Hunter Biden to Plead Guilty

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2023, 11:26 AM)Dill Wrote: Explain to all of "us"? Like EVERYONE here has missed the larger political forces which brought a GOP committee to bear on the "Biden Crime Family" right along with you? 

In my post #38, I respond to this statement from your post #36
So, yes, Biden got a sweetheart deal and Trump isn't being persecuted. See, it's easy when everything isn't viewed through a partisan lens.
My response to this linkage of Biden and Trump: Yes, sounds VERY easy, even before we know what "the deal" is.
Viewing the matter through non partisan lenses, how often do charges like those facing Biden bring jail time? 
How long does it usually take to prosecute people who steal government documents and refuse to return them? 

At this point, I’d already read that Biden’s charges rarely bring jail time. So I didn’t see anything especially “sweetheart” about him NOT getting jailtime. And nothing “preferential” in his becoming the object of a Congressional investigation following years of hounding by RWM.
You said Trump was not being persecuted. I agree. But I think anyone who’d snubbed the archives and set about hiding documents and resisting a subpoena would have been in jail last year. So it looks like HE is the one getting preferential treatment, while the RWM is clamoring about Biden’s sweetheart deal and Trump’s “persecution.” This less easy view didn’t register through your “non-partisan lenses.”

In #40 you addressed my question about Trump’s prosecution as follows” I'm not a federal prosecutor, so I have no idea.  Does that have any bearing on Biden getting a sweetheart deal?
Your juxtaposition of Biden and Trump in #36, and your insistence the former was getting a sweetheart deal, reminded of why there was Congressional interest in Biden at all. Trump’s investigation can’t have bearing on Biden’s sweetheart deal if he is not actually getting a sweetheart deal. But it can explain why a GOP Congressional committee is interested in him and the RWM has been hounding him for years.

As the pressure of multiple investigations mounted on Trump, the need on the Right to manufacture a counter-narrative of Biden corruption as counter-weight increased accordingly. E.g., on the day of Trump’s indictment in the documents case, there was during the day desultory coverage thereof on Fox. But in the evening, as the commentators came on, there was an orgy of “breaking news”—not about Trump, the first president in history to be criminally indicted, but about “whistleblowers” and new revelations about HB and Joe. Indictments were pending on the former. Not much about taxes, but about the flow of millions of dollars from China and Russia to the “Biden Crime Family,” leaving the impression the long-awaited smoking gun of Biden corruption at the VERY top was finally at hand. Again. (Review Luvnit’s posts here to see how effective that was.) Except for a new round of whistleblowers, the facts were still pretty much as they were two years ago.

The GOP opened a Congressional investigation of the Biden family to get dirt on Joe. This thread opened with the deflation following the actual legal results of this project—two misdemeanors, one felony, on Joe’s son, and no jail time. No conduit of illegally gotten foreign money flowing through Hunter to Joe. So "Double standard!" and "two tier system of justice!!"

Except as counterweight to the Trump investigations, HB is of no interest all. There’d be no thread in this forum with people arguing about whether he was receiving preferential treatment.

So, in #48, I hit you dead on with my “bullshit,” reminding you of where I found the juxtaposition of Biden and Trump investigations. And the fireworks begin in #59, where you accuse me of “false equivalency” and “fascicle” argument, without explaining the equivalency and accusing me of “ignoring points,” and claiming I’m not being an adult with an ironically unaware flourish of ad homimen. (You can't be engaged in "sophomoric posturing" if you're accusing someone else of that, right?) 

I respond in #68, reminding you that I’d never accuse of you ignoring points without specifying what they were (not an invitation to requote entire paragraphs), and stating you cannot demonstrate any false equivalence. And you still haven't.

In #69 you requote your whole paragraph again, with questions and points you’ve “conceded.” More interestingly, you’ve decided I’ve conflated sentence length in Trump’s case with Biden’s deal; I’d happily agree they are two different things, but that doesn’t mean the CASES aren’t comparable as political events. If they weren’t, no one would be responding to this thread. But instead of remaining on topic, you digress into another flurry of impressions: I’m “building a strawman” and “blowing it in real time” with my “blatant partisanship” and “denial of fact”--by which you mean, I guess, that I, along with many legal experts, don’t agree with your “opinion” about the sweetheart deal. Anyone who disagrees is a “blatant partisan.” Just is.

