Whistleblower(s) from IRS sworn testimony on Biden Investigation

[Foolishpride]

IMPEACH HUNTER BIDEN!!!!!

[Dill]

(07-26-2023, 11:43 PM)Foolishpride Wrote: IMPEACH HUNTER BIDEN!!!!!

Needs to happen.

Guy should never be allowed in public office again.

[Dill]

(07-26-2023, 04:15 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: So you are saying Susan Rice did not go on liberal TV news shows citing it was act due to a anti muslim film?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-36921

In the TV interviews, Ms. Rice said the attack resulted from a popular protest against a U.S.-made video, rather than a pre-planned terrorist attack. 

Trump Collusion article
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

Having a US Congressman on national cable and liberal news agency spewing lies he had proof Trump colluded with Russia is insinuating Trump colluded with Russia. They never doubted Schiff's lies or asked hm to provide the proof. 

As for the Joe Biden case of bribery with Ukraine, China and others it is still under investigation. I understand you would love to believe Biden did not take a bribe to get the prosecutor fired in Ukraine as it would bigger than Watergate. But, because our justice department did not thoroughly investigate the Biden's, the house oversight and ways and means committees are doing an investigation. Stay tuned, Archer is slated to testify Monday and if reports are correct, it will be more evidence "the big guy" Joe Biden was involved in the Burisma and Chinese deals.

Your claim, that Biden fired a Ukrainian prosecutor to protect his son, is NOT "still under investigation."  It's just disinformation.

It requires NO investigation to show that 

1. The IMF, EU and Obama wanted Shokin fired. Joe, who could not fire him on his own, or with hold billions, delivered a message.
    Listen to what you are saying. No one needs to investigate whether a VP could with hold a billion in aid on his own initiative any more than     they'd need an "investigation" to find out who breaks ties in a Senate vote.

2. The prosecutor was fired because he was NOT investigating Burisma. That's already shown, done, years ago. That determination by     international oversight had NOTHING to do with Biden.

Now for the umpteenth time can you please just say "Yes Dill that's right. As VP, Biden did not have the power to get Shokin fired, and Shokin was fired because he would not prosecute Burisma." And you won't continue making that claim on other threads. Don't introduce another subject. Just do that for me and THEN I'll be happy to explain what you've got wrong about Benghazi. If can't accept this simple, plain refutation of your Biden claim, how will you respond to the same for the 7 Benghazi nothingburgers? 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-26-2023, 04:19 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Is anyone else confused? Did Hunter Biden get indicted today for tax fraud/invasion? I don't understand why the judge asked him for a plea unless he was being arraigned.

Also, how do you plead innocent after saying yes I am guilty with the plea deal.

He was set to plead guilty to small charges with an agreement for light punishment.  The judge questioned the terms of the plea agreement, thus it was not an accepted plea.  The defense withdrew the guilty plea, and changed his plea to not guilty at the time, and the case was continued.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2023, 04:19 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Is anyone else confused? Did Hunter Biden get indicted today for tax fraud/invasion? I don't understand why the judge asked him for a plea unless he was being arraigned.

Also, how do you plead innocent after saying yes I am guilty with the plea deal.

I guess FOX wasn't clear enough?

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190211798/hunter-biden-plea-tax-charges

Quote:Judge says she's not ready to accept Hunter Biden's plea deal

July 26, 20231:45 PM ET
By 
Washington Desk


Hunter Biden arrives in J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building to appear in court to plead guilty to two federal misdemeanors for not paying taxes on time, and possessing a gun as a drug user, in Delaware on July 26.
Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The judge in the Hunter Biden case said Wednesday she is not ready to accept the plea deal struck between the president's son and the Justice Department, and asked both parties to submit additional briefs and return to the court on a future date.

Judge Maryellen Noreika demanded that the lawyers from both sides make clear that the deal does not convey broad immunity offered to Biden from prosecution on his business dealings.

