"refused to bring charges" on Hunter Biden for tax evasion

[Social Media]

 

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matthew Graves, who contributed to President Biden's 2020 campaign, "refused to bring charges" on Hunter Biden for tax evasion, according to IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who confirmed this on Wednesday.

During the contentious House Oversight Committee hearing into claims the Department of Justice politically interfered with an investigation into Hunter Biden, Shapley stated, "The Justice Department allowed the president's political appointees to weigh in on whether to charge the president's son."

"I watched U.S. Attorney [David] Weiss tell a room full of senior FBI and IRS senior leaders on October 7, 2022, that he was not the deciding person on whether charges were filed," he wrote. "After U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matthew Graves, appointed by President Biden, refused to bring charges in March 2022."

U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves contributed to Biden's 2020 campaign while employed at the law firm DLA Piper prior to his nomination and confirmation to the job in 2021, according to Federal Election Commission documents originally published by the Daily Caller.

The $1,500 in donations was given during the Democratic presidential primaries in April 2020 and May 2020.
The focus of the House investigation has been on the allegations made by whistleblowers Shapley and Joseph Ziegler that there was a pattern of "slow-walking investigative steps" into Hunter Biden, including directives not to speak with him at his home, informing the president's son and staff about the ongoing investigations, and postponing enforcement actions in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

 

Copyright 07.20.23

 

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

Corruption runs as deep if not deeper in the good ole USA as it does everywhere else in the world...

[Chomper Higgot]

Gary Shapely hasn’t confirmed anything.

 

He’s made allegations, he might have confirmed his allegations by stating them to the committee but that is not confirmed that his allegations are correct.

 

The BBC have a far more complete report, including small details that Weiss was a Trump appointee and many of the alleged ‘delays’ and ‘blocks’ occurred prior to 2020 during the Trump administration:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66252781.amp

 

 

[Tug]

If you turn enough rocks over you will find something it’s a tempest in a tea pot so what the man paid the taxes and penalties 

[SunnyinBangrak]

Sure looks like Garland told oopsies under oath. Too many witnesses now confirming there was OBSTRUCTION. a familiar word but this time it's no hoax.

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Sure looks like Garland told oopsies under oath. Too many witnesses now confirming there was OBSTRUCTION. a familiar word but this time it's no hoax.

No, it doesn't look like that at all.  Perhaps you could identify the witnesses you referred to and exactly how the confirmed there was OBSTRUCTION?

 

Please note, disagreements between investigators and prosecutors about if and how to prosecute are common and not proof of obstruction.

[candide]

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Sure looks like Garland told oopsies under oath. Too many witnesses now confirming there was OBSTRUCTION. a familiar word but this time it's no hoax.

How could Garland be responsible for what happened before his mandate?

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Corruption runs as deep if not deeper in the good ole USA as it does everywhere else in the world...

Naturally you have the proof of the corruption and are willing to publish it.

 

You do have the proof, don't you, or is this just another mudslinging accusation?

[billd766]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Sure looks like Garland told oopsies under oath. Too many witnesses now confirming there was OBSTRUCTION. a familiar word but this time it's no hoax.

Where is your proof or is this just another straw you are frantically grabbing at?

[riclag]

Joe biden is a liar!

There I said it!

“Biden consistently asserted that he possessed no awareness of his son's business matters abroad”

https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-addresses-allegations-denies-lying-about-sons-business-affairs-609077

During the hearing rep dem Goldman the star of dem prosecutors unknowingly provides incriminating comments that proves Joe is lying about his awareness of hunters business dealings!

  The lunch meeting : 3:13-:4:13

If only the Irs wasnt stymied by the doj,these criminal investigators  for the Irs could of possibly connected and confirmed more incriminating malfeasance!

Damming testimony , the Gop has enough to impeach now! Imop

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

Joe biden is a liar!

There I said it!

“Biden consistently asserted that he possessed no awareness of his son's business matters abroad”

https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-addresses-allegations-denies-lying-about-sons-business-affairs-609077

During the hearing rep dem Goldman the star of dem prosecutors unknowingly provides incriminating comments that proves Joe is lying about his awareness of hunters business dealings!

  The lunch meeting : 3:13-:4:13

If only the Irs wasnt stymied by the doj,these criminal investigators  for the Irs could of possibly connected and confirmed more incriminating malfeasance!

Damming testimony , the Gop has enough to impeach now! Imop

 

Impeach for what? Where are the recordings of Biden's "perfect phone calls" incriminating him? Did he try to overturn elections?

[pomchop]

But of course for 4 years trump controlled the DOJ, AG,FBI etc and after two years of investigation of hunter the TRUMP gang filed ZERO charges....now why would that be if they had all of this hard core evidence?...Joe Biden was NOT the president then so sorta hard for him to convince Barr not to file charges...but now all of a sudden repubs want to rehash all of this in an attempt to distract from the serious crimes that dear leader has been charged with that have REAL EVIDENCE... even the trump AG DOJ etc understood that a grand jury would want to see real hard core evidence, not a bunch of deep state conspiracy theories, against hunter before filing charges...it is obvious that they did NOT have such evidence and would have looked like fools if a grand jury had refused to indict.

