The Biden Crime Family
Note: This is from a left-wing publication.
FBI Document Reveals Biden Family’s International Bribery Scheme
In a stunning turn of events, an unclassified FBI document has been released, implicating President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in an alleged international bribery scheme. The document, known as the FD-1023 form, was made public by Republican Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and has sent shockwaves through the political landscape.
According to the FD-1023 form, President Biden and his son allegedly coerced Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky into paying them millions of dollars in exchange for their assistance in getting a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company fired. The accusations are nothing short of explosive and have ignited a firestorm of criticism and calls for impeachment from Republicans.
As the controversy escalates, the White House has fired back, dismissing the allegations as desperate attempts by Republicans to mislead the public. Ian Sams, the spokesman for oversight and investigations, accused congressional Republicans of pushing claims that have been debunked and lacked credibility.
However, Senator Grassley stands by his decision to release the document directly to the American people, bypassing political filters. The FD-1023 form, acquired through legally protected disclosures, sheds new light on the FBI’s investigation into Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden’s involvement on its board.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … 2021-02-02We need answers, once again we see all this smoke around the Biden family. Add this to the two whistleblowers that tested last week in regards to having been hampered by higher-ups to look the other way --- not to mention felony tax comes were found on Hunter, and drag on and on to let the statute of limitation run out... It has been reported that the person that supplied the latest load of Biden dealings is a very reputable FBI informant. We need a Special counsel once again, to dig through what looks to be a ton of corruption, on the part of the Bidens and possibly our DOJ, and FBI. I mean we need to see what the hell is going on. The only way to do that is to investigate. A lot of smoke has gathered.
If those on the left are so dedicated to law & order, why aren't they upset about this? They should be livid. I think this situation with the left would best be described as hypocrisy.
Hey, I am with you... The smoke is pretty thick. I mean the Whistleblowers claimed the Bidens made 17M from foreign countries, and Hunter committed several tax felonies, that were slow-rolled. And the new document is very shocking. I wonder if these 17 tapes are in the hands of the FBI. I think a special counsel is needed to really weed through all the IRS claims, and all the bank documents to see who got what.
The LLCs alone need to be investigated, to see if they were set up to launder money.
A remake of the Steele dossier controversy? Unverified so unbelieved?
GAI must ask --- how does this pile of information that I might add firsthand in the form of bank documents, LLC documents, first-hand whistleblower information from two very credible IRS agents, and so much more --- How does all of this compare to the steel Dossire? A document that involved not second-hand information but third and fourth-hand information. That has been truely debunked.
The comparison wasn't of the specifics of the allegations, it was about the change of position in believing unverified allegations.
In the early days of the Steel dossier, the Left listed valid (to them) 'proofs' that supported the dossier's claims (remember the threads with links that proved the Left's claims and offered scorecards of claims proven?). And the Right rebutted that the claims were unverified and shouldn't be believed until they were. The final 'consensus' says the Right was right.
Now, in this issue's early days, the Right is claiming the allegations are true and offer their proof (your comment). The Left is saying the allegations are not obviously true and offer contradicting proof to rebut them (the Weis(?) letters), and shouldn't be believed until they are verified.
The arguments are the same, it is only the positions that have changed.
You may believe your proofs are supportable (your comment's explanation), just as fervently as My Esoteric did his (in the dossier threads), but that is validation by belief, not proof. That is the same validation the Left had for the dossier—belief, not proof.
The comparison was about the reversal of beliefs. The Right says the Left was wrong to believe unverified claims then, but it is right for them to believe these unverified claims now. Yet, the only thing that changed was whose ox was being gored.
GAThank you --- I was trying to share that in my view the two issues due to what evidence do not seem equal in any. The Steele Dosier was thrid hand stories, nothing of any documents being even offered, it was a handful of colorful stories. The Biden investigation has a long rial of documents, as that have been collected by our Congress, as well as two credible whistleblowers that have been before Congress under oath, and claim in their investigation they found chargeable tax felony crimes. This is in my estimation crimes were committed --- I must ask did you watch the Whisleblower hearing?