As a result, Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor offenses related to his filing of federal income taxes. He will reverse that plea if a new plea agreement meets Noreika's approval.

The development comes a little more than a month after Biden agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor offenses related to his filing of federal income taxes. Federal authorities also charged him with a felony firearm offense, for which he agreed to enter a pretrial diversion agreement that allows him to avoid prosecution.

According to David Weiss, the Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. attorney, Biden did not pay federal income taxes for either 2017 or 2018, despite owing more than $100,000 in taxes each year. Additionally, in October 2018 Biden possessed a firearm despite knowing he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance, Weiss' office said.
Sponsor Message



POLITICS
McCarthy says info about Biden family 'rises to level of an impeachment inquiry'
[/url]
Biden faced a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison on each of the tax charges and a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the firearm charge, but Weiss' office noted that actual sentences determined by judges are typically less than the maximums. A source familiar with the deal said the Justice Department had agreed to recommend probation on the tax charges but a judge will make the ultimate decision.

Republicans have said the plea deal struck was an example of unfair treatment for Biden soon after former President Donald Trump was [url=https://www.npr.org/2023/06/13/1181749734/trump-court-appearance-miami-classified-documents]arraigned on separate and unrelated federal charges related to his handling of classified documents. Trump himself wrote on his social media site Truth Social: "The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere 'traffic ticket.' Our system is BROKEN!"


Trump could also be indicted on charges related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The White House declined to comment on the charges, saying in a statement: "The president and first lady love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life."

LAW
Hunter Biden agrees to plead guilty in tax case and avoid prosecution on gun charge

Allies of Hunter Biden have pointed to data suggesting it is rare for the Justice Department to bring a weapons charge against a nonviolent offender absent other patterns of lawbreaking, especially since the Supreme Court upended gun regulations in a landmark case last year. They added that Biden's back taxes had been paid "in full" more than two years ago.

Wednesday's decision by the judge follows a lengthy investigation by Weiss in Delaware, where the Biden family has established a political dynasty. President Biden served as a U.S. senator from Deleware for 36 years before he became vice president in 2009, and his late son Beau worked as attorney general there. (Beau died in 2015.)

A grand jury in the state has been hearing from witnesses close to Hunter Biden for months. His legal team had said publicly that he faced investigation on his tax practices and other business interests overseas.

At the same time of some of the conduct at issue in the investigation, Hunter Biden struggled with alcohol and drug addictions and a messy personal life.

The White House continued to decline comment on the legal troubles of the president's son, referring questions to Hunter Biden's legal team and the Justice Department.

"Hunter Biden is a private citizen, and this was a personal matter for him," press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told White House reporters Wednesday afternoon. "As we have said, the president, the first lady, they love their son and they support him as he continues to rebuild his life. This case was handled independently as all of you know by the Justice Department under the leadership of a prosecutor appointed by the former president, President Trump."

[BengalYankee]

(07-27-2023, 06:11 AM)Dill Wrote: Needs to happen.

Guy should never be allowed in a public office again.

Fixed it for you. 

[Luvnit2]

(07-27-2023, 06:27 AM)Dill Wrote: Your claim, that Biden fired a Ukrainian prosecutor to protect his son, is NOT "still under investigation."  It's just disinformation.

It requires NO investigation to show that 

1. The IMF, EU and Obama wanted Shokin fired. Joe, who could not fire him on his own, or with hold billions, delivered a message.
    Listen to what you are saying. No one needs to investigate whether a VP could with hold a billion in aid on his own initiative any more than     they'd need an "investigation" to find out who breaks ties in a Senate vote.

2. The prosecutor was fired because he was NOT investigating Burisma. That's already shown, done, years ago. That determination by     international oversight had NOTHING to do with Biden.

Now for the umpteenth time can you please just say "Yes Dill that's right. As VP, Biden did not have the power to get Shokin fired, and Shokin was fired because he would not prosecute Burisma." And you won't continue making that claim on other threads. Don't introduce another subject. Just do that for me and THEN I'll be happy to explain what you've got wrong about Benghazi. If can't accept this simple, plain refutation of your Biden claim, how will you respond to the same for the 7 Benghazi nothingburgers? 

