Fresh atop the IANAL [I am not a lawyer] files: How does our justice system work?

[Pommer]

I’m starting to see a trend in the (seemingly) endless stream of “normal workings of government” being turned into scandal.

Not the latest (by any means) but the “Suspicious Activity Reports” that banks are required by law are required fo produce, are now being waved around as “evidence” that the Bidens are crooked!

They very might well be*, but not by this “evidence”.
This is normal paperwork of the banking industry and the federal government.
Waving it around to convince the people to make sure the good gentlepeople demand that congress (the House ATM), “investigate for evidence of a crime!”, ain’t how our system works.
There has to be evidence of a crime being committed at some previous point in time or at present.

Asking “Are these normally-generated reports evidence of a crime?”

No.
No it doesn’t “work that way”; there have to be specific anomalies within the SARs that could indicate felonious activity. You know, “normal”.

Looking to make political hay over “normal things” is what people do, when they can’t find anything better.

Everything is normal=scandal!

We can stop this, tout de suite, and realign with how our Justice system works?
Let’s give that a try?

*Joe rode the train home for thirty years because he was playing the long-game, riiight.

 

[HTacianas]

I’m starting to see a trend in the (seemingly) endless stream of “normal workings of government” being turned into scandal.

Not the latest (by any means) but the “Suspicious Activity Reports” that banks are required by law are required fo produce, are now being waved around as “evidence” that the Bidens are crooked!

They very might well be*, but not by this “evidence”.
This is normal paperwork of the banking industry and the federal government.
Waving it around to convince the people to make sure the good gentlepeople demand that congress (the House ATM), “investigate for evidence of a crime!”, ain’t how our system works.
There has to be evidence of a crime being committed at some previous point in time or at present.

Asking “Are these normally-generated reports evidence of a crime?”

No.
No it doesn’t “work that way”; there have to be specific anomalies within the SARs that could indicate felonious activity. You know, “normal”.

Looking to make political hay over “normal things” is what people do, when they can’t find anything better.

Everything is normal=scandal!

We can stop this, tout de suite, and realign with how our Justice system works?
Let’s give that a try?

*Joe rode the train home for thirty years because he was playing the long-game, riiight.

In this case there is evidence that crimes have been committed. The "10% to the Big Guy" then Tony Bobulinski's confirmation that the Big Guy is Joe Biden, then the FBI report mentioning the Big Guy are more than enough to begin an investigation.

 

[Pommer]

In this case there is evidence that crimes have been committed. The "10% to the Big Guy" then Tony Bobulinski's confirmation that the Big Guy is Joe Biden, then the FBI report mentioning the Big Guy are more than enough to begin an investigation.

You have links to this “evidence”?
Where doth the “10% to the big guy” cometh? Purloined data?
What illegal “deal” was being done?

 

[HTacianas]

You have links to this “evidence”?
Where doth the “10% to the big guy” cometh? Purloined data?
What illegal “deal” was being done?

The "10% to the Big Guy" came from Hunter Biden's emails. And it was confirmed by Tony Bobulinski and the FBI as being authentic. And we don't know yet what illegal deal was made. Only that there is evidence of Joe Biden receiving some sort of payment from it. And when he released his tax returns (to much fanfare) there was no mention of it.

We have evidence of Joe Biden receiving some sort of payment. He did not declare it on his tax returns. That is probable cause for an investigation.

 

[A2SG]

The "10% to the Big Guy" came from Hunter Biden's emails. And it was confirmed by Tony Bobulinski and the FBI as being authentic. And we don't know yet what illegal deal was made. Only that there is evidence of Joe Biden receiving some sort of payment from it. And when he released his tax returns (to much fanfare) there was no mention of it.

We have evidence of Joe Biden receiving some sort of payment. He did not declare it on his tax returns. That is probable cause for an investigation.

I'm unclear on this "evidence." If there's no money showing up on his tax returns, what's the evidence that Biden received it?

-- A2SG, more invisible evidence?

 

[HTacianas]

I'm unclear on this "evidence." If there's no money showing up on his tax returns, what's the evidence that Biden received it?

-- A2SG, more invisible evidence?

That is something to be determined.

 

[A2SG]

That is something to be determined.

Let me see if I have this right: you say there is evidence that Biden received a bribe. But no money showed up in his bank statements.