Alongside this, you’ve decided the thread is only about feeling superior to “Trumptards,” rather than arguing against the larger and still politically dangerous Fox narrative, thus missing the larger and ultimately more important political context. 

At this point I have to conclude that your obtuseness is deliberate in order to get a rise out of me.  I honestly give your intelligence far too much credit to do otherwise.  Consequently I will not be engaging with you on this topic any longer.  Feel free to make of that what you will.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2023, 03:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Calling sources "Left wing garbage sites" doesn't refute or invalidate the legal opinions expressed therein by special agents, prosecutors and the like. They're all "leftists"? This is pre-judgment, not argument. And an example of ignoring what you can't refute. From this thread. 

One last thing, as it's yet another example of you ignoring points.  I pulled a quote from your one source that isn't heavily biased, Politico (yes, it's bad when your least biased source is Politico, but it is what it is) that directly refuted your position.  Yet you ignored that.  Among a slew of other things.  Like I said, it's clearly deliberate and I'm done playing your silly game here.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2023, 11:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes, that's right. But for me this is still really about the larger Fox narrative. 

Can't refute ad hominem, but I can remind people of what's really at stake in debates about the Biden investigation.

It's not about whether well connected white men get sweetheart deals on tax misdemeanors.  

True but all that is happening is a series of responses that will not deal with that topic but rather deal with YOU and his opinions of you.

Hunter pleading guilty is a win for the right.  They just wanted a pound of flesh also.  

Anyone who tries to dismiss that is OBVIOUSLY not smart enough to have the conversation! 

[SunsetBengal]

(06-26-2023, 12:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: True but all that is happening is a series of responses that will not deal with that topic but rather deal with YOU and his opinions of you.

Hunter pleading guilty is a win for the right.  They just wanted a pound of flesh also.  

Anyone who tries to dismiss that is OBVIOUSLY not smart enough to have the conversation! 

That's right, dammit!  We want a Malaysian style public caning. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2023, 12:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: True but all that is happening is a series of responses that will not deal with that topic but rather deal with YOU and his opinions of you.

It didn't start that way, it ended up that way due to his prevarication.

Quote:Hunter pleading guilty is a win for the right.  They just wanted a pound of flesh also.  

I thought you said no one should be above the law?  Hence this should be considered a victory for you as well, should it not?  As far as the "pound of flesh", well, I'd settle for a fair settlement, and the deal as reported is extremely lenient.  No probation for a felony that carries a ten year confinement time is rare to the point of unicorn sightings.  But you'll ignore that.

Quote:Anyone who tries to dismiss that is OBVIOUSLY not smart enough to have the conversation! 

I'd love for you to pull a quote in which I advocate for a "pound of flesh".  I'd settle for your actually refuting the points I made with facts, something your friend failed to do, despite his protestations to the contrary.  But I'm sure you'll just reinforce each others partisan preconceptions as per the norm.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2023, 12:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That's right, dammit!  We want a Malaysian style public caning. 

Probably not, but you'd love to see any Biden in cuffs headed off to jail no matter what the charge.  

I've said all along if they are guilty then I'm glad they got them.  Doesn't matter who it is.

But the right is so fixated on Hunter that anything short of public humiliation isn't enough.  It seems to be mainly because y'all want to conflate Hunter with Trump and any investigation into him.  

And, remember, board members were saying Trump shouldn't even be CHARGED because...Trump.  The same board members who "feel" that Hunter's pleas was too lenient.

It's a double standard that they then accuse "the left" of.  

[SunsetBengal]

(06-26-2023, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Probably not, but you'd love to see any Biden in cuffs headed off to jail no matter what the charge.  

I've said all along if they are guilty then I'm glad they got them.  Doesn't matter who it is.

But the right is so fixated on Hunter that anything short of public humiliation isn't enough.  It seems to be mainly because y'all want to conflate Hunter with Trump and any investigation into him.  

And, remember, board members were saying Trump shouldn't even be CHARGED because...Trump.  The same board members who "feel" that Hunter's pleas was too lenient.

It's a double standard that they then accuse "the left" of.  

Hmm, seems like that's been going on long before Trump was ever part of the scene.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2023, 12:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, seems like that's been going on long before Trump was ever part of the scene.

Oh, you're not wrong.  The every accusation by the right is actually a confession.  Been that way since Newt Gingrich's time, at least...lol.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2023, 02:54 AM)BengalYankee Wrote: Congratulations, you have met the burden of proof. 