Sorry you are wrong. The house oversight committee has found the money, has a 1023 interview that outlines Joe Biden worked to  fired the prosecutor investigating Hunter. This committee has found more evidence in 6 months than D.O.J. and F.B.I found in 5 years most likely because they did not want to find evidence against Joe Biden. Archer will testify Monday, stay tuned for more evidence Joe Biden took a bribe from Burisma to get the prosecutor fired.

Please read the 1023 form, it will give you insight to what really happened in Ukraine. Joe bragged about it. 

[Luvnit2]

(07-27-2023, 08:47 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: He was set to plead guilty to small charges with an agreement for light punishment.  The judge questioned the terms of the plea agreement, thus it was not an accepted plea.  The defense withdrew the guilty plea, and changed his plea to not guilty at the time, and the case was continued.

I understand he did a plea of not guilty of the tax charges. My question is why wasn't he arrested and then arraigned. 

[GMDino]

(07-27-2023, 12:12 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I understand he did a plea of not guilty of the tax charges. My question is why wasn't he arrested and then arraigned. 

[/url]

Quote:[url=https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=86716&post_id=135478208&utm_source=post-email-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjEzMzg2NjIsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNTQ3ODIwOCwiaWF0IjoxNjkwNDA1NDk0LCJleHAiOjE2OTI5OTc0OTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04NjcxNiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.wWp_G-kfQQrgyPMgeiH79H-_-QG9x5_6IK0a_HqGnuc]Hunter Biden And The Fog Of War
What We Don’t Know About Why The Hunter Biden Plea Deal Blew Up
KEN WHITE
JUL 26

 





[/url]
[url=https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=86716&post_id=135478208&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&action=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjEzMzg2NjIsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNTQ3ODIwOCwiaWF0IjoxNjkwNDA1NDk0LCJleHAiOjE2OTI5OTc0OTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04NjcxNiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.wWp_G-kfQQrgyPMgeiH79H-_-QG9x5_6IK0a_HqGnuc]SHARE
 

The urge to comment on events immediately, as they are happening, before we have the information necessary to evaluate them, is corrosive. It’s also overpowering and pervasive in the era of social media. Nobody wants to wait for tomorrow’s morning paper, or even tonight’s newscast. We want answers and we want them now. Many of us also want to be the ones providing those answers — the first ones providing those answers — for those sweet clicks, comments, likes, and attention. Accuracy and nuance are the casualties.


Today Robert Hunter Biden’s long-anticipated guilty plea on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file a tax return was derailed. You’ve seen the news by now, and if you haven’t, you’ve probably seen the social media reactions, many of which are nonsensical and uninformed.


The truth is, so far, elusive. There were reporters in the courtroom. But, judging from the news stories, and with the greatest respect to those reporters, it seems they didn’t completely understand what was happening. They couldn’t report many verbatim quotes (they should have brought someone who takes shorthand) and federal courts don’t allow broadcast or media recoding of proceedings. So we’re left with a series of impressions by reporters who picked up bits and pieces of what was happening. Many of those reporters are intelligent and sophisticated but it’s not clear they have the experience with federal criminal law to pick up exactly what was going on.


The truth further eludes us because we lack the most important document — the written plea agreement between the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Always read the plea agreement to understand a plea. I argued weeks ago, when news of the plea deal came out, that until we got the plea agreement we could not fully evaluate the many claims that Hunter Biden was getting a “sweetheart deal.” In many federal districts it would be filed as a matter of course before the plea hearing, the government said in an earlier filing that it would be filed, and it still hasn’t been filed, leaving crucial questions unanswered and making it very difficult to interpret today’s events.


Here’s what we know, and what we still need to know.


