House releases overview of evidence against Biden

[Always in His Presence]

It's been three years. You'd think if there was a connection someone would have made it vy now.

Thank you for your observation and opinion - they are getting closer every day

What, exactly is "pesky" about them? The only thing that makes such transfers "suspicious" is that they're an amount over $10,000 there's probably 10,000 generated every day.

Sorry - I disagree - SAR's are for "SUSPICIOUS" (that is what the S stands for) reports - large cash amounts that have the earmarks of money laundering. You are mistaken in the statement quoted above. In addition, there are 170 of them - in addition these reports were readily accessible by members of Congress until Joe stopped the practice through executive order.

 

[Pommer]

Thank you for your observation and opinion - they are getting closer every day

Sorry - I disagree - SAR's are for "SUSPICIOUS" (that is what the S stands for) reports - large cash amounts that have the earmarks of money laundering. You are mistaken in the statement quoted above. In addition, there are 170 of them - in addition these reports were readily accessible by members of Congress until Joe stopped the practice through executive order.

Have you a link to this Executive Order?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Thank you for your observation and opinion - they are getting closer every day

Sorry - I disagree - SAR's are for "SUSPICIOUS" (that is what the S stands for) reports - large cash amounts that have the earmarks of money laundering.

The government has determined that any cash transaction in excess of $10,000 (or an aggregate totaling more than $10,000 in a day) to or from an account is "suspicious" and therefore must trigger a "Suspicious Activity Report" from the bank. If you walk into your bank and withdraw $10,000 from your savings account, the bank will submit a SAR. If you deposit a $10,000 check into your account, same thing.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), financial institutions are required to assist U.S. government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering, and:

• Keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments;
• File reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount); and
• Report suspicious activity that might signal criminal activity (e.g., money laundering, tax evasion).

Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) | OCC

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), financial institutions are required to assist U.S. government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering.

www.occ.treas.gov

Suspected money laundering or tax evasion can also trigger reports (as can repeated transactions just under the $10,000 threshold), but the fact that a SAR was generated does not necessarily indicate anything nefarious.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

right it lists out what they are looking into

But not any crimes, despite your claim in post #23.

It is an impeachment inquiry, where they investigate and if substantiated, they bring charges -

It's an inquiry -

I understand that. However, there doesn't seem to be much to investigate in relation to the claims made - especially because the House has been investigating these claims for two and a half years (or longer) now. If all they have after that long is still inference and innuendo, that suggests that there's no substance to the allegations.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Have you a link to this Executive Order?

This speaks of |Biden's Admin stonewalling

Comer: Treasury Hiding Reports Generated for Biden Family’s Suspicious Foreign Business Deals - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

The Biden Administration is restricting Congress’ access to SARs, and Committee Republicans are investigating whether this change in longstanding policy is motivated by efforts to shield Hunter Biden and potentially President Biden from scrutiny. Though the Committee requested documents and information ‘no later than June 8, 2022,’ the Department of the Treasury has provided no documents or information,” wrote Ranking Member Comer.​

​

This is the actual letter:​

​

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Follow-up-Letter-to-Treasury-070622.pdf

​

Despite Treasury’s assertion in the press that it “provides SARs to Congress in a manner that enables robust oversight[,]”3 Treasury is refusing to release SARs connected with Hunter Biden or his family and associates—including the President.​

​

Looking for the actual EXO - Maxine Waters actually moved to have the restrictions removed until she was reminded who put them in place and then withdrew her request - but that was some time ago.

 

[Always in His Presence]

But not any crimes, despite your claim in post #23.

You keep repeating this - do you think repeating things over and over will make them more Germaine? It is an INQUIRY - an investigation based on 20 specific points plainly laid out in the link in the OP.

Repeating the Byline that there is no evidence is IMHO quickly becoming the "Big Lie II".

 

[NxNW]

There is no question in the post you quoted - I don't have a clue to what you are referring to.

Well, it had a question mark at the end.

170 different suspicious activity reports from banks - filed as required by the Dept of Homeland Security, blocked by the Biden Administration from the Congress - which they had the rights to do until he came into office. That is something needing an investigation.

20,000,000 to Biden family members through 20 different shell companies and an active 1023. The bank records Joe is not allowing the treasury department to release, would exonerate or convict him. Why is he not allowing their release?

