🇨🇳🇷🇴🇺🇦 Biden's Corruption: $20M+ bribes. All the evidence that isn't evidence.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I think it’s just the collapse of the plea deal.

 

Without the plea deal, you’re headed to trial against the son of the President.  Aside from the jurisdictional issues I mentioned before, elevating Weiss to Special Counsel gives him a level of independence he doesn’t have as a US Attorney. 
 

If the DoJ is going to prosecute the President’s kid, having as much independence as possible from main Justice is a good idea. 
 

That wasn’t necessary when he was just going to plead out, but it’s the right thing to do now that they are moving to a trial. 

Again, thanks.   
 

That makes very little sense to me given everything that transpired.   HB has been the son of one of the most important and polarizing figures in the world for the entirety of his life.  He’s a multi-millionaire businessman who operated in an historically corrupt nation, his father known for exerting his influence at a time when his son was dealing with issues there.  He’s caught the attention of 51 intelligence experts, every one of which would be associates of his father, every one of which turned out to be incorrect in their assessment.  His father, in his role as president, has made conflicting statements about their professional and personal relationship, and the Weiss team surely knew the truth about that years ago.  Whistleblowers have been attacked by associates of his father. None of that rose to the level of extraordinary? 
 

If a simple rejected plea deal constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” in a case where just about everything about it is extraordinary, it makes zero sense to keep the same team in place.  Unless, of course, the desire is to continue to show the world that some people get special treatment and those people are above the law. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Unless, of course, the desire is to continue to show the world that some people get special treatment and those people are above the law. 

Seems like the opposite to me. 

Most cases never go to trial, they either plead out or are dropped. Special counsels are very rare. 
 

Up until it was clear this was going to trial, this played out pretty much how it would if any of us were the target.* The Feds investigate, the US Attorney indicts, the parties negotiated, and a plea was reached. 
 

The situation changes when it is going to trial. Because Weiss cannot charge outside of Delaware, he needed Special Counsel powers. Because he’s taking the son of the president to trial, he probably should have Special Counsel independence. 

 

Also, since the investigation was so far along that it almost ended in a plea, it wouldn’t make much sense to bring in a whole new team, which would likely cause significant delays. It would also mean that Biden’s appointee Garland would be handpicking the Special Counsel which I doubt MAGA people would be very happy about.
 

*The only difference really is that Biden didn’t replace the US Attorney when he came into office. Normally, all of the US Attorneys resign when a new president comes in. But since Trump’s appointee Weiss was investigating Biden’s son, it would have been inappropriate (though well within Biden’s authority) to replace him with a hand picked US Attorney. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Again, thanks.   
 

That makes very little sense to me given everything that transpired.   HB has been the son of one of the most important and polarizing figures in the world for the entirety of his life.  He’s a multi-millionaire businessman who operated in an historically corrupt nation, his father known for exerting his influence at a time when his son was dealing with issues there.  He’s caught the attention of 51 intelligence experts, every one of which would be associates of his father, every one of which turned out to be incorrect in their assessment.  His father, in his role as president, has made conflicting statements about their professional and personal relationship, and the Weiss team surely knew the truth about that years ago.  Whistleblowers have been attacked by associates of his father. None of that rose to the level of extraordinary? 
 

If a simple rejected plea deal constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” in a case where just about everything about it is extraordinary, it makes zero sense to keep the same team in place.  Unless, of course, the desire is to continue to show the world that some people get special treatment and those people are above the law. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

what about kushner?  it's a fair game argument given your sides constant use of it.  what do you think trump would have done as president if he was indicted at the time?  Think he'd have played by the rules like Joe Biden is?

Edited August 13, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Kemp]

17 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

Well, if he says it, it must be true.

Why is it that allegations by Trump supporters never get verified by actual facts?

Everyone here knows the answer to that one.

Considering that's in a thread accusing Joe Biden of taking bribes and that after 95 pages, proof for that is yet to be offered, it's not a shock. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Kemp

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Kemp said:

 

Why is it that allegations by Trump supporters never get verified by actual facts.