"Joe Ziegler, a 13-year Special Agent with the IRS, testified how the Bidens were given preferential treatment during the Justice Department’s investigation:
“In the Criminal Tax Manual, Chapter 10, found on the Department of Justice website, Tax Division policy states, ‘Cases involving individuals who fail to fil tax returns or pat a tax but who also commit acts of evasion or obstruction should be charged as felonies to avoid inequitable treatment.’ In early August of 2022, federal prosecutors from the Department of Justice Tax Division drafted a 99-page memorandum. This memorandum recommended approving felony and misdemeanor charges for the 2017m 2018, and 2019 tax years. If the Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss followed DOJ policy as he stated in his most recent letter, Hunter Biden should have been charged with a tax felony, and not only the tax misdemeanor charge. We need to treat each taxpayer equally under the law.” https://oversight.house.gov/release/hea … %EF%BF%BC/
Both agents claimed they were slow-rolled, and denied to due normal procedures to talk with several witnesses they needed to speak with to further their investigation.
I look at their testimony and them stating felony tax crimes were committed as evidence. The other bank and business documents certainly toss smoke, but a true path to money laundering dies not to appear to be proven. I can see a point to be made in that respect. But Hunter's tax fraud was proven by the IRS agent and slowly rolled past the statutes of limitation. So, it would appear he can't be charged with the Tax felonies.
The Steele Dosier had nothing f a document trail, just salacious accusations. Word-of-mouth stories.
So, I will agree to disagree that these two issues in question are remotely the same. No need to respond. I understand your view.Nope, 'agreeing to disagree' is a choir room choice. This is a political form. Sharing views is for choir rooms. Discussing views is for forums.
Sharing is when you stand up, state your view, and then sit down and wait for affirmations and nods. Discussing is when you defend that 'view'.
My point wasn't about the specifics, such as the supporting arguments you make, but about the acceptance of unverified claims because you (generic) believe them.
For instance; the whistle-blowers: Weise has publically denied the claims in writing. The whistle-blowers have only their word as support (unless I missed something about documents or such).
What proof is there that they are the one's telling the truth? What verifiable evidence do you have that makes you believe them instead of Weise?
As for the bank stuff, the 'suspicious activity' alerts, what do we know about them? What was the suspicious activity? Can the claims rely on the fact of those alerts to be considered verified facts when you don't know what they are?
The same concept applies to most of the Right's 'proof' that believing in these unverified claims is right because they are different (as in true) from the dossier's unverified claims.
None of the above is intended to refute the possibility (or probability) of your claims beyond the contention that your proof is not verified. Which was my entry point. As Cred likes to say; 'If the sauce is good for the goose it's good for the gander.'
GA"Nope, 'agreeing to disagree' is a choir room choice. This is a political form. Sharing views is for choir rooms. Discussing views is for forums."
(I have shared my view on this thread ad nauseam. Until I sound like a screechy soprano
Sharing is when you stand up, state your view, and then sit down and wait for affirmations and nods. Discussing is when you defend that 'view'."
( my view has been given until I would be beating a dead horse. Please follow the thread, you jumped in very late.)
My view is pretty clear if one reads my posts. I am not willing to dance around with anyone further liberal mush on the subject.
I have no further thoughts and I could remind you, I have a right to not agree with your view, I found it odd at best. I don't intend to use energy arguing with anyone here. We both share views, that's all she wrote.
Now, If you are looking for me to critique your thought further, ask, I am open to that, but you certainly know we think very differently. This is my reasoning that I rarely jump into responding to many of your comments.
Hey, just being honest.
In this case, I see little sense in the logic of your first post. We are so very far apart. Not sure what more I can say. I respect your right to share your views.
As of late I no longer am up to have back and forth, especially when I feel very deeply about this entire Biden BS.
"The comparison was about the reversal of beliefs. The Right says the Left was wrong to believe unverified claims then, but it is right for them to believe these unverified claims now."
A solid, needed and accurate observation.Yep, it was just an observation. The 'needed' part might be iffy.
GA
If a left-wing publication is stating the obvious, there's a reason, an ulterior motive...and it has nothing to do with, shedding light or doing the right thing!
I hope all of America understands this by now!
Ha!!
Why aren't those on the left upset? "claims that have been debunked and lacked credibility."
When a grand jury indicts, we'll get upset.Interesting how that is not a requirement to get upset and cast dispersions about anything else.
The hypocrisy on the left always amazes me.There seem to be plenty of indictments on the right to justify dispersions.
Oh, that makes sense, like when everyone knew that Nixon was innocent since he was not indicted.
I guess that is why no one in the US got upset about the Watergate scandal and he never had to resign.Nixon's own party knew he would be convicted in an impeachment and encouraged him to resign. Where are those statesmen today? Do you really want to bring up hypocrisy?