Questions are not evidence.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You keep repeating this - do you think repeating things over and over will make them more Germaine? It is an INQUIRY - an investigation based on 20 specific points plainly laid out in the link in the OP.

You were asked "What crimes are alleged?" You replied, "Read the link, it outlines them well." The link does not outline any crimes - merely actions and activities that the authors feel are suspicious. That's fine, but it did not answer the question that you were originally asked, and it should not be shocking that people would point that out to you.

Repeating the Byline that there is no evidence is IMHO quickly becoming the "Big Lie II".

Good thing I have not done that. I remind you that words have meanings.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Evidence - not a question.

3) In February 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden dined with oligarchs from Russia and Kazakhstan who funneled millions of dollars to Hunter Biden and his business associates.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Evidence - not a question

5) Then-Vice President Biden had coffee with Hunter Biden’s Chinese business associate, Jonathan Li of BHR, in Beijing and wrote a college letter of recommendation for his daughter.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It would be good for the readers to read the link in the OP.

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, it had a question mark at the end.

Questions are not evidence.

The stonewalling that raises the questions is.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It would be good for the readers to read the link in the OP.

I did. I'm not sure what more you hope for us to get out of it though - the information is mainly things that have been thrown about for the past three years with no further elaboration. I understand that you think that these actions are suspicious (and I even agree on a couple of them), but the committee does not clarify what it believes each of these actions is evidence of, nor does it say what further evidence it is seeking in order to substantiate its allegations.

The primary picture that I get from the collected evidence is that Hunter Biden made extensive use of his family name and physical access to the White House in order to further his business interests, and at least gave the perception that he had influence with his father and the government in general. However, there seems to be precious little evidence that reality aligned with his claims. The few interactions between Joe Biden and Hunter's business interests appear to be generally benign and innocent. Going to the occasional dinner, picking up the phone when your son calls, and writing a letter of recommendation are neither abuses of power nor evidence of substantive involvement with the business. Nor is meeting with your son's guests at the White House, for that matter.

In order to demonstrate corruption, the committee needs to show substantive actions taken by Biden to benefit those who supposedly were bribing him (either directly or through Hunter, as alleged). This sort of thing should be fairly easy to show - we should see changes in policy or advocacy for laws to benefit these people, but to date, the only such example provided has been the Ukraine aid deal, which has been hashed to death on this forum over the past six years (there's nothing there, despite your repeated insistence).

 

[USincognito]

Thank you for your observation and opinion -

I'm not offering an opinion.

they are getting closer every day

Yeah, some have noted, they're gong to find witches whether they exist or not.

Sorry - I disagree

Thank you for your opinion.

- SAR's are for "SUSPICIOUS" (that is what the S stands for) reports - large cash amounts that have the earmarks of money laundering.

You're not telling me anything I don't know.

You are mistaken in the statement quoted above.

Thank you for your opinion.

In addition, there are 170 of them - in addition these reports were readily accessible by members of Congress

Again, you're not telling me anything I don't know. In the late 2010s, when most of them were filed, there were 2,000,000+ each year. Only a percentage of them were for criminal activity.

What you are not telling me, however, is what criminal activity is evidenced by the SARs? So, again, its been three years.

until Joe stopped the practice through executive order.

No such executive order exists.

 

[USincognito]

Evidence - not a question

5) Then-Vice President Biden had coffee with Hunter Biden’s Chinese business associate, Jonathan Li of BHR, in Beijing and wrote a college letter of recommendation for his daughter.

The Vice President wrote a letter of recommendation? Oh the horrors! Clearly we don't need a trail. He's 100% percent guilty of... ?

 

[Belk]

Evidence - not a question.

3) In February 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden dined with oligarchs from Russia and Kazakhstan who funneled millions of dollars to Hunter Biden and his business associates.

ev·i·dence
/ˈevəd(ə)ns/
noun
noun: evidence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What belief or proposition you are saying this is evidence of?

 

[Valletta]

It certainly is good propaganda because it repeats the lie about Shokin being fired for investigating Hunter and the unsupported innuendo of the supposed money from Elena Baturina.