The fact that so many of them are *still* listening to that Julie Kelly idiot tells you that they don’t care about facts. They just want someone to pat them on the head and tell them how smart they are while they are getting everything wrong. 

[Kemp]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

The fact that so many of them are *still* listening to that Julie Kelly idiot tells you that they don’t care about facts. They just want someone to pat them on the head and tell them how smart they are while they are getting everything wrong. 

 

Don't overestimate their intelligence.

A lot of them believe the nonsense they say and quote.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

35 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Seems like the opposite to me. 

Most cases never go to trial, they either plead out or are dropped. Special counsels are very rare. 
 

Up until it was clear this was going to trial, this played out pretty much how it would if any of us were the target.*The Feds investigate, the US Attorney indicts, the parties negotiated, and a plea was reached. 
 

The situation changes when it is going to trial. Because Weiss cannot charge outside of Delaware, he needed Special Counsel powers. Because he’s taking the son of the president to trial, he probably should have Special Counsel independence. 

 

Also, since the investigation was so far along that it almost ended in a plea, it wouldn’t make much sense to bring in a whole new team, which would likely cause significant delays. It would also mean that Biden’s appointee Garland would be handpicking the Special Counsel which I doubt MAGA people would be very happy about.
 

*The only difference really is that Biden didn’t replace the US Attorney when he came into office. Normally, all of the US Attorneys resign when a new president comes in. But since Trump’s appointee Weiss was investigating Biden’s son, it would have been inappropriate (though well within Biden’s authority) to replace him with a hand picked US Attorney. 

Exactly, the appointment of a Special Counsel is very rare, especially in an average case with an average guy and your average multi-year fed/state income tax evasion gun charge amnesty for the son of a sitting President.  
 

No, according to the AG the circumstances became “extraordinary” when the judge felt justice was not served by that particular plea deal.  From there, a couple weeks later, Garland decides special handling is required. 
 

I understand the concept of serving at the will of the President, but that’s irrelevant here, as is the mindset of anyone described as MAGA.  This is a Hunter Biden/Joe Biden quagmire.  The rest is a red herring. 
 

As for whether or not it makes sense to bring in someone not pre-inclined to offer a benefit-rich  deal subsequently scuttled upon review, well that’s exactly the reason to bring in fresh eyes.  In fact, that deal was so sweet that any notion of altering it even slightly in favor of the good citizens of the US was flat out rejected by the guilty party. 
 

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. 
 

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

43 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

what about kushner?  it's a fair game argument given you sides constant use of it.  what do you think trump would have done as president if he was indicted at the time?  Think he'd have played by the rules like Joe Biden is?

I think this is a silly question, mostly because the DOJ investigated everyone in Trump’s orbit throughly in the Mueller probe and beyond, with an eye toward bringing charges whenever and wherever possible.  Rumor is they tossed Manafort into isolation for his run of the mill crimes, likely to break his spirt. 
 

Be that as it may, it’s obvious to any objective person, that like Biden, that Kushner would have been afforded the very best counsel, they would have sought the very best deal, and bent the law to maximum effect for his benefit. Trump would have participated in that, likely would have misrepresented his association with his son’s business ventures, just like Biden did, and you’d have lost your fool mind.  
 

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Exactly, the appointment of a Special Counsel is very rare, especially in an average case with an average guy and your average multi-year fed/state income tax evasion gun charge amnesty for the son of a sitting President.  
 

No, according to the AG the circumstances became “extraordinary” when the judge felt justice was not served by that particular plea deal.  From there, a couple weeks later, Garland decides special handling is required. 
 

I understand the concept of serving at the will of the President, but that’s irrelevant here, as is the mindset of anyone described as MAGA.  This is a Hunter Biden/Joe Biden quagmire.  The rest is a red herring. 
 