Todays Dems, at least those allied to that crime syndicate, do not have the morality of the Republicans of the 1970s and they think it is okay to allow those crimes?
Dr.Mark: Have you read any of the indictments? The morality of today's Dems aren't the only ones whose integrity is in question.
Are you saying that because you think Trump is a criminal that excuses the corruption and crimes of the Biden syndicate?
There is this matter degree and extent which conservatives always seem to ignore. When President Biden is charged and the connection made between him and the errant behavior of his son, then you can talk.
I don't see any equivalency with the vast extent of charges against Trump and the speculative attitudes toward Joe Biden.....
The investigations on the Biden's is still an open investigation as Chris Wray stated in front of Congress two weeks ago.
"Wray refused to engage in specific questions about ongoing federal investigations, including those involving former President Trump and Hunter Biden. The son of President Joe Biden recently reached an agreement to plead guilty to misdemeanor federal tax charges; Republicans have derided that as a sweetheart deal."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w … -committee
The Whistleblower's information has just come to light --- last week, and is Congress is currently making attempts to verify that information with interviews. The DOJ has released Weiss to be questioned under oath. This will certain;y verify or disprove what the WB claimed he told them in their meeting. The WB also were handing over information on the felony tax crimes paperwork in regard to what crimes they wanted Hunter Biden charge with. So, it would seem these WB are very much ready to show what they uncovered.
I am not sure why you feel anything was debunked. Ever the Laptop was varied.
Could you share what was debunked, or is that just a statement you heard from the media? I have heard that statement but found it odd in light of the fact the FBI as well well as the DOJ still have open investigations on this Biden matter.
I have not found anything that was actually debunked... So please inform me.
Not sure if Hunter's case will make it to a grand jury as of yet.
It is more likely if enough smoke is raised that Joe Biden was conduction pay for play, Congress will bring him up for impeachment. A president can not be indicted. Too early to know if that will happen.This is where she jumped in --- A assume she was referring to the conversation she jumped in on.
"SHARLEE01 WROTE:
We need answers, once again we see all this smoke around the Biden family. Add this to the two whistleblowers that tested last week in regards to having been hampered by higher-ups to look the other way --- not to mention felony tax comes were found on Hunter, and drag on and on to let the statute of limitation run out... It has been reported that the person that supplied the latest load of Biden dealings is a very reputable FBI informant. We need a Special counsel once again, to dig through what looks to be a ton of corruption, on the part of the Bidens and possibly our DOJ, and FBI. I mean we need to see what the hell is going on. The only way to do that is to investigate. A lot of smoke has gathered.
If those on the left are so dedicated to law & order, why aren't they upset about this? They should be livid. I think this situation with the left would best be described as hypocrisy.
Mikereadnow shared with me -- to continue the conversation
If those on the left are so dedicated to law & order, why aren't they upset about this? They should be livid. I think this situation with the left would best be described as hypocrisy.
Her responce.
Kathleen Cochran profile image79Kathleen Cochranposted 19 hours ago
Why aren't those on the left upset? "claims that have been debunked and lacked credibility."
When a grand jury indicts, we'll get upset."
Clearly, the investigation you speak of is factual -- is now once again being scrutinized by Congress. Mccarthy is tossing around possible impeachment if the allegation can be proven to be true.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … y-fox-news
We know that a president can't be indicted -- so not even sure she would be a thing about a grand jury if you feel she was commenting on that subject. No grand jury for Joe -- it would be straight to impeachment.
In my view, Hunter won't occur any charges on his tax stuff. As the Whistleblowers claimed the statutes of limitation had expired. My view they are after Biden, the FBI, and the DOJ.
Not sure if Hunter can even be brought up on Pay for Play stuff. He maybe has broken lobbying laws. Who knows or possible money laundering?It's based on an recently unclassified document from the FBI.
"In a stunning turn of events, an unclassified FBI document has been released, implicating President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in an alleged international bribery scheme. The document, known as the FD-1023 form, was made public by Republican Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and has sent shockwaves through the political landscape.
According to the FD-1023 form, President Biden and his son allegedly coerced Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky into paying them millions of dollars in exchange for their assistance in getting a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company fired. The accusations are nothing short of explosive and have ignited a firestorm of criticism and calls for impeachment from Republicans."
The House Oversight Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and House Ways and Means Committee are conducting a joint- investigation into the federal probe into Hunter Biden, and whether prosecutorial decisions were influenced by politics.