On June 11, 2015, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland wrote Prosecutor
General Shokin, applauding his office’s progress in anti-corruption efforts.6 In September 2015,
then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt publicly stated “we want to work with
Prosecutor General Shokin so the [Prosecutor General Office] is leading the fight against
corruption.”7 Also in September, the Interagency Policy Committee asserted Prosecutor General
Shokin had made sufficient progress in combating corruption to warrant a third guarantee of a $1
billion loan.8 On November 5, 2015, then-Vice President participated in a call with then-
President of Ukraine Poroshenko and provided no indication that the United States’ policy
regarding Ukraine required the dismissal of Prosecutor General Shokin.9 By late 2015, however,
the removal of Prosecutor General Shokin became a condition of the loan guarantee by the
United States.10
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Letter-to-Secretary-Blinken-re-Shokin.pdf

The House has asked the Biden administration about the turnaround in policy toward Shokin--why Joe used that taxpayer money to get Shokin fired. Let the American people see the records.

 

[USincognito]

2) Devon Archer alone was aware of at least 20 times in which then-Vice President Biden spoke on speakerphone with Hunter Biden’s foreign business associates.

>> But, you know, Hunter spoke to his dad every day, right?

And so in certain circumstances, when you're in -- you know, if his dad calls him at dinner and he picks up the phone, then there's a conversation. And the, you know, the conversation is generally about the weather and, you know, what it's like in Norway or Paris or wherever he may be. But that was -- yeah, that happened. <<

>> Q What were Jonathan Li, you, and Hunter talking about at the time that Hunter Biden put his dad on the phone?

A Beijing, how great Beijing is -- or Chengdu, whichever city we were in. But, you know, same answers -- non-specifics relative to business and just, you know, an expression of hellos, I guess. <<

>> Mr. Biggs. And on the other hand, you had what you call D.C., and it became the 10 name brand, which we all agree is Joe -- Vice President Joe Biden. He's over here. And he's making calls to all kinds of folks, 20 of them that you had mentioned. Fair to say?
Mr. Goldman. Who's making calls?
Mr. Schwartz. What is fair to say?
Mr. Goldman. Who's making calls?
Mr. Biggs. The Vice President made 20 calls. That's what you said.
Mr. Archer. Let's clarify. He did not -- whether it was Joe calling --
Mr. Biggs. Or Hunter Biden calling.
Mr. Archer. -- there was a call. And that also is over, you know, 10-year partnership. So -- <<


Q During those calls -- let's start with the one in Paris.
A Sure.
Q -- did Joe Biden -- was Joe Biden calling Hunter Biden? Was Hunter Biden calling Joe Biden?
A I believe on the Paris, it was he called Hunter.
Q He called Hunter.
A Uh-huh.
Q One of the regular kind of check-in calls?
A Uh-huh.
Q You said he'd call him every day.
A Yep.
Q And Hunter Biden picked up --
A Correct.
Q -- and put him on speakerphone? Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did Joe Biden know he was on speakerphone?
A Yes, I would say he knew. I don't -- I have no basis to know, but he would say -- you know, he'd say, "Hey, say hello to" -- you know, it's great in Paris, the weather's this. And everybody would know. And then that was over.

 

[USincognito]

(snip Comer's nonsense)

The House has asked the Biden administration about the turnaround in policy toward Shokin--why Joe used that taxpayer money to get Shokin fired. Let the American people see the records.

He doesn't need to do that because the record is clear. Shokin was removed as part of U.S. policy in order to continue aid to Ukraine.

https://www.axios.com/2019/10/03/republicans-ukraine-reform-prosecutors-office-biden

Three U.S,. Senators signed a letter in February 2016 reiterating existing calls from the administration that Ukraine's justice system needed to be cleaned up - including the removal Shokin. The U.S. policy was consistent with EU, IMF and NATO policy regarding Shokin and the Prosecutor General's office as I documented in the thread debunking the Conservisphere narrative.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html

>> In December of 2015, in a speech to Ukraine’s parliament, Biden made similar calls for changes to the judiciary and the General Prosecutor’s office.

“It’s not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption,” Biden said. “The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform. The judiciary should be overhauled.” <<

 

[Pommer]

There does not have to be evidence that money went from son to dad in order to find a guilty verdict on bribery at an impeachment trial. If a family member benefits that is enough for a conviction.

You’re serious?
What about mens rea?
Wouldn’t that factor in somewhere?