So, what's the evidence?

"That is something to be determined."

Which means....you don't actually have evidence.

What did I miss?

-- A2SG, kinda hard to follow the money when it isn't there......

 

[HTacianas]

Let me see if I have this right: you say there is evidence that Biden received a bribe. But no money showed up in his bank statements.

So, what's the evidence?

"That is something to be determined."

Which means....you don't actually have evidence.

What did I miss?

-- A2SG, kinda hard to follow the money when it isn't there......

I haven't said anything about a bribe. Only that there is evidence that he received some form of payment and it wasn't on his tax return.

 

[A2SG]

I haven't said anything about a bribe. Only that there is evidence that he received some form of payment and it wasn't on his tax return.

Okay. So what's the evidence that he received some sort of payment? Or is that to be determined?

-- A2SG, still finding it difficult to follow the money here.....

 

[HTacianas]

Okay. So what's the evidence that he received some sort of payment? Or is that to be determined?

-- A2SG, still finding it difficult to follow the money here.....

Hunter Biden's emails said that they were holding some form of payment for "the Big Guy". Tony Bobulinski publicly stated that Joe Biden is the "Big Guy". There is some form of FBI report also mentioning the "Big Guy". That is an accusation that Joe Biden received some form of payment but it wasn't on his publicly released tax returns. That is probable cause for an investigation.

 

[A2SG]

Hunter Biden's emails said that they were holding some form of payment for "the Big Guy". Tony Bobulinski publicly stated that Joe Biden is the "Big Guy". There is some form of FBI report also mentioning the "Big Guy". That is an accusation that Joe Biden received some form of payment but it wasn't on his publicly released tax returns. That is probable cause for an investigation.

Um, in legal circles, there's a word for this:

"Hearsay."

As evidence goes, it's not very convincing, I gotta say. Not unless you have something to corroborate it.

Like, say, evidence that this payment even exists.

-- A2SG, that's what "follow the money" means.....

 

[SimplyMe]

Hunter Biden's emails said that they were holding some form of payment for "the Big Guy". Tony Bobulinski publicly stated that Joe Biden is the "Big Guy". There is some form of FBI report also mentioning the "Big Guy". That is an accusation that Joe Biden received some form of payment but it wasn't on his publicly released tax returns. That is probable cause for an investigation.

Three issues here. 1) The author of the "Big Guy" email claims that the "Big Guy" was not Joe Biden. 2) Joe Biden was not serving in public office at the time, so even if he was the "Big Guy" it would not be illegal. And 3) the deal fell through, no money was made on this deal -- as such 10% of zero is still zero.

So who the "Big Guy" is in question; Bobulinski, by himself, does not prove who the "Big Guy" is since he contradicts the actual author of the email. Next, even if Biden received money there is nothing illegal about it since he wasn't serving in a government office but was a private citizen; though, that is rendered moot by the fact that the deal fell through -- there was no deal, whether Joe Biden was involved or not.

 

[KCfromNC]

I’m starting to see a trend in the (seemingly) endless stream of “normal workings of government” being turned into scandal.

Not the latest (by any means) but the “Suspicious Activity Reports” that banks are required by law are required fo produce, are now being waved around as “evidence” that the Bidens are crooked!

They very might well be*, but not by this “evidence”.
This is normal paperwork of the banking industry and the federal government.
Waving it around to convince the people to make sure the good gentlepeople demand that congress (the House ATM), “investigate for evidence of a crime!”, ain’t how our system works.
There has to be evidence of a crime being committed at some previous point in time or at present.

Asking “Are these normally-generated reports evidence of a crime?”

No.
No it doesn’t “work that way”; there have to be specific anomalies within the SARs that could indicate felonious activity. You know, “normal”.

Looking to make political hay over “normal things” is what people do, when they can’t find anything better.

Everything is normal=scandal!

We can stop this, tout de suite, and realign with how our Justice system works?
Let’s give that a try?

*Joe rode the train home for thirty years because he was playing the long-game, riiight.

I've heard it said that scam e-mail intentionally include things that would make it obvious to a reasonably intelligent person that the email is a scam. Weeding out those people early saves the scammers time, because at some point those people are going to figure it out anyway, so the quicker that happens the better.