The other DOJ officials House Republicans requested testimony from include Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf, who allegedly blocked lines of questioning in the investigation related to President Biden; U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, who allegedly blocked Weiss from charging Hunter Biden in his district; Jack Morgan and Mark Daly of the DOJ’s Tax Division; U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California E. Martin Estrada; Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division Stuart Goldberg; Assistant U.S. Attorney Shannon Hanson in Delaware; and Assistant U.S. attorney Shawn Weede.
Dear Chairman Jordan:
This responds to your letter to the Attorney General, dated July 21, 2023, expressing continued interest in an individual ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution led by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, David Weiss. The Department of Justice (Department) appreciates the Committee on the Judiciary’s (Committee’s) acceptance of our offer for U.S. Attorney Weiss to testify at a public hearing before the Committee. The Department is ready to offer U.S. Attorney Weiss to testify shortly after Congress returns from
the August district work period, as described more fully below. Please read the full letter at - https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000189 … 4b83510000Jamie Raskin, about a month ago, released a document from the first Trump impeachment.
The document includes Mykola Zlochevsky saying he did not speak with Joe Biden when Hunter was on the company’s board.
Details: Raskin sent a letter to Oversight Chair James Comer noting that, as part of the investigation leading up to Trump’s first impeachment, Congress received a record that "directly contradicts the allegations in the Form FD-1023.”
That record was turned over to the House Intelligence Committee by former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and released by Raskin on Thursday. It appears to include questions from Parnas and answers from Ukrainian executive Mykola Zlochevsky about Hunter Biden’s work for Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Raskin, in his letter, notes that Parnas passed his questions through Vitaly Pruss, a mutual acquaintance of Giuliani and Zlochevsky, and that metadata on the document confirms it was created by Pruss.
Zlochevsky, as part of the record released by Raskin, was asked about any contacts he had with then-Vice President Joe Biden or his office between 2013 and 2019, and if Hunter Biden facilitated those contacts. He answers that “no one from Burisma ever had any contacts” with Joe Biden or those working for him while Hunter Biden was on the board.
He also answers “no” to a question about if Joe Biden or his staff helped him or his company, and that Burisma did not approve or ask Hunter Biden to conduct meetings he had with the State Department in 2015.
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congre … -on-biden/Republicans committee coming up empty again today. Devon Archer, Hunter's former business partner, insisted in testimony to Congress today that President Joe Biden was never directly involved in their financial dealings, though Hunter would often put his famous father on speakerphone to impress clients and business associates. Safe to say it fell way short of the bombshell that was promised. I believe the man has to report to prison now also.
https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden … e24d7d69dcA vice president of the United States using his position to make money from peddling influence is a HUGE deal. There will be evidence presented in the future showing how it continues to this day.
"Devon Archer confirms Joe Biden 'lied' about knowledge of Hunter's business dealings, Comer says
'Joe Biden was 'the brand' that his son sold around the world to enrich the Biden family,' Comer says
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said Devon Archer confirmed in his appearance Monday that President Biden "lied to the American people when he said he had no knowledge about his son’s business dealings and was not involved."
Comer’s comments come after Archer, a former business associate and longtime friend of Hunter Biden, sat for hours before the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door hearing Monday.
Archer said that Hunter put his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, on speakerphone while meeting with business partners at least 20 times. Archer described how Joe Biden was put on the phone to sell "the brand."
"Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ that his son sold around the world to enrich the Biden family," Comer said. "When Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States, he joined Hunter Biden’s dinners with his foreign business associates in person or by speakerphone over 20 times."
"When Burisma’s owner was facing pressure from the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company for corruption, Archer testified that Burisma executives asked Hunter to ‘call D.C.’ after a Burisma board meeting in Dubai," Comer continued.
"Why did Joe Biden lie to the American people about his family’s business dealings and his involvement?" He asked. "It begs the question what else he is hiding from the American people."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/devon- … comer-saysYes, Mike, it is very much obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Joe Biden, as well as his son, and many of his family are very much crooked. It's no secret that he lies open;y to America, and the left media is compromised, as well as the DOJ and FBI, not to mention Congress.
This subject is not worth discussion, In my view, anyone that has bought into the narrative that Biden is innocent of pay-for-play is not worth spending energy on. Just time to dig in and ignore this type altogether.
Arguing the point sort of brings one down to their level, does not?