We know that Hunter Biden showed up in court to enter his guilty plea. A federal guilty plea is an involved process; it’s routine for it to last anywhere from fifteen minutes (very fast) to an hour (slow). It involves a searching inquiry by the judge into whether the defendant understands the terms of the deal, the rights they are giving up, the sentence and sentencing process they are facing, the facts supporting the plea, and the voluntariness of the deal. Today that process went sideways, as it sometimes does.


From press reports, it appears that U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked questions about the scope of the deal. Specifically, she asked whether the government was agreeing not to prosecute Hunter Biden further just on these tax issues, or on any other issues it was investigating, including the Foreign Agent Registration Act. The government responded that the deal only precluded the government from prosecuting any other tax crimes related to these facts; Hunter Biden’s lawyers said that was wrong and if that was the case there was no deal. The judge told them to go talk and work it out. Apparently they did - and Hunter Biden agreed with the government that he was only protected from further tax prosecution on these facts, not from other prosecutions based on other investigations — but the judge asked the parties to submit briefs clarifying the scope of the non-prosecution promise and to come back, and did not accept the plea.


This is strange, and we can’t interpret the extent of the strangeness because we don’t have the written plea agreement.


Federal plea agreements typically spell out, very explicitly, the government’s non-prosecution promises. A standard agreement will say that the government agrees that this specific U.S. Attorney’s Office will not prosecute the defendant further for the facts and circumstances described in the plea agreement, but that the deal doesn’t cover any other crimes and doesn’t bind any other office or entity. That’s very narrow. It’s also very explicit and not subject to easy misunderstanding.

So for things to go wrong here, one of the following had to happen:

• The government didn’t define the scope of its promise of non-prosecution in the agreement. That would be a huge mistake and very unusual.
• The government defined the scope of its non-prosecution promise in the plea agreement but the scope was vague or badly drafted. That’s unusual and also a mistake. They are normally extremely careful with this language. The fact that the judge saw fit to inquire about the scope of the deal makes this possibility plausible — if the plea agreement was as clear on this point as it should be, and the judge read it, the judge wouldn’t have to ask that question.
• Hunter Biden’s lawyers didn’t read the plea agreement carefully or didn’t understand the non-prosecution promise. Hunter Biden has experienced attorneys and that would be a huge and embarrassing blunder.
  

If I could read the plea agreement I could tell you which of these scenarios happened. But they haven’t filed the agreement and haven’t made it public, so we’re left to speculate.


The judge’s refusal to accept the deal for now was appropriate. If there’s no meeting of the minds — if the parties don’t agree on the terms of the deal — the judge shouldn’t accept the plea. Also, once uncertainty has been expressed on the record, it’s not that strange for the judge to say “go put it in writing and come back” rather than accepting their statement “ok we straightened it out now.” Federal judges are notoriously careful about the guilty plea colloquy. I would probably do the same about such a high-profile case — if there was any hint that a party thought the written plea agreement was ambiguous, I would want it fixed.


What this does not seem to suggest, at least based on the information we have, is that the judge has accepted GOP arguments that Hunter Biden is getting a sweetheart deal, or that she’s part of a GOP conspiracy, or that she’s ultimately going to tank the deal.


We may have to wait until the parties file the clarification requested by the judge. One would hope they’d file the plea agreement — amended or not — by then. That will answer questions about this hiccup (and, I think, make it easier to evaluate the “sweetheart deal” arguments).

For now, the only thing I am confident in saying is that somebody done ****** up. But I’m not sure who.

https://popehat.substack.com/p/hunter-biden-and-the-fog-of-war?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=86716&post_id=135478208&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

We don't have the pleas deal, no recording of what went on in court is available so all we have are handwritten notes from reporters and what they say they heard.

It would seem a deal was reached but the judge wants it in writing so they can review it.