 

I watched the entire testimony and the lead story here leaves out a LOT of relevant facts to say the least.

[Skipalongcassidy]

17 hours ago, billd766 said:

Naturally you have the proof of the corruption and are willing to publish it.

 

You do have the proof, don't you, or is this just another mudslinging accusation?

The proof was provided yesterday when they released the FD-1023... but you will not read it nor will you believe it if you do.

[onthedarkside]

Post with an unapproved media source removed.

 

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

The proof was provided yesterday when they released the FD-1023... but you will not read it nor will you believe it if you do.

Here's a link to the FD-1023.  https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf

 

What parts provide proof of anything?  I saw nothing that looked like credible evidence of anything.

[bendejo]

23 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Corruption runs as deep if not deeper in the good ole USA as it does everywhere else in the world...

link please

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

The proof was provided yesterday when they released the FD-1023... but you will not read it nor will you believe it if you do.

Un unverified documents with claims about payments made during the trump administration? Please check the definition of proof.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/20/politics/chuck-grassley-fbi-document/index.html

[Tug]

How’s that straw life raft coming along?how about some meaningful legislation or at least ideas humm?this incessant attacks on the presidents only surviving son are getting a bit old and makes the republicans look like a certain part of anatomy just stupid 

[JonnyF]

23 hours ago, Social Media said:

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matthew Graves, who contributed to President Biden's 2020 campaign, "refused to bring charges" on Hunter Biden for tax evasion, according to IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who confirmed this on Wednesday.

No surprise here.

 

The US continues it's decline towards banana republic status under the Biden regime. It's genuinely sad to see.

[bamnutsak]

Still unclear on the agenda here?

 

Is it that Hunter Biden should have been charged with more crimes? Misdemeanors?

 

And/or that he owes additional payments in tax and penalties?

 

Or do Grassley and Comer want to weaponize the IRS?

 

 

 

 

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

51 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Here's a link to the FD-1023.  https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf

 

What parts provide proof of anything?  I saw nothing that looked like credible evidence of anything.

You wouldn't...

[Skipalongcassidy]

42 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Un unverified documents with claims about payments made during the trump administration? Please check the definition of proof.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/20/politics/chuck-grassley-fbi-document/index.html

It is amusing that all allegations against democraps are unverified yet the dems scream allegations against Trump as fact.  Same sources in most cases just a different glass of koolaid.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

It is amusing that all allegations against democraps are unverified yet the dems scream allegations against Trump as fact.  Same sources in most cases just a different glass of koolaid.

No. There is a lot of hard evidence against Trump, especially the documents case. Against the Bidens not a shred of hard evidence.

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You wouldn't...

You were asked to identify the parts of the FD-1023 that prove anything.  You didn't.

[Skipalongcassidy]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

No. There is a lot of hard evidence against Trump, especially the documents case. Against the Bidens not a shred of hard evidence.

That's what you all say... yet he was impeached twice to no avail... where was the evidence?

[Pink Mist]

Baiting Troll post removed 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You wouldn't...

I have read the link to the FD-1023 document and nowhere did I see ANY mention of President Biden, Quite a few references to Hunter Biden, unsurprisingly as he worked with Burisma. An awful lot of blacked out stuff on page 1.

 

So where is the proof which confirms President Biden was involved?

[pomchop]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

It is amusing that all allegations against democraps are unverified yet the dems scream allegations against Trump as fact.  Same sources in most cases just a different glass of koolaid.

You do know that much of the evidence against trump comes from audio and video tapes as well as mostly republican witness testimony from dozens of people were in the room to see and hear what was said and done.....along with a ton of paper trails...and of course trump can't shut his big flapping mouth and keeps providing even more evidence of criminal intent. 

 

  Show me that kind of HARD evidence against biden and not a bunch of conspiracy theory garbage that circulates on the deep web.  There is a huge difference between FACTS and allegations.  If trumpers had any HARD evidence against hunter biden they had two full years when they were in full control of DOJ, AG, etc to present their findings to a grand jury and ask for indictment.  They did NOT do so.  Now why would that be??  Grand juries do not indict on conspiracy theories.  They want to see FACTS.

 

The real reason trump is running for POTUS is because he knows full well that it is almost certain that he will be found guilty of multiple crimes and the only way he can avoid jail is to win POTUS and then try and pardon himself.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

That's what you all say... yet he was impeached twice to no avail... where was the evidence?

You clearly don't understand how impeachment works.

[gargamon]

5 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

Post with an unapproved media source removed.

 

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

So then where is the link in the OP? One has to guess it's faux news but I guess the strategy is to now post this stuff with no source.