Mike check out what the House Committee on Oversight has put out in regard to Archer's interview. Very much compelling. I think we need to follow the facts, thus far they are very incriminating.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/com … %EF%BF%BC/What evidence was uncovered in the conversation with Archer? I am waiting for Comer to release the transcript but it does not appear that any evidence was given. In fact it is quite to the contrary of what was promised. Sean Hannity was basically begging Comer to give him something and yet Comer says we're still looking.
Fox did an incredible spin in the above cited article.Wait...
What happened with "innocent until proven guilty, we havent heard his side, I'll wait for tribunal, yadda yadda"?
Oh, right. They arent Trump.
At this point, I have truely come to become very cautious when saying innocent until found guilty. To much garbage in this administration to not note the smell. To repeat --- This subject is not worth discussion, In my view, anyone that has bought into the narrative that Biden is innocent of pay-for-play is not worth spending energy on. Just time to dig in and ignore this type altogether.
My right...What piece or pieces of evidence, that would stand up in a court, have been provided to lead to the conclusion Joe Biden is guilty of pay for play?
Joe Biden has a net worth of over 9 million dollars but has been a civil servant earning a regular salary for about 50 years. Why are people so blind to the corruption?
People started being blind to the corruption of the Clintons, and it has only gotten worse since then. hillary and bill were never as sloppy as biden when it came to their corruption.
The only matter the Clintons were ever tried for was his marital infidelity. Want to open that can of worms about Trump? And Clinton was charged by a man who told his wife he was leaving her for another woman while she was still in a hospital bed fighting for her life against cancer. Do we really want to judge the morality of politicians? And by the way on the issue of the Clinton's marriage, it still exists. Trump's? Not so much.
There are several others in our government with similar years of service as Biden. Is there net worth similar? Or more? Much less?
Forbes said “When you look at the Bidens’ tax returns, what you see is, a couple who over the course of their lives have accumulated things like pensions, life insurance, some savings and real estate"
Sounds like much of America.
I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the direct link between his salary and corruption. It seems more of an assumption to look at an individual's worth and conclude it comes from corrupt activity without evidence of that activity.Yes, you are so correct. Most of America is able to accumulate over 9 million dollars by getting life insurance and adding to their savings account.
PolitiFact: "A key analysis showed that close to half of the House and Senate members are millionaires. "
"it is very much obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that [this president], as well as his son, and many of his family are very much crooked. It's no secret that he lies openly to America,"
It is obvious. You just got the name wrong.What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, Sharlee? You have applied this attitude to All Things Trump, regardless of ever increasing and incriminating evidence against him.
There are many of us with a modicum of intelligence that do not draw your conclusions regarding the Bidens and their presumed guilt.
Conservatives always blame every contrary media or arm as government as leftist and biased, just because their preferred outcome is not realized.
If anyone is interested in the rest of the story from others who were
also present for the testimony.
Rep. Dan Goldman disputed the GOP characterization of Archer's interview, telling reporters the witness was "very, very consistent that none of those conversations ever had to do with any business dealings or transactions." I am also assuming Mr Goldman is honest.
Mr Comer needs to release the transcript immediately.
"They were purely what he called casual conversation," he said.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/devon-arch … testifies/
I prefer a statement from Congress over any media outlet.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/com … %EF%BF%BC/
Maybe just go to the House Committee on Oversight statement on the Archer interview. Comer has shared a statement on what Archer said. One can assume the statement is truthful, it has been placed online for all Americans to view.I also disagree, the left cable news is so very biased and picks and chose what they report, and spin reports until one can only really be provided with a view, not facts. Many walk away with misinformation.
In my view, we have many Americans ready to buy into whatever is dished up. They walk away with very skewed talking points. I see a form of brainwashing occurring, and it has taken hold over the last decade.
"Less than six months after leaving the White House, Kushner secured a $2 billion commitment from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, which MBS controls, despite opposition from the fund’s board of directors because of Kushner’s lack of experience in private equity. Other countries followed suit, including signatories to the accords — the UAE, Qatar, Sudan and Morocco. Today, Affinity’s investment commitments have reached at least $3 billion, " Kathleen Parker, Washington Post columnist (The Washington Post - multiple Pulitzer Prize winner - not discredited FOX)
Note: Even the Bible defines the difference in a splinter and a boulder.
"I prefer a statement from Congress over any media outlet." But only if it is in Republican control.
" Just time to dig in and ignore this type altogether.
Arguing the point sort of brings one down to their level, does not?"
Or you could always put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA"KATHLEEN COCHRAN WROTE:
"I prefer a statement from Congress over any media outlet." But only if it is in Republican control.