Starting to wonder if GOP spin has learned something from that approach.

 

[Pommer]

The "10% to the Big Guy" came from Hunter Biden's emails. And it was confirmed by Tony Bobulinski and the FBI as being authentic. And we don't know yet what illegal deal was made. Only that there is evidence of Joe Biden receiving some sort of payment from it. And when he released his tax returns (to much fanfare) there was no mention of it.

We have evidence of Joe Biden receiving some sort of payment. He did not declare it on his tax returns. That is probable cause for an investigation.

I see lots of assertions and no links to evidence for this evidence.

 

[HTacianas]

I see lots of assertions and no links to evidence for this evidence.

At this point everyone in the world knows what was in Hunter Biden's emails. And Tony Bobulinski made his statements on national television. A sitting Senator released the FBI record.

I said in another thread a few days ago that whenever these things come up all you hear is denial. And that's what I'm hearing from you. Now, couple all of that with the topic of your OP, that being the multiple Suspicious Activity Reports regarding Hunter Biden (and no, you get to claim numerous bureaucratic mistakes for them), there is grounds for an investigation.

 

[Pommer]

At this point everyone in the world knows what was in Hunter Biden's emails. And Tony Bobulinski made his statements on national television. A sitting Senator released the FBI record.

I said in another thread a few days ago that whenever these things come up all you hear is denial. And that's what I'm hearing from you. Now, couple all of that with the topic of your OP, that being the multiple Suspicious Activity Reports regarding Hunter Biden (and no, you get to claim numerous bureaucratic mistakes for them), there is grounds for an investigation.

There cannot be an investigation based solely on the fact that SARS were produced by the regulations already in effect.
If there are anomalies within the SARS that bear investigation, by all means there should be one (or more?).
Anyways Mister Weiss has been made Special Counsel so we’ll have all the details shortly.

 

[Pommer]

At this point everyone in the world knows what was in Hunter Biden's emails. And Tony Bobulinski made his statements on national television. A sitting Senator released the FBI record.

You’re going to want to google “fruit of the poisonous tree”.

 

[DaisyDay]

At this point everyone in the world knows what was in Hunter Biden's emails. And Tony Bobulinski made his statements on national television. A sitting Senator released the FBI record.

How much of what we know is true? Comer, Jordan and them told a lot of lies about what was actually said and written.

Tony Bobulinski did say that the "Big Guy" mentioned in the 10% email was Joe Biden, but the guy who wrote said email denies it. Who to believe? In either case, it's a moot point as that deal fell through.

Do you know of any other instance in the laptop junk that made any reference using the term "big guy" or was it a one time deal?

Which senator released which FBI record?

I said in another thread a few days ago that whenever these things come up all you hear is denial. And that's what I'm hearing from you. Now, couple all of that with the topic of your OP, that being the multiple Suspicious Activity Reports regarding Hunter Biden (and no, you get to claim numerous bureaucratic mistakes for them), there is grounds for an investigation.

Sure, a cursory investigation - that's the point of the reports, but until anything substantial is found it seems much ado about nothing.
Do you know if the SARs were anything other than a transfer of funds over $10,000? <- serious question.

 

[USincognito]

That is something to be determined.

"We'll find those witches whether they exist or not!"

 

[USincognito]

In this case there is evidence that crimes have been committed.

Where? Did you actually read the Archer transcript instead of Comer's dishonest spin on it? There's there's nothing there.

The "10% to the Big Guy" then Tony Bobulinski's confirmation that the Big Guy is Joe Biden, then the FBI report mentioning the Big Guy are more than enough to begin an investigation.

To reiterate what SM and Daisy wrote, this is from WaPo:

James Gilliar, a business associate summarizing the allocation of the equity in Oneida Holdings LLC., in the email, wrote how four partners would get 20 percent each, except for Jim Biden, who would get 10 percent. He added a question: “10 held by H for the big guy?” One of the recipients of the mail, Anthony Bobulinski, has said that the “big guy” referred to Joe Biden and that “H” referred to Hunter. Bobulinski was a guest of Trump at one of the 2020 presidential debates.

But Gilliar told the Wall Street Journal in 2020: “I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure. I am unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.”

The actual author of the email says it wasn't and that there was no revenue from which to create this supposed 10% cut.