As for whether or not it makes sense to bring in someone not pre-inclined to offer a benefit-rich  deal subsequently scuttled upon review, well that’s exactly the reason to bring in fresh eyes.  In fact, that deal was so sweet that any notion of altering it even slightly in favor of the good citizens of the US was flat out rejected by the guilty party. 
 

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. 
 

 

 

 

 

I think you may be misunderstanding the main reason why the plea deal fell apart. 
 

It is not uncommon for plea deals to have a non-prosecution clause that says the person pleading cannot be charged from crimes covered by the plea deal as long as they abide by the deal’s terms. 
 

Here, we would expect that to cover tax crimes and the gun crime. But for some reason, Hunter’s attorneys thought it covered *all* crimes, including potential FARA violations. 
 

The government clearly did not feel that was correct. The FARA investigation was ongoing and they didn’t think it should be covered in the non-prosecution agreement for tax and gun crimes. 
 

If the government was trying to give Hunter a sweetheart deal, they wouldn’t have objected to his attorney’s interpretation of the non-prosecution clause. They could have wrapped up all of Hunter’s potential crimes in this plea deal and called it a day. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

20 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Exactly, the appointment of a Special Counsel is very rare, especially in an average case with an average guy and your average multi-year fed/state income tax evasion gun charge amnesty for the son of a sitting President.  
 

No, according to the AG the circumstances became “extraordinary” when the judge felt justice was not served by that particular plea deal.  From there, a couple weeks later, Garland decides special handling is required. 
 

I understand the concept of serving at the will of the President, but that’s irrelevant here, as is the mindset of anyone described as MAGA.  This is a Hunter Biden/Joe Biden quagmire.  The rest is a red herring. 
 

As for whether or not it makes sense to bring in someone not pre-inclined to offer a benefit-rich  deal subsequently scuttled upon review, well that’s exactly the reason to bring in fresh eyes.  In fact, that deal was so sweet that any notion of altering it even slightly in favor of the good citizens of the US was flat out rejected by the guilty party. 
 

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. 
 

 

 

 

 

once again, lots of words and very little substance.  almost like obfuscation!  Chi is kicking your a$$ but please play on.  It's fun to watch and I'm learning a little law from Chi.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

I think you may be misunderstanding the main reason why the plea deal fell apart. 
 

It is not uncommon for plea deals to have a non-prosecution clause that says the person pleading cannot be charged from crimes covered by the plea deal as long as they abide by the deal’s terms. 
 

Here, we would expect that to cover tax crimes and the gun crime. But for some reason, Hunter’s attorneys thought it covered *all* crimes, including potential FARA violations. 
 

The government clearly did not feel that was correct. The FARA investigation was ongoing and they didn’t think it should be covered in the non-prosecution agreement for tax and gun crimes. 
 

If the government was trying to give Hunter a sweetheart deal, they wouldn’t have objected to his attorney’s interpretation of the non-prosecution clause. They could have wrapped up all of Hunter’s potential crimes in this plea deal and called it a day. 

Assuming you’re correct, and I don’t assume that, nothing about a simple country lawyer misunderstanding the big city ways of US prosecutors is at all extraordinary.  
 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, redtail hawk said:

once again, lots of words and very little substance.  almost like obfuscation!  Chi is kicking your a$$ but please play on.  It's fun to watch and I'm learning a little law from Chi.

I’m glad you’re learning new things, Red.  You could learn some manners from Chi, too, lad.  
 

You asked me a dopey question on something that never happened, asked for an opinion on something that ever happened and never will, and I answered using…words.  Words seems to trip you and yours up these days.  
 

Onward. 
 

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m glad you’re learning new things, Red.  You could learn some manners from Chi, too, lad.  
 

You asked me a dopey question on something that never happened, asked for an opinion on something that ever happened and never will, and I answered using…words.  Words seems to trip you and yours up these days.  
 

Onward. 
 

 

 

Well thank you for pointing out the stupidity of whataboutism...  now you and your team will surely refrain.  right chief?  politeness needs to be mutual or it's just a ruse.

