Hunter Biden: Plea deal for president's son collapses in dramatic court hearing

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Never mind no there there or no here here. You continually ignore the probability that the "grounds" have been slow to emerge due to obstruction, slow-walking and lack of action by the DOJ, whether under Trump or Biden. 

Remember the Durham investigation. Where Barr and Durham did their damnedest to find evidence that the Justice Dept was biased in its investigations? How did that turn out?

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you're claiming the Trump administration impeded these investigations?

He didn't say that.

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Remember the Durham investigation. Where Barr and Durham did their damnedest to find evidence that the Justice Dept was biased in its investigations? How did that turn out?

I remember it but you seem to miss the point of it, which was to investigate allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and any links between Donald Trump and Moscow. Not very relevant here at all and was critical of the FBI more than anything else.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Never mind no there there or no here here. You continually ignore the probability that the "grounds" have been slow to emerge due to obstruction, slow-walking and lack of action by the DOJ, whether under Trump or Biden. 

I don't know how long an investigation of this sort normally takes and I have no reason to think that this one is proceeding at an unusual pace.  Do you have any credible evidence that it is?

[candide]

5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Did you miss the bank records, emails, texts, photos and witness testimony from involved insiders? And the 2 IRS agents saying the investigation was OBSTRUCTED by bidens DOJ.

 

If you can account for why the bidens were paid at least $17 MILLION by foreign adversaries we are all ears. Otherwise stop insulting our intelligence.

1. Mainly Trump's DOJ. Most of the events mentioned by the WB occured during Trump's mandate. And there is no proof it was obstruction, just a "perception"

2. So now companies having business with Chinese, Ukrainian or Romanian companies can be accused of working with foreign adversaries? That's laughable!

Edited July 28, 2023 by candide

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

I remember it but you seem to miss the point of it, which was to investigate allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and any links between Donald Trump and Moscow. Not very relevant here at all and was critical of the FBI more than anything else.

No, the point of the Durham investigation was to see if the members of the Justice Dept were prompted by bias against Trump to investigate the Trump campaign's connection to Russia. Durham conceded he found nothing to indicate bias. Nothing. Despite the fact the he and Barr clearly suspected there was bias. No evidence of misdeeds there. Yet you somehow believe that in the case of the Biden investigation when Barr was AG there was bias? Good luck with that.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Did you miss the bank records, emails, texts, photos and witness testimony from involved insiders? And the 2 IRS agents saying the investigation was OBSTRUCTED by bidens DOJ.

 

If you can account for why the bidens were paid at least $17 MILLION by foreign adversaries we are all ears. Otherwise stop insulting our intelligence.

What email texts from or to Joe Biden were incriminating?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

No, the point of the Durham investigation was to see if the members of the Justice Dept were prompted by bias against Trump to investigate the Trump campaign's connection to Russia. Durham conceded he found nothing to indicate bias. Nothing. Despite the fact the he and Barr clearly suspected there was bias. No evidence of misdeeds there. Yet you somehow believe that in the case of the Biden investigation when Barr was AG there was bias? Good luck with that.

You just used the word bias  three times when it was not used in the order for the investigation. This is what it said:

 

The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.

 

This was not specific to any "bias" that may have been held by the DOJ. The main complaints were against the FBI.  But carry on making things up. Happy Hour soon. TGIF.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by nauseus

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, candide said:

1. Mainly Trump's DOJ. Most of the events mentioned by the WB occured during Trump's mandate. And there is no proof it was obstruction, just a "perception"

2. So now companies having business with Chinese, Ukrainian or Romanian companies can be accused of working with foreign adversaries? That's laughable!

What is laughable is the notion that a misbehaving DOJ would necessarily stop that behaviour under a new president. This alleged obstruction apparently started under Obama, in any case, with Joe Biden as VP.  

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

What obstruction and where is your evidence for it?

The obstruction now alleged by the IRS WB's. More on the way. We must be patient.

[candide]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

What is laughable is the notion that a misbehaving DOJ would necessarily stop that behaviour under a new president. This alleged obstruction apparently started under Obama, in any case, with Joe Biden as VP.  

"Alleged", "apparently"....

[metisdead]

A post with a link to a Conspiracy-Pseudoscience site has been removed.

 

A post with unsubstantiated claims has been removed.

[nauseus]

41 minutes ago, candide said:

"Alleged", "apparently"....