" Just time to dig in and ignore this type altogether.
Arguing the point sort of brings one down to their level, does not?"
Or you could always put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA"
Read my words, take them as I wrote them.
I prefer a statement from Congress over any media outlet.
Your response is uncalled for, and nasty... "But only if it is in Republican
control." REALLY SNARKY
Again I repeat --- Arguing the point sort of brings one down to their level, does it not?"
So, I won't be responding to your comments addressed to me any longer. Just have no interest in back and forth, all about a sentence or two I wrote. I note you rarely confront the subjects on the forum, just go after the person writing them.
So, how to say this in a polite way --- I have a right to pick and chose (as anyone here does) to converse with whomever I feel I can have a fruitful intelligent conversation with.
I never put my fingers in my ears. I do stay away from some I feel I have little in common with. I don't fight losing battles.
Let me get this straight.
1. Don't like comments that don't take a discussion where you want it to go.
2. Won't discuss with someone you consider "snarky".
Got it.Yes! Gold star
KATHLEEN COCHRAN WROTE:
Let me get this straight.
1. Don't like comments that don't take a discussion where you want it to go.
2. Won't discuss with someone you consider "snarky".
Again --- my sentiments Arguing the point sort of brings one down to their level, does not? So, how to say this in a polite way --- I have a right to pick and chose (as anyone here does) to converse with whomever I feel I can have a fruitful intelligent conversation with.
The right to free speech can be such a pain in the butt... We all have the right to use our free speech to articulate our thoughts. I have certainly shared my thoughts in regard to the comment you addressed to me.
Where is the transcript of the Archer testimony?
"The only House Democrat who attended the House Oversight and Accountability Committee’s closed-door meeting with former Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer on Monday called on Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., to release the full transcript of Archer’s interview."
In my opinion, with full transparency of government in mind, this needs to be released immediately. Particularly since Comer has put a spin on it.
"I would urge Chairman Comer, rather than to continue to send out misinformation about what transpired in the transcribed interview, to actually put out the transcript, which he can do as soon as he wants," Rep. Dan Goldman."
I don't know about anybody else but these kind of stunts make me really angry and feel like these people in government play us Americans as idiots. Doesn't anyone care about the man's actual words?
Meanwhile we have irresponsible Laura ingraham blasting this message to the Fox faithful,
“We all know that when he was VP, Joe Biden was put on phone calls with Hunter and his clients not to discuss the weather' reallyLlaura, we should just make that assumption?
I'm sick of the partisan spin, put the damn words out already.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/devon- … r-democrat"I don't know about anybody else but these kind of stunts make me really angry and feel like these people in government play us Americans as idiots."
When has government NOT played us Americans as idiots?
But for the transcripts; is this "investigation" to be used to convince the public of wrongdoing or a jury in a court of law? If the latter, information and evidence is never made public before the trial. This is reasonable as it would taint any juror that looked into it.I want the man's words. This is our government and we are paying for these committees to operate. Hiding the testimony is not acceptable
I don't want Comers spin and interpretation of what the testimony meant, I want the man's own words.Dan, I would like to see a transcript from the Archer interview. But, your point is a good one. It is rather obvious that Comer is making every effort to impeach Biden. So, they may not release the transcripts.
Devon Archer Transcript released
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ … script.pdfVery one could say damming information came out of the Archer interview. I noted Archer did not have any information in regards to did Joe Biden accumulate any monetary value out of supporting his son in regard to phone call dinner with his business partners.
What I found is that several media outlets did misrepresent what Archer had truely shared. His testimony was clear, with clear context to what he was trying to convey.
In my view, there was no information on Joe Biden receiving money, but clear testimony that Hunter Biden was using his dad's name to make cash, and as Archer said he was never pricey to Hunter's conversations with Joe.
I am glad this piece of the puzzle has been released.Seems like Comer promised a bombshell before this testimony took place and I don't really see that anything substantial came from it. I find that trading off of a famous name is pretty common place
I think individuals should answer for their own actions. I also think some actions have more serious consequences than others.
Yes, I agree. If a politician gets on the phone and threatens to remove financial support if a prosecutor is not fired that person should be fired and impeached for that. Threatening to intervene in the political issues of other countries is about as serious as it gets.
One would think, but in America today, it is much more serious to use the word "fight", no matter the context!
Hearsay and accusations carry much more weight, than hard evidence does...in America today!House GOP subpoenas IRS and FBI investigators involved in Hunter Biden probe
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) issued subpoenas to four investigators from the FBI and IRS involved in the tax crimes investigation of Hunter Biden, the president’s son.