 

Is this one of those "circle Js" SSF accused the "liberal dominated board" of having?


Just wanted to be clear so I can avoid them in the future.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2023, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: And, remember, board members were saying Trump shouldn't even be CHARGED because...Trump.  The same board members who "feel" that Hunter's pleas was too lenient.

An obscene mischaracterization of my point regarding Trump.  I worry that Trump's being charged/convicted could have massive ramifications for the country as a whole.  I personally don't care if Trump rots in prison the rest of his life.  But I said all this in the thread your commenting on, you just chose to ignore it for some reason and deliberately mischaracterize my position.  Kind of like Dill is doing in this thread.  It must be contagious.

(06-26-2023, 12:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is this one of those "circle Js" SSF accused the "liberal dominated board" of having?


Just wanted to be clear so I can avoid them in the future.

If it is you already engaged in it in this thread.

(06-26-2023, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: Dill, you are logically explaining to someone who already "knows" he is right and only want to argue and belittle.  Not worth it.

Hunter had good lawyers, listened and made a good deal for himself.  Just like a lot of other rich , connected people do.  It's not fair to regular folk like us but its not the grand conspiracy they want it to be either.  And if I'm ever investigated for the same charges I'm gonna cite his settlement!

Maybe now you can start avoiding them in the future? 

[Dill]

(06-26-2023, 11:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: At this point I have to conclude that your obtuseness is deliberate in order to get a rise out of me.  I honestly give your intelligence far too much credit to do otherwise.  Consequently I will not be engaging with you on this topic any longer.  Feel free to make of that what you will.

Re-tracking our disagreement across every one of our posts, citing and quoting, and assessing them with respect to expert legal opinion and a larger political context requires focus and work. No one does that just to be "obtuse."  So no, you don't "have to conclude" that was all just to get a rise out of you. I'm thinking there might be an altogether different reason for your dodging my post.

You claimed I "ignored" your "points." When I asked for specification, you re-posted this:

Who said jail time?  I've said on here, repeatedly, that a first time felon is very unlikely to get jail time (unless it's a felony like murder, rape, etc.).  What is unusual about the terms, as reported, is that there is no grant of probation.  A plea to a felony with ten years confinement time with the conditions of only drug treatment and no further felonies in two years, then dismissal?  That's the definition of a sweetheart deal.  Treatment followed by 3-5 years federal probation would be an actually reasonable settlement.  No probation at all?  Insanely preferential treatment.

These are not all "points." The bolded is what I've specified for you. First statement would be a premise, completed by "no probation." 

So only drug treatment, no further felonies in two years and no probation="Sweetheart deal." This rests on what I would call "opinion" based on observation and experience, a kind of testimony, as opposed to a legal argument premised on cited case law and precedent. The addition of "insanely preferential treatment" is just a hyperbolic restatement of opinion, not another point to be addressed. 3-5 years of probation would be "reasonable" is not a stand alone claim or "point," but another premise supporting the "no probation" premise, as is the claim no probation is "unusual." 

So someone who disputed your conclusion that "no probation" = "sweetheart deal" would not be ignoring your "points." 

Not being a legal expert, I looked for online legal analysis of the Biden deal. I found no "analysis," only other expert legal opinion from special agents and prosecutors who've spent years dealing with cases like this. That's the same type of evidence as you've offered, only from more experienced and expert sources. Most said Biden did not get a sweetheart deal. At least one called it "harsh," apparently even with no probation. (Calling it "insanely harsh" would not have strengthened the testimony.)

Applying your "non-partisan" judgement to these sources, you 1) dismissed them as "leftist bias," apparently because you thought the links "leftist." Even if your labeling were accurate, it would not be refutation. As I have repeatedly said, one can't dismiss a Fox News article simply because it's from Fox News. (That is facile.) Its claims have to be assessed against other news, just as one would an article from reputable news sources. 

But 2) you rightly noted that some of my more authoritative sources agreed with you. You didn't specify, but I could see that in one, for example, Kevin McCarthy also claimed Biden got a sweetheart deal.  But can we we trust someone quoted in a "leftist" source? Or should "non-partisans" dismiss him outright as "rightist"? Labels can be useful when accurate, but they can't in themselves BE argument, any more than ad hominem can. 