Edited August 13, 2023 by redtail hawk

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Well thank you for pointing out the stupidity of whataboutism...  now you and your team will surely refrain.  right chief?

 

Chi, as seen through the eyes of Red.

 

actual photo of Red. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Chi, as seen through the eyes of Red.

 

actual photo of Red. 

I'm sure you're just dying to grow up, Len.  Maybe you should see an endocrinologist.

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

9 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Well thank you for pointing out the stupidity of whataboutism...  now you and your team will surely refrain.  right chief?  politeness needs to be mutual or it's just a ruse.

This is quite spectacular. 
 

you - I’m going to whatabout Kushner

 

skynryd - spikes you with prejudice 

 

you - thank you for pointing out the stupidity of whataboutism. 
 

More winning for you!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

I'm sure you're just dying to grow up, Len.  Maybe you should see an endocrinologist.

Endocrinologist humor….no you di’int!  
 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

14 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

with prejudice 

are you a simple country lawyer too?  It's ok.  Some of my best friends are lawyers 😀

Edited August 13, 2023 by redtail hawk

[B-Man]

 

 

WATCH: We've Reached the 'Perfect Phone Call' Part of the Biden Bribery Scandal

 

 

 

Rep. Dan Goldman made the rounds on Sunday again to play clean-up crew. The freshman congressman has spent most of his short tenure operating as a legal apologetic for the Biden family, and often badly.

 

Goldman’s latest gaslighting session happened with Jake Tapper on CNN. In it, not only did the congressman defend Hunter Biden, but he suggested that there was nothing at all questionable about Joe Biden meeting with his son’s business associates.

 

There are really two angles here. The first is how this is being reported. We all know Aaron Rupar, who fancies himself a “journalist” for reposting cable news clips, is a left-wing hack. Still, it’s pretty incredible to see all of this being excused as no big deal.

 

Imagine the year is 2019, and it’s just been uncovered that Donald Trump Jr. was receiving millions of dollars from Russian oligarchs. Then it’s further revealed that President Donald Trump is not only phoning into his son’s foreign business meetings to “say hello,” but that he’s also having dinner with at least one of the oligarchs in question. And lo and behold, that oligarch even manages to avoid sanctions while the rest of her oligarch pals get nailed.

 

How do you think Aaron Rupar would report that? How do you think Jake Tapper and Daniel Goldman would respond? That’s rhetorical because we all know they’d be losing their minds, screaming about Russian collusion and suggesting treason charges for Trump.

 

Yet, here are the same hysterics, who spent half a decade freaking out about something that didn’t happen, suddenly having no serious concerns about Joe Biden dining with a Russian oligarch that paid the Biden family millions and then went on to avoid sanctions. I mean, come on.

 

Regardless, Goldman’s statements are wrong. On the issue of Hunter Biden’s issues normally being a civil matter, that’s not true. The gun charge is always a criminal action, and DOJ protocol normally requires the pursuit of prison time in relation to it.

 

As to the tax issues, while many are handled civilly, Hunter Biden didn’t just avoid paying taxes once or twice. He had years upon years of unpaid taxes bolstered by what appeared to be fraud (claiming prostitutes and sex club memberships). Those are the kinds of tax issues that can and often do lead to criminal prosecution. In fact, the DOJ let the statute of limitations run out on the most serious occurrences.

 

Back to Joe Biden, as many have noted, the explanation for why he was on the phone calls just doesn’t make sense. Goldman claiming he just wanted to “say hello” is his version of claiming it was a “perfect phone call,” the very kind of explanation Democrats have mocked for years. How many times have you patched your father into a business meeting he ostensibly isn’t connected to and has no knowledge of just to “say hello?” That’s not a thing normal people do. Even that obscures that Biden did meet with Hunter Biden’s business partners in person as well, though.

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/08/13/watch-weve-reached-the-perfect-phone-call-part-of-the-biden-bribery-scandal-n792128