[Dill]

(07-27-2023, 12:08 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Sorry you are wrong. The house oversight committee has found the money, has a 1023 interview that outlines Joe Biden worked to  fired the prosecutor investigating Hunter. This committee has found more evidence in 6 months than D.O.J. and F.B.I found in 5 years most likely because they did not want to find evidence against Joe Biden. Archer will testify Monday, stay tuned for more evidence Joe Biden took a bribe from Burisma to get the prosecutor fired.

Please read the 1023 form, it will give you insight to what really happened in Ukraine. Joe bragged about it. 

Been there, done that. Suddenly, dodgy second hand sources are trustworthy. Believe everything the objects of a corruption investigation have to say to exonerate themselves.

What "money" are you talking about?  Nothing in that form confirms Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin to protect his son. 

Nothing in that form can establish that Joe could, on his own, withhold a billion dollars of foreign aid to Ukraine. It does not establish that Joe had the power to do what VPs cannot do on their own.

Nothing in that form can establish that Joe was NOT acting on behalf of the IMF, EU and U.S. when demanded Shokin's firing.
It does not shift primary responsibility for the firing from the IMF, EU and U.S. to Biden. 

Nothing in that form can disprove that efforts to fire Shokin were a concerted, international effort by institutions with no interest in HB. 

Aren't you curious to hear how Benghazi was just GOP drama which produced no convictions, 
in contrast to the Russia investigation which produced dozens? 

We won't get there until you acknowledge that "Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin to save Hunter" is disinformation and inverts reality.  That doesn't mean you can't keep your belief that House oversight has "found the money" or that the FBI is biased or whatever. 

[Dill]

(07-27-2023, 12:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: So for things to go wrong here, one of the following had to happen:

• The government didn’t define the scope of its promise of non-prosecution in the agreement. That would be a huge mistake and very unusual.
• The government defined the scope of its non-prosecution promise in the plea agreement but the scope was vague or badly drafted. That’s unusual and also a mistake. They are normally extremely careful with this language. The fact that the judge saw fit to inquire about the scope of the deal makes this possibility plausible — if the plea agreement was as clear on this point as it should be, and the judge read it, the judge wouldn’t have to ask that question.
• Hunter Biden’s lawyers didn’t read the plea agreement carefully or didn’t understand the non-prosecution promise. Hunter Biden has experienced attorneys and that would be a huge and embarrassing blunder.
  

If I could read the plea agreement I could tell you which of these scenarios happened. But they haven’t filed the agreement and haven’t made it public, so we’re left to speculate.

The judge’s refusal to accept the deal for now was appropriate. If there’s no meeting of the minds — if the parties don’t agree on the terms of the deal — the judge shouldn’t accept the plea. Also, once uncertainty has been expressed on the record, it’s not that strange for the judge to say “go put it in writing and come back” rather than accepting their statement “ok we straightened it out now.” Federal judges are notoriously careful about the guilty plea colloquy. I would probably do the same about such a high-profile case — if there was any hint that a party thought the written plea agreement was ambiguous, I would want it fixed.

What this does not seem to suggest, at least based on the information we have, is that the judge has accepted GOP arguments that Hunter Biden is getting a sweetheart deal, or that she’s part of a GOP conspiracy, or that she’s ultimately going to tank the deal.

That seems to clarify the RWM muddle I saw yesterday.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-27-2023, 12:12 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I understand he did a plea of not guilty of the tax charges. My question is why wasn't he arrested and then arraigned. 

I don't know that they have issued any new charges, as this proceeding is for the charges already brought against him.

[GMDino]

There are so many threads on Hunter Biden I figured I'd drop this here.  I ran across it while seeing "the liberal media" talked about Hunter's China business deals in 2020.

Interesting read on why the email story got nowhere...and it wasn't all on "liberal media".

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-happened-when-nbc-news-tried-report-alleged-n1245533

Quote:Here's what happened when NBC News tried to report on the alleged Hunter Biden emails

Analysis: Trump complains the media isn't reporting on Hunter Biden's emails. But NBC News met obstacles, including Rudy Giuliani, when it tried.