If you had a stronger argument than the one I've recapped here, and countered, I'd be seeing it. So the counter stands.

I'd still like to see some actual legal analysis of this deal, not just testimony, however expert. I won't settle for just picking "opinion" that agrees with mine. But looks like I--we--will have to wait for that along with Bels, whose caution has earned him a thumbsdown. 

[Dill]

(06-26-2023, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Probably not, but you'd love to see any Biden in cuffs headed off to jail no matter what the charge.  

I've said all along if they are guilty then I'm glad they got them.  Doesn't matter who it is.

But the right is so fixated on Hunter that anything short of public humiliation isn't enough.  It seems to be mainly because y'all want to conflate Hunter with Trump and any investigation into him.  

And, remember, board members were saying Trump shouldn't even be CHARGED because...Trump.  The same board members who "feel" that Hunter's pleas was too lenient.

It's a double standard that they then accuse "the left" of.  

I'd say HB is not really their target, but his investigation is integral to a larger goal of false equivalence. 

Over the last 7 years, the RWM has begun systematically working up a counter-narrative the moment Trump is under investigation for something.

E.g., look how the Russia investigation was turned into a "witch hunt," despite all the public evidence in favor of the investigation, plus the convictions resulting from it. People in this forum still come forward to claim it was based on the Steele dossier. Trump attempted to use his DOJ to punish and spy on opponents, but accused the Obama and the Dems of doing that.

Trump brought impeachment down on his head the first time by illegally withholding aid from Ukraine with a request that Zelensky open an investigation into Trump's foremost rival for the presidency. It's on tape. Hence the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy pushed most prominently by Giuliani. Ukraine, not Russia, hacked our elections. Biden fired a prosecutor going after Hunter, etc. 

You'd think 1/6 would result in a slam dunk condemnation of Trump, especially once it was determined that his staff was coordinating the assault on the Capitol with the presentation of Pence with an invalid/illegal list of state electors. And some, like Graham, did initially say "count me out." But Hannity et al. were on it, and with a month the defectors were back tracking. Cheney held the line and was booted from her committees and then Congress. Conspiracies abounded of BLM and ANTIFA breaking into the Capitol to smear the GOP in a false flag operation. Trump said "peacefully" once while inciting the rioters so he had nothing to do with the chaos which ensued after he told his followers to take their country back. 

The "double standard" narrative really began with the Clintons, based on the many conspiracies about them that never produced investigations, let alone convictions, giving rise to the "one law for them, another for the rest of us" mantra. Every conspiracy ignored by responsible journalists then becomes more proof of what the Right "already knows." 
 
But that DS narrative has been updated with respect to Biden. 

First, as a counterweight to Trump corruption, we repeatedly get Fox/Newsmax reports of "breaking news" about Russian and Chinese money flowing to Joe through Hunter. The laptop was a big part of that. Every Trump supporter "knows" that Biden got millions somehow and the FBI has the facts. But Biden has slowed the investigation to protect himself and his son. 

As I mentioned above, the day Trump was indicted and the normal news was alive with reporting and analysis, Fox turned to "breaking news" about a new set of whistleblowers who'd reveal the deep corruption at the heart of the Biden presidency and his illegal use of the DOJ. This was barely two weeks after another round of breaking news whistleblowers fizzled in very public hearings. And THAT was the big news the day a U.S. president was indicted on criminal charges for the first time in history. 

Second, when Biden found documents in his home and immediately turned them in, that became the equivalent of Trump deliberately stealing documents in violation of the Presidential records act, for months ignoring requests to return them, then ignoring a subpoena, then moving documents out of their supposedly safe storage. "Why didn't the FBI raid Biden's home?!?!?" Right after he voluntarily returned documents. More clear evidence the DOJ has been weaponized against Biden's political opponents. 

Half of the disinformation battle has already been won if your audience has been groomed to distrust more responsible news sources. That's why people constantly pop up in this forum presenting debunked claims as breaking news and accusing the rest of us of, ostrich like, having our heads in the sand. 

So the HB deal is interpreted in light of this larger political struggle over control of U.S. politics and government. HB's "sweetheart deal," while falling far short of linking Joe to illegal Chinese deals, can be salvaged as more evidence of a double standard and weaponization of the DOJ, which is still, by the way, "protecting his laptop." 