The four officials, Jordan and Smith say, were either present at or had direct knowledge of an Oct. 7, 2022, meeting highlighted by an IRS whistleblower who previously told Congress that prosecutors slow-walked the probe.
According to IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David Weiss — who has been heading the probe into Hunter Biden — said in that meeting that he was “not the deciding person on whether charges ares filed” against Hunter Biden in other districts.
But both Weiss, who was granted special counsel status earlier this month, and Attorney General Merrick Garland have contradicted the whistleblower, saying that Weiss had “full authority” to make referrals to charge in other districts.
Smith and Jordan subpoenaed IRS Director of Field Operations Michael T. Batdorf; Darrell J. Waldon, IRS special agent in charge; Thomas J. Sobocinski, FBI special agent in charge; and Ryeshia Holley, FBI assistant special agent in charge.
Letters to the officials said Waldon, Sobocinski and Holley attended that Oct. 7 meeting and that Batdorf had “direct knowledge” of the meeting after receiving an email from Shapley detailing what happened.
Smith and Jordan said the IRS and FBI had not agreed to voluntarily make the four officials available to the committee.
“Our Committees, along with the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, have sought these interviews since IRS whistleblowers came forward with concerning allegations of political interference in the investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign influence peddling and tax evasion,” Jordan and Smith said in a statement alongside release of the subpoenas Monday.
“Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has consistently stonewalled Congress. Our duty is to follow the facts wherever they may lead, and our subpoenas compelling testimony from Biden Administration officials are crucial to understanding how the President’s son received special treatment from federal prosecutors and who was the ultimate decision maker in the case,” Jordan and Smith said. “Americans deserve to know the truth, especially now that Attorney General Garland has appointed as special counsel the same U.S. Attorney who oversaw Hunter Biden’s sweetheart plea deal and botched the investigation into his alleged tax crimes.”
The IRS said in a statement to The Hill that it “remains in contact with the committee on this issue.”
“Although we cannot comment on matters pertaining to specific taxpayers or employees, the IRS continues to work cooperatively with the committee to support its oversight efforts,” the IRS said. “We are committed to proceeding in a manner consistent with our legal obligations to taxpayers and to our employees, and which also ensures the integrity of pending investigations and litigation. We will continue our dialogue with the committee and work to strike an appropriate balance of these important considerations.”
A press release announcing the subpoenas said that the decision to elevate Weiss to special counsel following the whistleblower testimony and collapse of a plea deal for Biden raised “concerns that the Attorney General’s and Mr. Weiss’s statements to Congress were not truthful” about his charging authority. " https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4162 … den-probe/Politico - In talks with prosecutors, Hunter Biden’s lawyers vowed to put the president on the stand
"It was Halloween of 2022, and Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Chris Clark, didn’t sound happy. Just three weeks earlier, news had leaked that federal agents believed they had enough evidence to charge his client with illegally buying a gun as a drug user.
The leak was “illegal,” the lawyer wrote to the U.S. attorney overseeing the probe. The prosecution, he argued, would be seen as purely political, and it might even violate the Second Amendment.
Then he issued a warning: If the Justice Department charged the president’s son, his lawyers would put the president on the witness stand.
“President Biden now unquestionably would be a fact witness for the defense in any criminal trial,” Clark wrote in a 32-page letter reviewed by POLITICO." P
That letter, along with more than 300 pages of previously unreported emails and documents exchanged between Hunter Biden’s legal team and prosecutors, sheds new light on the fraught negotiations that nearly produced a broad plea deal. That deal would have resolved Biden’s most pressing legal issues — the gun purchase and his failure to pay taxes for several years — and it also could have helped insulate Biden from future prosecution by a Republican-led Justice Department.
The documents show how the deal collapsed — a sudden turnabout that occurred after Republicans bashed it and a judge raised questions about it. The collapse renewed the prospect that Biden will head to trial as his father ramps up his 2024 reelection bid.
“President Biden now unquestionably would be a fact witness for the defense in any criminal trial,” Clark wrote in a 32-page letter reviewed by POLITICO.
That letter, along with more than 300 pages of previously unreported emails and documents exchanged between Hunter Biden’s legal team and prosecutors, sheds new light on the fraught negotiations that nearly produced a broad plea deal. That deal would have resolved Biden’s most pressing legal issues — the gun purchase and his failure to pay taxes for several years — and it also could have helped insulate Biden from future prosecution by a Republican-led Justice Department.