Yes, so far, that is what it is.

[placeholder]

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

You just used the word bias  three times when it was not used in the order for the investigation. This is what it said:

 

The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.

 

This was not specific to any "bias" that may have been held by the DOJ. The main complaints were against the FBI.  But carry on making things up. Happy Hour soon. TGIF.

 

 

Since when would an investigation be launched to uncover bias. Bias would be a motive for committing a crime - not a crime in itself. Bias may underpin the theory of the case, but it is not a crime.

 

"He [Barr} said Horowitz used a standard that was “deferential” to the FBI when he investigated the claims of bias, and suggested that a final judgment cannot be made until federal prosecutor John Durham has completed his own separate investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

“I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press,” Barr said.

“I think that leaves open the possibility that there was bad faith.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-barr/u-s-attorney-general-barr-says-fbi-may-have-acted-in-bad-faith-on-russia-probe-idUSKBN1YE2BC

Edited July 29, 2023 by metisdead
6. After pasting a reply format the text you have pasted. An easy way to do this is to click the "Paste as plain text instead" option at the bottom of the reply box.

[stoner]

the difference of tone in this thread is remarkable. the lack of participation also shows a great deal. 

 

funny stuff this whole political game. who's team is winning now... i can't keep up ?  

[riclag]

2 hours ago, stoner said:

the difference of tone in this thread is remarkable. the lack of participation also shows a great deal. 

 

funny stuff this whole political game. who's team is winning now... i can't keep up ?  

So whats your thoughts on the topic?

While knowing all the facts that the doj and biden lawyers were colluding or trying to have her “rubber stamp”to a plea deal that prevented 

any future prosecutions despite a active FARA investigation  . And when the judge asked :

“All right. So if there were a failure in the investigation or the charges brought were inappropriate,how would that get addressed in our form of government”?

Doj Wise: Through the political process, Your Honor.

Political process another words higher courts imop

 

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/07/23cr274MN0726233444.pdf

 

The judge got suspicious when she didn’t even see a space for her signature .

https://nypost.com/2023/07/27/how-doj-hunter-lawyers-tried-to-sweet-talk-judge-into-accepting-sweeping-plea-deal/

[candide]

20 minutes ago, riclag said:

So whats your thoughts on the topic?

While knowing all the facts that the doj and biden lawyers were colluding or trying to have her “rubber stamp”to a plea deal that prevented 

any future prosecutions despite a active FARA investigation  . And when the judge asked :

“All right. So if there were a failure in the investigation or the charges brought were inappropriate,how would that get addressed in our form of government”?

Doj Wise: Through the political process, Your Honor.

Political process another words higher courts imop

 

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/07/23cr274MN0726233444.pdf

 

The judge got suspicious when she didn’t even see a space for her signature .

https://nypost.com/2023/07/27/how-doj-hunter-lawyers-tried-to-sweet-talk-judge-into-accepting-sweeping-plea-deal/

As usual, a misleading truncated quote....

 

Here's the full reply in the linked text.

"THE COURT: All right. So if there were a
 3 failure in the investigation or the charges brought were
 4 inappropriate, how would that get addressed in our form of
 5 government?
 6 MR. WISE: Through the political process, Your
 7 Honor.
 8 MR. CLARK: In particular, Your Honor, the
 9 Executive Branch is charged fully with investigating, making
 10 prosecutorial discretion decisions, and indeed that's where
 11 the term prosecutorial discretion comes from, it is vested
 12 in the Executive Branch."

[candide]

Of course, the GOP is releasing only the testimonies it likes......

 

Democrats claim the GOP is withholding evidence contradicting claims in Hunter Biden probe

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-claim-gop-withholding-evidence-145946236.html

 

"House Democrats are demanding the release of a transcript from a new FBI witness that they say contradicts Republicans' claims in the expanding congressional inquiry into President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on House Oversight Committee, sent a letter Friday to Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the committee, asking him to produce the transcribed interview this month with an FBI agent who worked on the investigation into the younger Biden’s taxes and foreign business dealings. The witness was interviewed on July 17."

 

 

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Since when would an investigation be launched to uncover bias. Bias would be a motive for committing a crime - not a crime in itself. Bias may underpin the theory of the case, but it is not a crime.

 

"He [Barr} said Horowitz used a standard that was “deferential” to the FBI when he investigated the claims of bias, and suggested that a final judgment cannot be made until federal prosecutor John Durham has completed his own separate investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

“I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press,” Barr said.