[Luvnit2]

DOJ KNEW HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP WAS 'NOT MANIPULATED,' CONTAINED 'RELIABLE EVIDENCE' IN 2019: WHISTLEBLOWER

Ignore a credible senior FBI. but this is not a Fox story, it is a whistleblower story Fox covered.

Think about it, the FBI knew the laptop was not manipulated in 2019, long before the signed letter of 51 claimed the laptop was Russian disinformation, yet the FBI never confirmed to the public the HB laptop was not manipulated. It is hard to understand why anyone would be OK with our department of justice allowing a blatant lie to be used on a debate stage.

[Mickeypoo]

(06-29-2023, 09:00 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: DOJ KNEW HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP WAS 'NOT MANIPULATED,' CONTAINED 'RELIABLE EVIDENCE' IN 2019: WHISTLEBLOWER

Ignore a credible senior FBI. but this is not a Fox story, it is a whistleblower story Fox covered.

Think about it, the FBI knew the laptop was not manipulated in 2019, long before the signed letter of 51 claimed the laptop was Russian disinformation, yet the FBI never confirmed to the public the HB laptop was not manipulated. It is hard to understand why anyone would be OK with our department of justice allowing a blatant lie to be used on a debate stage.

It fits the narrative they want.  That's all that matters.  

[GMDino]

(06-29-2023, 09:00 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: DOJ KNEW HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP WAS 'NOT MANIPULATED,' CONTAINED 'RELIABLE EVIDENCE' IN 2019: WHISTLEBLOWER

Ignore a credible senior FBI. but this is not a Fox story, it is a whistleblower story Fox covered.

Think about it, the FBI knew the laptop was not manipulated in 2019, long before the signed letter of 51 claimed the laptop was Russian disinformation, yet the FBI never confirmed to the public the HB laptop was not manipulated. It is hard to understand why anyone would be OK with our department of justice allowing a blatant lie to be used on a debate stage.

Its hard to understand why you have ignored multiple people explaining this to you.  Yet here we are.

[Luvnit2]

(06-29-2023, 10:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: Its hard to understand why you have ignored multiple people explaining this to you.  Yet here we are.

Which part of "HB laptop was not manipulated per the FBI to the IRS agents and to the whistleblower is not clear to you.

Please share an actual person investigating HB's tax fraud case who disputes the whistleblowers testimony, not some liberal hack who is speculating without facts.

[GMDino]

(06-29-2023, 11:04 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Which part of "HB laptop was not manipulated per the FBI to the IRS agents and to the whistleblower is not clear to you.

Please share an actual person investigating HB's tax fraud case who disputes the whistleblowers testimony, not some liberal hack who is speculating without facts.

Why should I?  You blindly believe what you want and blatantly ignore the rest.

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/republican-claims-about-hunter-biden-offenses/

You want, so bad, for this to be tied to Joe Biden and to bring him down because your lord and savior Trump got caught with his hand in the cookie jar that you read what the whistle blower allegedly said and accept as gospel truth.

And if Hunter or Joe did those things then charge them.  The gop has the House and lead the CIA...go get 'em tiger!

In the meantime you just whine that someone is covering up because you don't like the speed of an investigation or the results.

It's tiring and its really boring.

[Stewy]

You know.......not that I ever thought much of him, but the more I hear about Hunter Biden the more I think he's a bit of a creep and scum bag. Glad he's not an elected official so we can all hate on him equally!

[Luvnit2]

If Weiss and Garland wanted to do a complete investigation, why did they not interview Bobulinski
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bobulinski-offered-testify-hunter-biden-grand-jury-never-heard-back-source

The answer is likely Joe Biden was untouchable, by the FBI and the IRS. If so, black eye for the DOJ.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-29-2023, 09:00 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: DOJ KNEW HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP WAS 'NOT MANIPULATED,' CONTAINED 'RELIABLE EVIDENCE' IN 2019: WHISTLEBLOWER

Ignore a credible senior FBI. but this is not a Fox story, it is a whistleblower story Fox covered.

Think about it, the FBI knew the laptop was not manipulated in 2019, long before the signed letter of 51 claimed the laptop was Russian disinformation, yet the FBI never confirmed to the public the HB laptop was not manipulated. It is hard to understand why anyone would be OK with our department of justice allowing a blatant lie to be used on a debate stage.

Yet everybody found out about the laptop right before the election.

Why?