Hunter Biden attends the World Food Program USA's Annual McGovern-Dole Leadership Award Ceremony on April 12, 2016.Paul Morigi / Getty file





Oct. 30, 2020, 5:44 PM EDT
By Ken Dilanian and Tom Winter

The complaints from President Donald Trump and his allies have been growing louder as the election approaches: Why isn’t the mainstream media covering the Hunter Biden laptop story?

Trump and his allies say there is evidence of corruption in emails and documents allegedly found on a laptop belonging to Democrat Joe Biden’s son. They say those and other documents show that Hunter Biden used his father’s influence to enrich himself through business deals in Ukraine and China, and that his father not only facilitated that, but may have benefited financially.

But the Wall Street Journal and Fox News — among the only news organizations that have been given access to key documents — found that the emails and other records don’t make that case. Leaving aside the many questions about their provenance, the materials offered no evidence that Joe Biden played any role in his son’s dealings in China, let alone profited from them, both news organizations concluded.
As to Ukraine, a single email published by the New York Post suggests Joe Biden may have had a meeting with a representative of a Ukrainian company that employed his son. Trump and his allies alleged that means Joe Biden has lied when he said he never discussed his son’s business roles. The Biden campaign denies the meeting happened.

The lack of major new revelations is perhaps the biggest reason the story has not gotten traction, but not the only one. Among others: Most mainstream news organizations, including NBC News, have not been granted access to the documents. NBC News asked by email, text, phone call and certified mail, and was ultimately denied.



Giuliani linked to accused Russian agent while digging for dirt on Hunter Biden
OCT. 19, 202003:02

[/url][url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Giuliani%20linked%20to%20accused%20Russian%20agent%20while%20digging%20for%20dirt%20on%20Hunter%20Biden&via=nbcnews&url=https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/giuliani-linked-to-accused-russian-agent-while-digging-for-dirt-on-hunter-biden-94165061847&original_referer=https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/giuliani-linked-to-accused-russian-agent-while-digging-for-dirt-on-hunter-biden-94165061847]
And, although no evidence has emerged that the documents are the product of Russian disinformation, as some experts initially suggested, many questions remain about how the materials got into the hands of Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who has met with Russian agents in his effort to dig dirt on the Bidens.

U.S. intelligence agencies have informed the White House that Giuliani has been in contact with alleged Russian intelligence agents. The FBI has been looking into whether the Russians played any role, and no official has ruled that out.

At the same time, dozens of former intelligence officials have said the story has the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation. After the election interference of 2016, the news media is especially wary of doing anything to further an effort by a foreign government to intervene in a presidential campaign.

Another factor tamping down coverage of the story is that there isn’t much new in what the laptop documents appear to reveal. The allegation that Hunter Biden has traded on his family name has been thoroughly explored in previous news stories, including a lengthy New Yorker investigation last year in which Robert Weissman, the president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, said, “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Hunter’s foreign employers and partners were seeking to leverage Hunter’s relationship with Joe, either by seeking improper influence or to project access to him.” Reports published while the elder Biden was still vice president raised ethical questions about the Burisma deal.

While the question of whether Joe Biden enabled his son to profit from the vice president’s influence is relevant to the presidential campaign, issues of balance and proportionality also come into play.

Trump, according to the same good government advocates who have criticized Hunter Biden, is ethically challenged when it comes to appearing to use the power of his office to enrich himself and his family. David Farenthold of The Washington Post has used federal and other records to calculate that the federal government has spent at least $2.5 million on food and lodging at Trump properties since Trump took office. Earlier this month, Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska who is up for re-election, told supporters that Trump’s family “has treated the presidency like a business opportunity.”

Yet stories about Trump’s children and their business dealings are not dominating the news cycle in the days before the election, because they have already been covered, just as the Hunter Biden story has been covered. (Trump’s tax information, on the other hand, has been covered extensively by The New York Times, because the secret tax data obtained by the newspaper revealed important new information about his tax payments and his business dealings.)


