obviously protecting the “Big Guy”.

 

[NxNW]

Comer scores win in FBI fight as Wray agrees to show top members Biden 'bribery' memo The document only known to congress by a whistleblower has been held back by Wrey in violation of a subpoena. It is said to be proof from an informant on criminal activity of Joe Biden while vice President.

No it's not, because the very nature of the form means it's unverified.

Wrey now says two congressmen can view the unclassified document in a classified setting with redactions. Smells of a cover up to me. Congress does actually have oversight over the FBI and subpoena power but have received no cooperation up to this point.

That's because the FBI doesn't like to jeopardize sources for political stunts.

Not to mention the Hunter laptop the FBI has held since about 2019.

What laptop? Do you have a photo of this supposed laptop?

The FBI is corrupt at the top and is obviously protecting the “Big Guy”.

Protecting him from what? You haven't provided any coherent information.

 

[wing2000]

Comer scores win in FBI fight as Wray agrees to show top members Biden 'bribery' memo The document only known to congress by a whistleblower has been held back by Wrey in violation of a subpoena. It is said to be proof from an informant on criminal activity of Joe Biden while vice President. Wrey now says two congressmen can view the unclassified document in a classified setting with redactions. Smells of a cover up to me.

It's said to be proof by whom? That isn't what Sen. Grassley said (who claims to have seen it).

Speaker of the House to hold FBI Director in Contempt's of the House

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gop-chairman-moves-hold-fbi-director-wray-contempt-99709855 WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the House Oversight Committee said Tuesday he is moving forward with holding FBI Director Chris Wray in contempt of Congress because the department has not turned over a...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Postvieww]

What laptop? Do you have a photo of this supposed laptop?

If you are that far removed from current events I can’t help you.

 

[Postvieww]

No it's not, because the very nature of the form means it's unverified

Well then I guess the question to CW is what have you done to verify it?

 

[Postvieww]

That isn't what Sen. Grassley said (who claims to have seen it).

Link?

 

[rambot]

Not to mention the Hunter laptop the FBI has held since about 2019.

You mean thr one whose hard drive was put up on 4chan for all to see? The one that has had several forensic analyses? The one that fbi casts doubt on? The one that has been the basis of two republican investigations into Biden misdoings and found nothin?
That laptop?

Perhaps I just need to take a bigger bite..

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Of course the FBI declined on false subpoenas on Biden's by the GOP. The GOP will do anything lie, turn innocent Democrat's in for nothing and cheat their way into party to the top.

 

[ralliann]

The FBI is protecting the Biden crime family plain and simple.

Yep, and the discussions here involve those who demand we call a man, a woman. What do you expect in response from them on all things they want? The obvious and known is not the obvious and known. What they say is true is the same in all manner of discussion.

 

[Hank77]

Link?

@wing2000

Sen. Chuck Grassley has already seen the FBI’s lengthy summary of a confidential human source’s claims that then-Vice President Joe Biden agreed to accept money from a foreign national to affect policy decisions, the Iowa Republican revealed on Thursday. Grassley further pledged to make the FBI report public as soon as the bureau complies with a congressional subpoena to provide an official copy of the FD-1023 form —

Grassley: I've Seen The Whistleblower Doc The FBI Is Hiding

Wray won't turn over documents because he says he wants to protect sources -- but it seems the FBI is actually trying to protect the Bidens.

thefederalist.com

 

[NxNW]

If you are that far removed from current events I can’t help you.

I'm just looking for one person who has actually seen this alleged laptop.

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[NxNW]

Of course the FBI declined on false subpoenas on Biden's by the GOP. The GOP will do anything lie, turn innocent Democrat's in for nothing and cheat their way into party to the top.

Those apostrophes are painful!