The documents show how the deal collapsed — a sudden turnabout that occurred after Republicans bashed it and a judge raised questions about it. The collapse renewed the prospect that Biden will head to trial as his father ramps up his 2024 reelection bid.
Why House Republicans won't stop chasing Hunter Biden
SharePlay Video
The case has long been defined by politics, including for Biden’s own lawyers. During the private negotiations with prosecutors, the documents show, Biden’s lawyers often invoked the case’s extraordinary political undercurrents. They made clear to prosecutors that they thought pressure from congressional Republicans was improperly shaping the investigation. They name-dropped Donald Trump, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and the failed prosecution of a lawyer for Hillary Clinton. They argued that bringing the case would destroy the Justice Department’s reputation.
And they said a trial of the president’s son would create political and constitutional chaos by pitting the president himself against his own Justice Department. Read more https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/1 … e-00111974David Weiss, the US Attorney who has led the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden, reportedly did not plan to charge the president’s son until IRS whistleblowers came forward about his alleged tax fraud, according to a report.
Weiss was willing to conclude the investigation without even as much as a plea deal before the agents accused the Justice Department of interfering, according to private correspondence between Weiss and Biden’s legal team obtained by the New York Times.
After the whistleblowers spoke out, Weiss suddenly demanded Mr. Biden plead guilty to committing tax offenses
“It appears that if it weren’t for the courageous actions of these whistle-blowers, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, Hunter Biden would never have been charged at all,” a team of lawyers for one of the I.R.S. agents told the newspaper in a statement.
Meanwhile, IRS investigator Gary Shapley, who had been blocked from pursuing leads into Biden, told the DOJ’s watchdog that Weiss had told him that federal prosecutors in Washington and California had refused to bring tax charges against Mr. Biden, despite evidence of crimes.
Lawyers for a second tax investigator sent a letter to the I.R.S. commissioner alleging the team of investigators on the case had been removed after expressing concerns about political interference from the Justice Department, further stoking outrage from Republican lawmakers.
Days later, Weiss informed Biden’s lawyer Chris Clark that he was demanding Hunter plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges.
A plea bargain, under which Biden would serve no jail time, dramatically fell through last month at the federal courthouse in Delaware after a judge raised concerns about ongoing probes into the president’s son that could result in future charges.
Biden pleaded guilty to the two misdemeanor charges — which were dropped on Thursday — and gun charges.
Weiss was elevated to special counsel in the federal probe by Attorney General Merrick Garland, which allows him to widen the scope of his investigation into other districts around the country. https://nypost.com/2023/08/20/weiss-was … rd-report/
Related Discussions
- 67
House votes to approve impeachment inquiry into President Biden
by Castlepaloma 3 months ago
1 day ago — House approves impeachment inquiry into President Biden as Republicans rally behind investigation.Sounds too good to be true. Considering Three presidents have been impeached, although none were convicted: Andrew Johnson was in 1868, Bill Clinton was in 1998, and Donald Trump twice, in...
- 491
The 118th Republican House
by Scott Belford 10 days ago
After several days, for the first time in over 100 years, the Republicans chose a speaker. But only after proving once again they don't know how to govern. In the process, the speakership was neutered, rendered essentially powerless. McCarthy gave away the farm in order to...
- 105
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 7 weeks ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...
- 18
FBI Slow Walked Hunter Biden Lap Top Investigation
by Sharlee 18 months ago
New FBI whistleblower claims bureau leadership slow-walked Hunter Biden investigationby Jerry Dunleavy, Justice Department Reporter | August 24, 2022, 09:20 AMhttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … on-johnsonThe FBI slow-walked its investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop, including...
- 5
Robert Kennedy, Jr. - Spoiler? But for which side?
by Credence2 2 weeks ago
Wi-Fi causes cancer and "leaky brain," Kennedy told podcaster Joe Rogan last month. Antidepressants are to blame for school shootings, he mused during an appearance with Twitter CEO Elon Musk. Chemicals in the water supply could turn children transgender, he told right-wing Canadian...
- 23
Impeachment Investigation: Independent Counsel vs. Intelligence Cmte.
by ga anderson 4 years ago
Relative to the argument that the House Intelligence Committee was unfair because the president did not have a chance to defend himself. A quick look at Pres. Clinton's impeachment shows that an Independent Counsel was used to do the investigating and its product was used by the House Judiciary...