'No role for Joe Biden'
The first story about the Hunter Biden laptop appeared in the New York Post, a conservative tabloid. One of the bylines was that of a former producer for Fox News pundit Sean Hannity.



The New York Times reported that a Post reporter who did much of the work declined to allow his byline to appear on the story.

The Times also reported that the Trump campaign initially shopped the story to the Wall Street Journal, hoping that a mainstream news organization would validate their assertions that the documents hinted at corruption.


The Journal didn’t do that.


The Journal published a story focusing on claims about an alleged deal proposal in China — claims made by a former Hunter Biden associate named Tony Bobulinski, who came forward after the laptop story broke to say that the senior Biden was well aware of his son’s arrangements.


After examining text messages provided by Bobulinski, the Journal reported that “the venture — set up in 2017 after Mr. Biden left the vice presidency and before his presidential campaign — never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals, according to people familiar with the matter. Corporate records…show no role for Joe Biden.”

Fox News, meanwhile said it “reviewed emails from Bobulinski related to the venture — and they don't show that the elder Biden had business dealings with SinoHawk Holdings, or took any payments from them or the Chinese.”

An NBC News correspondent asked Bobulinski for an interview and for copies of documents in his possession, but he declined.

“All of your questions will be answered on Tucker Carlson tonight,” Bobulinski wrote on Oct. 27.

On air, to make his case that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s business dealings, Bobulinski described an encounter he says he had with the senior Biden.

At a meeting in May 2017 in Los Angeles, Bobulinski says Hunter Biden introduced him to the former vice president, saying: “This is Tony, dad, the individual I told you about that's helping us with the business we are working and the Chinese.”


Even if that statement was made, it says very little about how much Joe Biden knew, and nothing about whether he was involved.

The Biden campaign has denied that Biden knew about the venture or stood to profit from it.


The laptop
NBC News has sought to obtain the documents on the alleged Hunter Biden laptop, but has been rebuffed.

An NBC News correspondent sent a letter two weeks ago to Giuliani, seeking copies of the materials.

His lawyer, Robert Costello, granted the correspondent the opportunity to review some Hunter Biden emails and other materials in person. 
The materials included copies of Hunter Biden identification documents that appeared to be genuine. But without taking possession of the copies, it was not possible to conduct the sort of forensic analysis that might help authenticate the emails and documents.

Related
POLITICS[/url]
[url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-examining-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-are-linked-foreign-n1243620]Feds examining whether alleged Hunter Biden emails are linked to a foreign intel operation

It was Giuliani who ultimately told NBC News he would not be providing a copy of the hard drive. NBC News responded by asking if, instead of a full copy of the hard drive, he could just provide copies of the full set of emails. Giuliani did not agree to that proposal. NBC News then declined an offer of copies of a small group of emails.

NBC News has also requested the documents from Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, but has not received a response.


Key questions remain about the origins of the laptop and how it got into Giuliani’s hands.


The owner of a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware, John Paul Mac Isaac, has said a man he believes was Hunter Biden left a water-damaged Apple computer at his shop in April 2019 for repairs and data recovery.


But Biden never retrieved the machine, Mac Isaac has said, and at some point he began to examine the data. He said he found material that disturbed him, though he has never publicly explained what that was. His lawyer said he contacted the FBI, which ultimately served a grand jury subpoena for the laptop and a hard drive.

After hearing nothing from the FBI for months, Mac Isaac said he grew frustrated and turned a copy of the laptop’s contents over to Giuliani’s lawyer.


A representative for Giuliani said one of Giuliani’s companies received an e-mail from Mac Isaac saying he had the laptop and thought Giuliani should be aware of its contents. The representative said Mac Isaac provided a copy of the hard drive to Giuliani’s team.

According to the representative, Mac Isaac said he wrote to Giuliani’s team after trying to reach out to Republican members of Congress without success.

Giuliani’s attorney said Mac Isaac did not ask for or receive payment for the copy of the drive.