“I think that leaves open the possibility that there was bad faith.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-barr/u-s-attorney-general-barr-says-fbi-may-have-acted-in-bad-faith-on-russia-probe-idUSKBN1YE2BC

Certainly seems like Barr was biased.

[stoner]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

So whats your thoughts on the topic?

my thoughts are rich people keep getting richer while poor stay distracted with nonsense. 

 

politics is nothing more than a game rich people play to keep the poor distracted. 

 

cindy mccain and i quote....

 

you know its like everything..we we...its hidden in plain sight. you know epstien was hiding in plain sight. we all knew about him..we all knew what he was doing. but we had no one that was...no ahh....legal aspect that would go after him....they were afraid of him...for whatever reason they were afraid of him. 

 

 

[nauseus]

17 hours ago, placeholder said:

Since when would an investigation be launched to uncover bias. Bias would be a motive for committing a crime - not a crime in itself. Bias may underpin the theory of the case, but it is not a crime.

 

"He [Barr} said Horowitz used a standard that was “deferential” to the FBI when he investigated the claims of bias, and suggested that a final judgment cannot be made until federal prosecutor John Durham has completed his own separate investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

“I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press,” Barr said.

“I think that leaves open the possibility that there was bad faith.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-barr/u-s-attorney-general-barr-says-fbi-may-have-acted-in-bad-faith-on-russia-probe-idUSKBN1YE2BC

Well make your mind up!

[nauseus]

12 hours ago, candide said:

As usual, a misleading truncated quote....

 

Here's the full reply in the linked text.

"THE COURT: All right. So if there were a
 3 failure in the investigation or the charges brought were
 4 inappropriate, how would that get addressed in our form of
 5 government?
 6 MR. WISE: Through the political process, Your
 7 Honor.
 8 MR. CLARK: In particular, Your Honor, the
 9 Executive Branch is charged fully with investigating, making
 10 prosecutorial discretion decisions, and indeed that's where
 11 the term prosecutorial discretion comes from, it is vested
 12 in the Executive Branch."

Why insert all the numbers? That just makes it more ridiculous.

[candide]

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Why insert all the numbers? That just makes it more ridiculous.

That's a ridiculous comment. It's a copy/paste from the original document.

Edited July 29, 2023 by candide

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well make your mind up!

You're the one who made that claim that suspicions of bias  played no role in investigating the  Trump-Russia investigation. Barr clearly showed that not to be the casese. You believed that bias would have been mentioned in the grounds for Durham's investigation. if it were.  But there is no such crime as bias in matters like this. Bias is a motive, not a crime. Which is why only potential crimes committed were listed..

[candide]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Ratskin complains about anything and everything.

Then why doesn't  the GOP release the testimony?

[nauseus]

27 minutes ago, candide said:

That's a ridiculous comment. It's a copy/paste from the original document.

There were two links. A pity that you cannot cite properly. Even so there are several series of incrementing numbers in the court text thing. Very confusing. Ridiculous back. 

Edited July 29, 2023 by nauseus

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, candide said:

Then why doesn't  the GOP release the testimony?

Just for him? Right.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're the one who made that claim that suspicions of bias  played no role in investigating the  Trump-Russia investigation. Barr clearly showed that not to be the casese. You believed that bias would have been mentioned in the grounds for Durham's investigation. if it were.  But there is no such crime as bias in matters like this. Bias is a motive, not a crime. Which is why only potential crimes committed were listed..

No. You used the bias word. Not me.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No. You used the bias word. Not me.

In your reply to my claim that suspicions of bias were behind the investigation, you made that claim that bias played no part in it on the grounds that bias was not used when the basis of the Durham investigation was established.

 

"You just used the word bias  three times when it was not used in the order for the investigation. This is what it said:

 

The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III."

 

I provided evidence from Barr himself that clearly it was suspicions of such that was the motive behind the FBI investigation.

Edited July 29, 2023 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Just for him? Right.

Just for him?

 

Why conceal it?

 

“This failure to release a transcript is the latest in your troubling pattern of concealing key evidence in order to advance a false and distorted narrative about your ‘investigation of Joe Biden’ that has not only failed to develop any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden but has, in fact, uncovered substantial evidence to the contrary,” Raskin wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/democrats-claim-gop-withholding-evidence-contradicting-claims-hunter-101769266