The subpoena, which was published by the New York Post, was signed by a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Wilmington.


A photo of a receipt provided to Mac Isaac by FBI agents was published on the Fox News website. It contained an FBI code, 272D, which the bureau uses to signify an investigation into money laundering where the unlawful activity is unknown.


U.S. officials have refused to explain why they seized the laptops and what, if anything, they are investigating.


NBC News attempted to speak to Mac Isaac, but he did not respond to requests for comment. NBC News published an article quoting responses he had given to The Daily Beast. His lawyer then sent NBC News a letter that said, “Your network and affiliates should cease any further discussion of Mr. Mac Isaac as much of the information you are presenting is false.”


James Rosen, a reporter for the conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, the nation's largest operator of local television stations, reported this week that a Justice Department official told him the FBI had opened a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden and his associates last year focused on allegations of money-laundering — and that the probe remains active.

NBC News has not confirmed any such investigation.

Rosen also reported that the FBI interviewed former Biden associate Bobulinski last week.


A senior law enforcement official told NBC News that Bobulinski initiated the interview.
Bobulinski said the FBI told him he’s “listed as a material witness,” but law enforcement officials say the FBI does not use that term in this context.


Hunter Biden’s lawyer, George Mesires, did not respond to a request for comment by NBC News. He has not asserted — nor has the Biden campaign — that the laptop did not belong to Hunter Biden.


If he did leave the machine in Delaware, it would have marked at least the second time he has left behind a laptop.


According to two people familiar with the matter, a different Hunter Biden laptop landed in the custody of the DEA in February when they executed a search warrant on the Massachusetts office of a psychiatrist accused of professional misconduct. The psychiatrist has not been charged with a crime.

Hunter Biden was not a target of the search or the investigation, and his lawyer ultimately got his laptop back. It’s not clear why his computer was left in the doctor’s office.

Ken Dilanian

tl;dr No one could prove who had the computer and when, FOX and WSJ both turned down the story because of that, and NBC wasn't even allowed to examine any of the "proof" that some claimed to have.  And the one witness at the time wouldn't even talk to NBC.
Which is why the story probably ran so heavily on Breitbart, the NY Post, etc...they don't need facts, just a headline.  Similar to Trump demanding even the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens in Ukraine.  He knew that would be all his base would need no matter if it was true or developed into anything or not.

[Luvnit2]

(07-24-2023, 08:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: I bet you would still believe int he tooth fairy if FOX told it was real.

I suggest you look in the morrow. I know facts and sworn testimony are not relevant in your liberal world.

[Eraserhead]

(08-02-2023, 01:27 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I suggest you look in the morrow. I know facts and sworn testimony are not relevant in your liberal world.

Guy.. you are so deep into this stuff it's scary. I'm honestly starting to fell a little bad for you. You believe every single thing Fox says and it doesn't seem like you ever question anything coming from your side. Where was all this concern about the president and his kids profiting from the office when Trump and his offspring were doing it. I don't remember you wanting them in jail. 

[Luvnit2]

(08-02-2023, 02:51 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: Guy.. you are so deep into this stuff it's scary. I'm honestly starting to fell a little bad for you. You believe every single thing Fox says and it doesn't seem like you ever question anything coming from your side. Where was all this concern about the president and his kids profiting from the office when Trump and his offspring were doing it. I don't remember you wanting them in jail. 

Do you seriously believe the corrupt D.O.J. would not throw everything at the Trump kids if they anything, any evidence the Trump kids profited illegally 
while Trump was POTUS. Don't feel bad for me, I have a great life. I guess you missed all the times I said if Trump is guilty of anything other than Biden and HRC were given a free pass on, put him in jail.

The justice department is a sham, must be Biden's HQ based on their actions. I have a lot of faith in God, in time just like the Russian Hoax Fox News said was a hoax for 2.5 years while the mainstream liberal media promoted propaganda and on the end were 100% wrong, the Biden family will face consequences in the near future (next 10 months).